text:
What to do if a work is too extensive to be properly presented in a single paper?
I have been working for years (started already as an undergraduate student) on a topic in computer science (robotics/AI). The work consists of many sub-contributions (i.e. novel ideas) in several sub-fields. Although each contribution is rather "small" they each play together to result in an over-all method that significantly advances the state of the art for solving an important class of problems.
I'm currently trying to write a paper about it, but it turned out very difficult to "divide" the whole topic into "paper-fitting" pieces. The main concept only works as an "interplay" of the different pieces. Actually this would be ideal for a traditional monolithic PhD thesis but this is not possible because nowadays (in my field and institute at least) PhD theses have to be an "agglomeration" of single papers (which, IMO, is a pity, but that's a different topic).
My current attempt at a "minimal" paper already has 30+ pages and I'm afraid that it is still much too short to adequately cover all sub-topics. For example, in the "result" section alone I would need to demonstrate several sets of examples for each of the 5 main sub-contributions.
So can I best handle this situation?
Publishing several smaller papers seems problematic for two reasons:

It's unclear how to "connect" the different papers. Each paper about contribution C_i would have to reference other sub-contributions C_j (j!=i) with a sentence like "here we adopt a novel scheme C_j which will be demonstrated in our still unpublished paper P_j". But obviously, one cannot publish all C_j at the same time.

I'm afraid that each contribution as "standing for itself alone" could be considered too "small" or "trivial" by reviewers, especially in high prestige journals. The "interplay" of the sub-contributions is in itself perhaps the most important contribution.

What is the exact rule that requires your dissertation to be an agglomeration of papers?  I have never heard of such a requirement.

@TerryLoring I would tend to assume it's not so much a requirement as it is a general norm that might need some justification to be deviated from. Of course I could be wrong, that's up to the OP to clarify.

May I add that 30 pages is not a lot for a journal paper in CS/AI.

@TerryLoring: I’ve come across several departments — including (increasingly) my own, in maths — where doing a “compilation thesis” of published/submitted papers was at least the standard expectation and strongly preferred by the authorities, even if not quite a requirement.

In my field (U.S. chemistry), it's not so much that the dissertation has to be a paper lasagne as that the expectation to graduate is some $n$ papers, which will almost certainly end up constituting the thesis as well.
OP—you might consider the fact that the combined paper, though longer, might belong in a higher-prestige journal where long length is more expected!

Your supervisor really should be guiding you in writing up your first scientific contribution - academic writing is a skill in itself. What do they say?

Even if you can write it up as a single dissertation, it's still worth finding somewhere you can publish it, so people will actually read it.

Write the full story, explained as well and concise as you can manage. This will take however many pages it takes. There might be a journal suitable for publishing it, there might not be. In either case, you can make this full story write-up available on the arXiv.
It is unlikely that you'll get too much attention with the full writeup. So you'll then write shorter "advertisement" papers, maybe as conference contributions. These highlight particular aspects, and point to the full story paper for context.

Do you have a supervisor? What do they say? This depends a lot on the content of the papers.
Can you write a first paper that's more of a literature review laying out the class of problems, the current state of the art, and issues with the current state of the art? This can lead into your technical papers which cite your literature review for background.
Maybe the work isn't suitable to be published in a high prestige journal, and your best option is smaller papers laying out the smaller contributions. If your view is that the main contribution is the interplay between these smaller pieces of work, maybe once you've published the foundational work you will have enough to say about the interplay between them for a final paper laying this aspect of it out.

Put the bare minimum into the paper itself, everything else into Supporting Information.
This is the standard trick at least in physics/chemistry and as Alex bGoode commented, it should also apply to AI/robotics. If, for example, explaining a method in depth takes three pages, put a single-paragraph "elevator pitch" into the paper and "see the SI (or Appendix, or whatever your field calls that) for details". Same with proofs, or results that aren't entirely ground-breaking but are just there to confirm that the method works correctly. If you can produce one plot that really "sells" your method, showing just how much better it is than the state of the art, by all means put it straight into the paper. But all the remaining ones that just validate that the method makes sense or confirm that there aren't some nasty hidden surprises in it, those can perfectly well go into the SI.
Basically, whatever you would put onto your slides for a 20-minute talk about the project, goes into the paper. All the rest is SI material.

Thanks. This is useful advice.

This is also the standard way to publish in AI/robotics. You write a short (venue appropriate) 'pitch' with the most important results as the main paper. All the rest goes into the appendix.

@AlexbGoode Thank you for confirming this; answer edited.

You say that each of your "pieces" as you name them is probably too trivial for a paper in its own. But then why you need 30 pages in your writeup?
You could simply skip describing your pieces in detail and focus only on the end-result as the cobination of each of the pieces (This is completely fine I would say and many research papers are like this). So just list the "pieces" briefly without going into detail and then describe the result?
If that does not work (and you indeed need to describe details of your pieces because the paper would otherwise be non-understandable) you can put them into an appendinx, or even supplemental material.
Personally I have done this too and I like it when other papers do it. It provides good focus on the main result without omitting the details for the ones who want to reproduce or continue your research.
It is also a good opportunity to learn what is really important and interesting for others. (Much less than one thinks initially. At least I learned that. But keeping it in an appendix or so prevents you from throwing away your research/writeup entirely and actually provide it to those who might find it useful).

Have you considered to write a whole book on the subject instead of a series of paper?
That would give you as much space as you need to elaborate.

...is that a common or accepted approach to communicating research results in robotics/AI?

Where do you think to publish your paper? Did you evaluate, already, HTML pages connected with  links as a solution.
Anyway I would focus on the first page where I would try to highlight the benefits that can be gained from your work, so as to attract the attention of your potential stakeholders.
In this introductory document you could also offer details of your work to those who email you, or by posting all the insights on the Internet.

This isn't really the same as publishing (which means in a journal or conference - that's where other scientists are going to be looking for new ideas), but that said, if there are a lot of interconnected parts, writing up a tutorial organized like this after publishing a proper paper might be a helpful addition.


text:
Is double payment of health insurance required for UK Global Talent visa holders?
I have recently received an offer from a UK-based institution for a lecturer position. As a non-UK/EU citizen, securing a visa is a crucial step in this process. The initial duration of the position spans five years. The department chair has recommended that I apply for a UK Global Talent Visa, and upon reviewing the requirements, I've noticed that I will also be required to pay the healthcare surcharge as part of my visa application. Typically, this surcharge amounts to GBP 624 per year for each applicant (my wife and I.)
My understanding is that once I commence my employment at the university, a portion of my gross salary will automatically be allocated to cover health insurance. My concern revolves around the potential for double payment towards health insurance, both during the visa application process and throughout my employment.
I would greatly appreciate any assistance in clarifying this matter. Thank you in advance for your help!

This question may be better suited to expatriats.SE

Congratulations on receiving the offer!
To work in the UK, you can apply for the Skilled Worker visa (aka Tier 2) or Global Talent visa (aka Tier 1). The skilled worker visa need to be sponsored by your employer (the Uni) and you can't move jobs without re-applying for visa with another sponsor. The global talent visa allows you to work for any employer and switch jobs without changing your visa status.
Global Talent visa is more convenient, but also more expensive to apply for. The Skilled Worker visa is more restrictive, but less expensive for the applicant. However, the sponsor (University) will pay certain costs for sponsoring your application.
It is unusual for the Department Chair to have a say in which visa you should apply for. Frankly, it's not their remit. You can ask the University HR if the Uni sponsors Tier 2 visa. If the Chair insists you should apply for Global Talent, you can ask if the Department will reimburse your application fees. If it does not, then you should choose the option which better suits your needs and budget. Also, check carefully the eligibility conditions for both visas, as they are not the same! To apply for Tier 2 visa, you need a job offer from the University (which you have). But for Tier 1 visa you need a portfolio of your professional achievements, which need to be evaluated. The bar for getting the Tier 1 visa is higher, and generally speaking, your Department Chair should not have suggested that you apply for the visa which has a higher risk of being refused (unless they pay for it).
The healthcare surcharge is compulsory for both Global Talent and Skilled Worker visa. It makes you eligible for NHS treatment in the UK. You can't avoid paying this charge.
From your gross salary, the University will deduct taxes and national insurance.  Both are compulsory and unavoidable (unless in very special cases). As a migrant, you are double-billed for NHS, in a form of the extra healthcare surcharge on top of your normal tax and national insurance contributions. However, this has nothing to do with your employer --- it's a recent development by the UK Government (welcome to the UK!)
Many Universities in the UK have an optional programs, which allow employees to sacrifice part of their salary for private healthcare, dental plans, private pension scheme, and other benefits. They are usually good and cost-effective options, which are worth considering. You can often pay for them by sacrificing your salary before tax, effectively getting a ~20% off. However, such initiatives can't be made compulsory. These are purely optional and you should be able to opt-out at any time.

I'm not sure we have the information to comment on whether the department chair 'should have' recommended one tier or the other. However, it would certainly be reasonable for OP to ask HR to explain the various visa options and their reason(s) for recommending one thing over another. One potentially-significant 'perk' of the T1 visa is that it can (depending on circumstances) offer a faster route to "indefinite leave to remain" and hence greater long-term stability.

@avid That's correct, thank you for adding this bit. With T1 visa, one become eligible for ILR after 3 years; with T2 visa it takes 5 years. So if you think you are eligible for T1 visa and ready to pay extra to apply for it, this might be your preferred option.

Thank you for your detailed answer and for the additional info. I should then get in touch with HR directly to see how I should proceed. But I find this double-billing really a bad deal. I was wondering whether I should apply for a 1 year visa and get a residence permit for the remaining 4 years or should I rather apply for 5 years visa from the beginning. Any clarification is highly appreciated. Thank you!

The (biometric) residence permit is just the form of the document (plastic card), as opposed to the paper visa in your passport. It is not a separate document. Please ask your HR to explain T1 and T2 visas for you or read the gov.uk website.

Some notes: a) The NHS is primarily funded from general taxes with only a small fraction coming from national insurance contributions. b) National Insurance contributions mainly go towards various social insurances such as the state pension, maternity leave, and job seeker allowance. Stating that you pay for the NHS through the NI (while partially true) is a bit misleading.

@TimRias Thank you, I clarified the answer to reflect that immigrant workers in the UK are double-charged for NHS in form of extra surcharge on top of their tax and NI contributions.

For Global Talent visa under the academic route, an academic offer holder no longer requires a portfolio -- the offer plus a couple carefully written statement/letter describing the role and recruitment process should be sufficient. This has substantially reduced the risk of attracting a visa refusal. You are right that there are visa application cost concerns (especially if it comes out of the OP's pocket), but in some cases it is actually cheaper to apply for a Global Talent visa than a Skilled Worker visa!

Although your departmental chair does not have the power to dictate which visa you must apply for, however, your deptal chair advice is spot on in this instance.

As a non-UK/EU citizen, ...

The UK Global Talent (academia or research)  offers benefits and flexibility beyond the Skilled Worker visa route.
In your instance, since you've an academic job offer, the option is the Work in the UK as a researcher or academic leader (Global Talent visa).

you'll be eligible to change job within your university or to another employer without the need for a new sponsor
you might be eligible for settlement (ILR) in a short space of time - just three years - depending on your circumstances

The Skilled Worker visa does not allow you to change job without a new sponsor and the duration to ILR is minimum of 5 years.
PS: officially, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 4 are now defunct. They've been replaced.

... double payment towards health insurance, both during the visa application process and throughout my employment.

You're correct that you'll make double payment towards health care considering thar your employer will deduct NI National Insurance) from source and you'll have paid IHS (immigration health surcharge) during your visa application. There's nothing much you can do about that. It's a UK government requirement!
However, if you're concerned about cost, you may want to reduce your upfront cost. You can apply for 3 years (or even 1 year) visa which will reduce your IHS surcharge in the first instance. When in the UK, you can then extend your visa at the appropriate time. Please note that it is common to apply for the 5 year duration because most will like to avoid uncertainties that comes with visa policy change.
As an add-on, this is not required/compulsory, you might want to consider taking a private health/medical insurance. This is however, over and above the NI and IHS surcharge. If you want to go this route, engage your employer to ensure this is deducted before tax.

Thanks for your detailed answer. If i get a 5 year visa, do I still need to apply for a residence permit in the UK? If so, what is the point of applying for 5 years?! Why not 3 months just to get to the UK and then apply for a residence permit as it is the case for most EU countries?

UK doesn't have a 'residence permit'. What it has is the ILR (Indefinite Leave to Remain). As indicated, the Global Talent (academic/researcher) might grant to eligibility for ILR after 3 years in the UK. Others, like Skilled Worker would required you to have spent 5 yes.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is there a distinction in the application process between Skilled Worker visas for EU citizens and non-EU citizens?
I have received an offer for a lecturer position at a UK-based institution. Upon researching the visa application process, it appears that there is no differentiation between EU and non-EU citizens. However, some colleagues and friends currently residing in the UK have mentioned that EU citizens may not need to pay additional insurance surcharges. As a German citizen, I am curious to confirm if this information is still accurate, or if it pertained to a time when the UK was an EU member. Any clarification on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your assistance.

This gov.uk page may be relevant: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/healthcare-for-eu-and-efta-nationals-living-in-the-uk#surcharge

My understanding is that only if you fall under the EU Settlement Scheme (essentially, you must have been living in the UK since before the end of 2020 to qualify, with some exceptions) you would not need a visa and the corresponding health surcharge. But this question is probably more suitable for the Expatriates StackExchange site.

This follow-up to your earlier question, might get better responses from the SE: expatriate site. Post Brexit, I think the best you can get is an IHS refund if you are S1 holder.

@semmyk-research what do you mean by S1 holder? Please clarify.

[RE: S1 holder] .... S1 (formerly E 106, E 109 and E 121) as I understand it, is a certificate of entitlement to healthcare if an EU citizen doesn't live in the country where their health insurance was insured.
See UK Gov guidance for IHS refund

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


text:
Choice of Location for Math PhD Grad
I am currently a data scientist working in natural language processing, with an undergrad background in math and CS, and a masters in CL/NLP. Mathematics was always my preferred area, but I wasn't sure I wanted to do mathematics graduate studies, so I moved into CL/NLP due to the relatively high amount of jobs.  I realize now that I don't really have any genuine interest in NLP, and that a lot of my spare time has gone into reading and thinking about math and occasionally more theoretical CS.  I work in a research environment, and I like research work but I wish I had more responsibility, and more opportunities to connect with other people interested in things that I'm interested in, via teaching or collaboration.
For all these reasons I'm considering returning to graduate school for mathematics, with the goal of obtaining a PhD and moving on to teach and do mathematics research.
My question is about the degree of choice in working location.  I live in New England and have a wonderful network of family and friends who are very supportive.  Keeping as close of a connection with them as possible is a priority for me.  If after a PhD and a postdoc I was able to get a position teaching at a small to medium college or university in greater New England, and still do some research, that would be the ideal.
I don't think I would be a competitive candidate for PhD programs like Harvard or MIT, but given my background I think other good math graduate programs in Massachusetts are reasonable possibilities for PhD applications, possibly after getting a masters in math first.  When I try to find outcomes for people who have graduated from these programs, a lot of people have the kind of jobs I would hope for but often times outside the area.  How often is something like this a choice versus necessity?  Are there specific ways (besides good performance in grad school and making connections) to help make this result more likely?

Have you looked into the financial aspects of this? As a working data scientest you currently make significantly more than a grad student stipend. Even after finishing a PhD a typical postdoc will pay a lot less than a data scientist in industry.

The question there is how much would I have to be paid to be willing to do work that I don't enjoy or find meaningful.  Assuming its existence, I'm not sure what that amount is, but I can say that my current position does not pay that.  Staying in data science just for that reason isn't compelling to me, if I was mostly interested in money I would have chosen a completely different career track or tried jumping over to management.  I would of course think about this very differently if I had financial dependents, but I don't anticipate having any in the near future.

Well, Greater New England has a lot of colleges with a variety of rankings from the very top few to around #5000 or so (not a joke, but I won't name names). But few people have a lot of "choice" in where they get a job in today's academic market. One goes where one must, not where one would like to for a postdoc or, especially, a tenure-track position. Getting even one offer is a victory. If you get more than one you have a bit of choice, but the market is tight.
And, just as searching for doctoral programs requires casting a wide net, so does looking for an academic job. If you narrow your search in any way, you reduce the possibilities.
Over time, however, you can get more options as your career advances and you keep looking at opportunities in places you'd like to live. This assumes that you do well and build a reputation. Maybe not your first or second position, but, perhaps, eventually you may wind up in some desired geographical location. Or... you might decide that where you are is good and has its own advantages.
One complicating factor that worries me at the moment is that potential students seem less inclined to go to college at all since it means assuming a large financial burden. That will make choice even harder, and even the possibility of any academic career.


text:
Where do I find the funding information for each math PhD program?
I will be applying for math PhD, and was wondering if there is any way to find the amount of stipend I can get for each program (already checked each school's website, without avail). Are top 50 math PhD programs generally fully funded, that I shouldn't be worried about it too much?

What country? Is this US?

Yes, I should've clarified. It's US

This is likely to be closed as a shopping question, but the most complete source of information on departmental finding is the AMS web page: https://www.ams.org/find-graduate-programs

"fully funded" isn't a really well defined term.  In addition to a stipend and tuition waiver, you should pay attention to health insurance and the cost of housing.

In the US almost all doctoral students in math are eligible for either a TA or an RA position, but mostly TA. The universities require a large number of TAs to manage the undergraduate program so as to free up professors for research and doctoral advising. Funding is modest, and 1/3 or so of your time might be spent on TA duties. Tuition is also normally waived for TAs.
Some professors might have funding for an RA or two, but there would still be duties.
But for those wishing a career in academia, starting out as a TA gives you some experience on the teaching side, if only (initially) grading and holding small tutorial sessions. An RA would be more valuable for someone wanting to go into industry, but they are not as common, and likely much more competitive.
There are relatively few positions that have no duties attached. At one time there were widely available federal scholarships under the National Defense Education Act but those ended long ago. A few, more tailored, programs remain.

FYI, the NSF Graduate Research Fellowships still exist: https://www.nsfgrfp.org/ They are hard to get and underfunded, but sill around

I'm a math PhD student in the US.  Programs in the US are almost always fully funded (including tuition & fees waived) for at least four or five years.  That being said, the amount of the yearly stipend can fluctuate wildly from school to school (especially when you account for different costs of living in different cities), and there's no way to get an actual number until you've been accepted to the program and received an offer.  It's also worth noting that the amount of the stipend is not necessarily correlated with the prestige of the university or department.

there's no way to get an actual number until you've been accepted to the program and received an offer.  This is sometimes true.  Most programs will tell you, at least roughly, what their stipend is if you write to them and ask.  And a few publish this information on their web pages.


text:
Should I discuss with professor before joining research internship?
Hypothetically: a MS student, and have an offer for an internship related to what I've been academically working on. I know some information on the current projects of the people that work in the same area at the university.
I am aware of academic ethical guidelines. If there is a slight possibility I would be working on something that is related to the current projects at my university, I for sure wouldn't say anything about what I know that is confidential to the university. However, I can't know whether some new projects will be the same.
How to not burn bridges, and how to communicate well? How to make it look less like "betraying" the research group? Is this maybe fundamentally unethical from my side (I am open to reconsidering in that case), or is it normal as a career decision?

This is too esoteric. Explain more clearly please

I'm sorry, but how? I don't want to say anything about the research area. I am satisfied with an answer which explains the possible expectations of the professor and the company, regarding competing research topics and switching teams.

ok... so I may have completely misunderstood your question both times... what you are saying is that you are determined to take an internship with an industrial research group that may be directly competing with your current academic group.  You are completely okay with the fact that your advisor may not allow you to remain a member of the academic group. You are completely okay with switching MS advisors and starting your MS research over with a different advisor.  You just want to know how you can "still be friends" with the students in the current group.  Did I get it right this time?

Just ask your advisor in a very straightforward way if you should take it.  E.g. "XYZ company asked me to do an internship with them, do you think I should take it or not".  If he/she says yes then take it, and if not then don't.
If you have any concerns that your advisor might get upset at even being asked the question, then ask another student in your group for advice, e.g. a postdoc or a senior Ph. D. student.
There's really not much else we can say without knowing way more about your research area.  You might be in a very collaborative field where your advisor is looking to form alliances and build relationships, and he might see this internship as a good way to build a partnership with this company.  Or it might be a very competitive field where he is concerned about being "scooped", and would be afraid that you would accidentally give away some key knowledge. Or it could be somewhere in between. There's no way for us to tell which one you are in.
Edit: in response to your comment:

How to not burn bridges,

but also

it would be dishonest of me to ask for permission if I have already made up my mind.

These seem a bit contradictory to me. If you want to not burn bridges with your advisor, you may wish to consider framing it in terms of asking permission.  If he says "No, I do not want you to take this internship, and if you do you cannot continue as my student", then you know for an absolute fact that taking this internship will burn a bridge with him.  You don't have to guess if it will burn a bridge, you know. At that point, you still have a choice, you can burn the bridge or not. Now if you go in saying "I am taking this internship no matter what and I don't care what you think", well that might burn the bridge right there. On the other hand, if he says "yes", then you know there's no issue.

Yes, this is kind of a good answer. However, very importantly, I'm not a PhD student nor am I employed; doing this internship (or some other internship) is not optional for me financially. So it would be dishonest of me to ask for permission if I have already made up my mind.

I am interested in 1) not behaving in an unethical way to the university group, and 2) preferably not competing with them on research topics if I know something. I'm sure the company would understand, it is the same situation as for industry confidential knowledge to them.

Sorry, I think the problem is with a different understanding of "burning bridges": I'm OK if a condition for working with the professor is not doing internships in the meantime. Everyone has their rules. Work relationship come and leave all the time. What I want is to remain in good personal relations with the research group and the related people.

I mean, if it is indeed the case that I don't work in the group any more, I would like it to be similar to what happens when someone says: "I don't want to do this anymore, will do something else." That would not burn bridges for sure.

That would be course of action if the internship was in something completely unrelated. Here, the problem is that we could (maybe, I don't know) be competing now. But people from different research groups don't usually think bad of people from other research groups personally.

I was asking more for advice in communicating the situation so that there is no bad blood afterwards.

These are all good people, and I want to stay on a "can have a drink sometimes" relationship basis with what are essentially coworkers now. (Except I'm a student.)  If I'm doing something unethical, I would agree this is contradictory. But I don't see anything fundamentally unethical or nasty here, after lots of hours of thought.

""XYZ company asked me to do an internship with them, do you think I should take it or not". If he/she says yes then take it, and if not then don't": is this professor's life or student's life?

@anonymous_student you should only ask your PI's opinion, but decide for yourself about which one would be more beneficial for you. IMO, a new, short-term working place would be more beneficial in terms of gaining different experiences & networking.


text:
Is it ethically alright to submit an extended version of work that will be presented in a demo session to the main conference at a different venue?
We will soon present our work as part of the demo sessions at a conference. However, since being accepted for the presentation, we have significantly improved the existing work, to the point that it can be the subject of a main conference submission.
I was wondering if it was ethically/professionally alright to submit the extended work to a different conference before the demo presentation?

Have you considered to approach the conference that you will give the demo session at and see if they want to do something with the extended work instead of the demo?

I doubt that for a demo session you have given up any rights, but you should check that.
But yes, you can always present extended versions anywhere you like, though you may be required, ethically and legally, to cite the original rather than just including it in the new work.
Note that the extended version will almost certainly appear after the demo session so you are just citing prior work.
An additional complication arises if the "demo" produces a written "paper" - a "publication". If it does not, then what you are really demoing is (part of) the work that will appear elsewhere. Then the newer work is appearing for the first time, other than orally, so the first time it leaves a written record. In that case you have more freedom to just incorporate the old in to the new.
But, ask yourself first whether the demo session is a "publication" or not. If it is, cite it.


text:
What is the best methodology to select a major? (Diploma and academic courses)
Alright this question needs a little more context. This is not about me but I will define the situation as if it were for myself, so feel free to ask me directly for clarifications.
I'm a German student currently in my second year of a university course that combines both teaching (to children) and art. The problem is with the actual practice during internships: I quickly realized that teaching is not for me; plus, art doesn't guarantee me stable outcomes at all, the jobs are very rare and underpaid.
So now I'm fully decided to change my course,I've already started searching by:

Looking up the available diplomas in different universities in my country, and the contents of the classes they are made of. This didn't give me the inspiration I expected, and didn't give me a relevant sense of what was really taught.
Going through various online orientation tests, but their questions are not precise or numerous enough to give me relevant tracks; most of them lead me up to the legal field, which I highly dislike.
Going through various lists of jobs, also to get inspiration and know about stuff I didn't know. But it still does not give me a solid overview of what the  careers actually entail.
Talking with as many people as I can about it, to share experience and knowledge.

But all this brought me no closer to my goal as I'm still stuck at the same point. So my exact question is: what would be the best tools/ways/methods to find and analyze relevant programs that I could enjoy, as well as their outcomes ?
P.S.: I didn't find any other relevant SE community in which I could ask this; if there are, I would be happy to move my post.

Did you mean to write incomes where you wrote outcomes?

I think the problem with the search process that you describe is that you don't know what you're looking for.

@henning by outcomes, I meant the job opportunities offered by the chosen major. And finally, yes, I absolutely don't know what I am looking for, that's what I'm asking for tools and methodology to follow a structured and pertinent way to find something that would satisfy me.

You first must determine your values, as ultimately any answer you'd find convincing must satisfy your values. Then, the problem becomes more a question of how to best satisfy these values.
Decision making skills can be useful in choosing a major, and will be useful for almost any choice you make. I'd recommend taking a decision analysis class, as I did during my PhD. The principles involved with making good decisions will be valuable in almost any endeavor.
If you want to improve the world in a very utilitarian way, the website 80,000 Hours should prove useful. The organization is affiliated with the University of Oxford and focuses on helping young people make valuable and satisfying career choices. Of course, education is a major part of this. They have a career guide that I've read a large fraction of, along with a decision tool.

Thank you for this reference, found also an excellent article here ! https://80000hours.org/career-guide/personal-fit/

I have a few tips that should serve as a general guideline. Success in life depends on a number of factors but mainly a sense of personal fulfillment plus perceived value. Some balance should be always sought between these. My tips:

Make sure you have an objective. After setting up general career & life goals, making plans is just natural. You don't need to be inflexible on fixed goals: just have them. If you have specific passions, see how they can be fed.
Discuss openly with career-oriented peers. You said you're talking to people. Let me tell you to talk chiefly with people aged 27-37 which you find particularly talented, pragmatic, inspiring. They don't need to be immediate friends, actually it may be better if they aren't.
Do not worry so much about the major title. Sure a degree helps, but when you dive aggressively into adult life, what counts are always skills. Focus on learning and applying 'transferable skills' (remember this term). Whatever seems useful and you get a taste for, take the opportunity and time to learn it. The most trivial examples are languages, but anything ranging from programming, writing, body language, persuasion, conflicts mediation, diplomacy, fast reading, management, etc, could prove the basis of your future career.
Start working early. Find a mentor, someone you can help. Do not be shy of offering a hand for whatever activity you may like, something which is in your general plan of point 1. That will teach you which specific skills you need, and will put you in contact with specialists and other mentors. Without realising your 'job life' will unfurl from your first adventures.

Good luck, and don't look back or sit too long.

I suggest you start with career exploration.  Once you have a tentative career goal, you can then look for an academic program that will (a) teach you what you need to carry out that job, and (b) give you the credentials you need in order to get such a job.  (For some careers, (a) matters much more than (b), such as concert violinist.)
One of my children went to a high school that provided opportunities for this, and in fact required a certain number of hours of structured career exploration activities.  That's how I came to know about the concept.  People of any age can create their own career exploration activities, if they aren't lucky enough to land in a structured career exploration program.  Here are some of the things you can do as part of career exploration.  I'll use some concepts and terminology from the US; I hope you can figure out how to translate them to German and Germany.

Browse Meet-Ups organized around particular career groupings or themes; attend some that look interesting.  Attend "young professional" gatherings, "networking" events, chamber of commerce events, community centers, and art events such as gallery openings, concerts, theater and dance presentations, etc.  At all of these events, talk to people one on one and ask them what they do for a living and what path took them there.  Also try to find out what, if anything, they do for artistic self-expression.  (For example, sometimes people choose to channel their artistic interests into their free time activities rather than as a paid job.)  What you want to do at these events is

expand your awareness of possible careers,
stimulate your imagination about what new careers and combinations are waiting to be developed,
notice which personal characteristics correlate with job satisfaction in which careers, especially those personal characteristics that match up with who you are.

Seek out some people to shadow.  Typically a shadow would be set up for a day or a half day.  You arrange it in advance, and then on your shadowing day, you follow a specific person around in a typical work day, watching and listening.  If you've ever wondered what it's like to be a graphic artist at a magazine, or be a textile designer, or set up shows at a gallery, do a shadow of someone who works in that capacity.  You can request a shadow either of a specific individual that a friend of your aunt's brother-in-law knows, or you can contact a company or group and ask them to match you up with someone on staff.
Set up a career exploration internship.  This is different from the internship one does after completing a certain amount of coursework.  In a career exploration internship, you're just getting your feet wet, with approximately 3 to 8 hours a week, typically unpaid, for perhaps 8 to 12 weeks.  You might be assigned grunt work to do -- but you can find out a lot about an industry by being on the inside in this way.

I think you are on the right track, however, you might extend the steps undertaken some more:

Looking up the available diplomas in different universities in my country, and the contents of the classes they are made of. This didn't give me the inspiration I expected, and didn't give me a relevant sense of what was really taught.

With this point, figure out one that you think is at least somewhat interesting, contact the programme counsellor, ask if you can come by and talk to him/her and then ask if there's an opportunity to talk to some students and attend one or two classes. At my university, this is always a possibility, and I did it myself. This provided me with a clear picture of the programme.

Going through various online orientation tests, but their questions are not precise or numerous enough to give me relevant tracks; most of them lead me up to the legal field, which I highly dislike.

Regarding this comment you seem to know at least some aspects that you don't like (legal and teaching) which is a good first step. However, I personally never really trusted the standard only orientations, but there are professional institutes here in the Netherlands, and I would guess in Germany as well, that have better tests, where you talk with experienced counsellors that can help you. This can cost some money though..

Going through various lists of jobs, also to get inspiration and know about stuff I didn't know. But it still does not give me a solid overview of what the careers actually entail.

Select a job listing that you find somewhat interesting, and then search your network for someone that has a similar job. You could also just contact the recruiter in a list and ask the questions you want to ask.

Talking with as many people as I can about it, to share experience and knowledge.

Good! This is very important :) Keep doing this.

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


text:
Professor offered to write a letter without prompting
I’m applying for a fellowship, and I contacted one of the professors to ask him about his experience (just tenured last year, but very well-known in the field and won that fellowship in 2014). We’ve interacted several times before (he also knows my work), but I’m quite surprised that he’s very enthusiastic and even offered to write a letter on my behalf if I need it. I’m also thinking of getting him as external member in my PhD thesis committee, and he also told me he’d be happy to work with me.
Is it true that this is a clear signal about the quality of the letter? As I understand, professors never agree to write a letter if they can’t write a good one, let alone offer without prompting.

What else could it mean?

I would take it as a polite offer from someone who has recently been in the position of needing to ask for these letters and knows it can be difficult to find people you are comfortable asking.
You'll have to decide on your own who your best letters will come from, but yes I would expect someone who knows your work and has offered to write a letter to be someone who will write a positive recommendation. Someone on your committee is typically a good choice. If you haven't formed a committee yet, a potential committee member who is familiar with your work sounds like a decent option, though your priority should start with people who work with you most directly and then filter out to your broader network.

Yes I have already had 2 letters from my advisors in the department. Does this add a bit of context?

@Jeremy How many letters do you need? If you've already asked everyone who knows you better and you need one more, this person seems like a great choice. If you don't need any more letters then you don't need to ask for another one.

Yes I need at least 3, so I would ask him to write me a letter. Thank you for advising me

Generally such an offer would indicate strong support but you need to judge. If the person knows you and your work well then that would support the guess that it is a strongly positive sign.
But think about whether it is support for you, personally, or support for the fellowship itself and just a desire to create a large pool of applicants. That is a possibility, though, probably somewhat remote.

Yes he knows me quite well, and he has a strong reputation in the field as being very generous to his students and mentees. This is a strong signal?

I would think it so, though I know very little of your relationship.

I think our relationship is pretty good. He gave me a lot of useful advice and feedback on my works, though we have been knowing each other for around a year.

Professors' time is scarce and valuable to them, so anytime a professor volunteers their time, you can be sure that they value what they're offering to do.
As a professor myself, I am happy to write recommendation letters for lots of people who ask me to—but when I proactively offer to write a recommendation letter for someone, it's a very positive sign (I want them to know that I consider them really well suited for continuing in the field).


text:
How to approach the dean and/or provost about a years-old two-body problem?
Both my wife and I are scientists in the same field. Approximately 4 years ago she accepted a tenure-track position, and in what seemed like a good opportunity at the time, we both decided it was a good move even without seriously discussing a spousal hire for me. At the time I was confident that my field of study and marketable skill set would make the transition a no-brainer "after the fact". By this I mean the dean and/or provost would see the long-term necessity (and benefit) of securing university employment for not one but both persons.
However, this has turned out not to be the case. This place is awash in administrative problems. Compounding this is our location: A realistic job search radius is a very short 25 miles or so. (Our city is also charmingly referred to as an "island".) At this point we are about 1-2 years away from her tenure (which appears to be a good bet), and I'm out of patience. From my point of view, I'm not being fully utilized in an environment where it makes very good long-term sense to do so. In other words, by securing the stability of both "units", one also works toward the stability of the whole. But the standard response is always, there's no money for that. (Given the wealth I see every day around me, I have a hard time believing that.)
My question: how would one approach the upper administration to seriously consider a spousal hire for an individual that fits very well into the research and teaching framework of the department I'm already serving as an adjunct in? My initial plan would be to put together a sales-pitch of sorts with the department head that would outline the creation of a non-fixed-term assistant teaching professor position. Included in the proposal would be a host of benefits:

The department would be expanded by 1
Connections and therefore resources are imported along with myself
The university would gain a research-capable faculty member

Output: papers
Input: money
Low equipment/space requirements
Very portable; no startup needed

The university would also gain a (badly needed) teaching professor

Improve the student/teacher ratio
Produce higher-quality problem solvers / critical thinkers

The stability of one of its existing faculty members would be improved (i.e. reduces "flight risk")

But all this seems to be wasted as an adjunct. I know instinctively that this effort will fail, but I need the satisfaction of having tried.

My sympathies... and/but you just don't have much leverage, I fear. If the local work culture is "there's no money for that", then improving things at modest expense has no appeal to management. If they've got you for cheap already, and spouse hoping for tenure (with a generally bad job market) why would they pay you more? Unless "flight risk" is credible, it's not good to bring it up... "Papers for a little bit of money" is rarely what administrations really care about. Maybe external grants... Some different "special" bait is needed... and I don't know what it would be, sorry.

I've known many married professor combos to move in tandem (in one case, they were from the same department).  I think most people understand "my wife got a job offer 2000 miles away, so I'm expecting to move 2000 miles away".  That's not unprofessional, as long as you don't up and vanish in the middle of the night with no warning.  If one of you is an exceptional enough talent the department/university may try to go the extra mile of hiring the other spouse.  Of course, you have to be willing to pursue the outside offers, at the risk AM's answer refers to.

Start applying everywhere. Now. Both of you.

Unfortunately, I doubt this will be easy.  You've already set the precedent that you are willing to work as an adjunct, and the administration is probably hoping that this continues as long as possible.  They might not ever have to hire you long-term, and even if they do they'll at least have saved some money in the meantime.  If they were going to do something out of sympathy for the difficult position you are in, they probably would have already.  That means your only real line of argument is to convince them that hiring you would be better for the university.  This means establishing either that the status quo cannot continue (so keeping you ad an adjunct isn't an option) or that hiring you would be better for the university than keeping you as an adjunct and spending the money on something else.

In other words, by securing the stability of both "units", one also works toward the stability of the whole.

Your best shot may be if you or your wife gets an offer elsewhere.  This may or may not work, depending on the local culture: at some places, getting outside offers is viewed as a sign of disloyalty.  However, the worst case scenario is having to take the other offer, and it's not clear that that would leave the two of you worse off than you are now.  Without an outside offer, there's no clear evidence of instability.
If you're going to seek other offers, it's probably better to do it soon.  Once your wife has tenure, getting another tenured job (or giving up tenure) would generally be harder than getting a tenure-track job.

Included in the proposal would be a host of benefits:

I'd focus on the "(badly needed) teaching professor" part.  That sounds like it has the greatest potential for making an argument to the administration that the department is understaffed and really needs this position.  By contrast, they are much less likely to go for the argument that they should hire you on research grounds.

'Once your wife has tenure, getting another tenured job (or giving up tenure) would generally be harder than getting a tenure-track job.' That's confusing...isn't an Associate more marketable given all the experience? Would you mind explaining that more?

Joel, it would be more of a commitment to hire someone with tenure than without, so, no, perhaps counter-intuitively, people typically become less mobile after getting tenure.

@paulgarrett, we had a discussion about this tonight. I found out that of the three retires we've had in our department, only one is being renewed. Also, our medical physics program's future is uncertain for other reasons. Things are going downhill. But she wants tenure before trying to leave. I have no choice but to keep working away at the problem.

@paulgarrett, so if I follow you correctly, Associates are typically not hired "as is" because if they turn out to be a bad hire, then you can't get rid of them? Okay, then she'll have to downgrade...

@JoelDeWitt: Unfortunately, Associate Professors applying for Assistant Professor positions usually aren't considered because the search committee fears they are not serious about their application since they can't possibly be willing to give up tenure.

@AlexanderWoo, okay...so how do I convince her to start looking elsewhere right now?

At the average underfunded public university, most (though not all) students want lower teaching quality, since that correlates with lower standards and easier degrees.  The administration also want this because the students want it, and it also helps retention.  It's only the faculty who care about teaching quality.  So I don't think the teaching argument would be a good one.  Of course, if you're willing to teach full time for 25K/year...

@JoelDeWitt: The facts are (1) You are highly unlikely to get a permanent job where you are without the leverage of an outside offer ("Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"), and (2) unless your wife is a star with $$$$$$$ in transferable grants, or becomes an administrator, or is in a field like accounting with a serious shortage of professors, she is highly unlikely to be able to get an offer after tenure.  Beyond that, this is Academia.SE, not MaritalRelations.SE.

@JoelDeWitt There are several issues with tenured hiring.  The most important is what Paul Garrett mentioned: you are stuck with them potentially forever, with tenure but no trial period first.  Another is the  bureaucratic hurdles: you have to go through the usual search process, plus the whole tenure process (extra outside letters from people not selected by the candidate, preparing the tenure case, shepherding it through the lengthy approval process).  Hiring someone with tenure takes a lot more work, and search committees don't want to do this without a really compelling reason.

I agree with Alexander Woo's comment about the difficulty of getting an untenured job after having tenure.  It's occasionally possible (particularly if you're moving to somewhere more prestigious), but it raises all sorts of issues for the hiring university.  They'll wonder whether your wife would be disgruntled (regardless of what she says), whether hiring a previously tenured woman without tenure would make them look bad, whether she's not serious about taking the job and is just fishing for outside offers.  Fair or not, the easiest path would be for them to choose someone else.

@JoelDeWitt: One way to convince her to start looking now is to share what you've learned here. Tell her that associate hiring is much more limited than assistant hiring; she'd have to go through the tenure process again elsewhere, most likely. Also, is your happiness important to her? That's a consideration too - most people don't want a miserable spouse.

@roseofjuly, I know I shouldn't say this, but I'm struggling to dig my way out of a deep depression with this problem. By staying here we're just being taken advantage of. There were a lot of mistakes made on both sides of the hiring process. We were both way too naive and trusting when we took this offer. We thought everything would work out all right, but it hasn't. All this world cares about is money, not doing what makes sense. For the last 4 years I've felt worthless. I wish we hadn't come here. We have a family to think about. I feel like such an idiot sometimes.

@JoelDeWitt: Don't feel bad about being taken advantage of by an uncaring and opaque system.  I've tried to be realistic about the chances and what I think it will take to change things, but I don't mean to be unsympathetic. I really hope you find the position you deserve (and I think your university may become more accommodating if you have leverage from outside offers).

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


text:
How to deal with a very perfectionist supervisor whose projects feel never ending and never get submitted?
I am a postbacc RA with several years of experience. I am paid by the PI's grants and there is no time constraints for the projects.
My supervisor is very nice but extremely perfectionistic, causing projects to drag on indefinitely. He admitted the paper was publishable after my first year, but instead of submitting it, he added a new PhD student and we continued to develop the method. After 2.5 more years, with no real improvements, we submitted almost the same method.
My advisor is hands-off and lacks clear improvement ideas, leading to aimless experimentation that prolongs the project. I know the model was saturated after the first year, but my supervisor kept insisting on improvements that weren’t possible. Despite this, 2.5 years later, we submitted the same model.
Our cycle involves testing models without seeing labels to prevent overfitting, but when models perform poorly, my supervisor insists on improvements, leading to parameter-tuning and overfitting anyway. When models perform well, he demands new data and more tests, creating a never-ending cycle. Eventually, the new PhD tuned their models based on test set labels, undermining two years of efforts to prevent data leakage.
I’m burned out and demotivated because it’s very difficult to submit papers under my professor. Despite my hard work, projects never end. I needed publications for my PhD application; if the paper was submitted in my first year, I’d be second author. Now, after 3.75 years, I have one third-author paper. This makes me look unproductive, a red flag for PhD and job applications, potentially ruining my research career as I get older without tangible publications.
What should I do? Should I have pushed more for paper submissions? I fear alienating my supervisor. Should I find another supervisor since our goals for publications don’t align?

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

Unless you are first or sole author, your options are limited. There is more at stake than your reputation, including that of the other author(s). If they don't think it is ready for publication, then it is likely (not certain) that it isn't and they are perhaps protecting themselves.
What you "should have done" in the past is moot. The clock is unidirectional. But yes, it might have had an effect.
Choosing another supervisor is no guarantee of success, but it is a guarantee of further delay. This paper would almost certainly be closed off from you for future development, though your authorship claim would still hold. But people with more seniority and clout will have the last word on when it is ready.
However, if you maintain good relations with everyone, your admission to a doctoral program can still work out, depending on what they say about you and your likelihood of success in any recommendations. Keep that in mind before you start burning bridges.
Note also that publications are not required for admission to doctoral programs in every venue. In the US, in most fields, they would be unusual. See the canonical question for guidance on admissions various places: How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in Country X?

Even the first authors are burning out because the supervisor doesn't let us submit the paper. We all think it's ready and already have a manuscript. Yes, but I am only a third author in this paper anyway, my supervisor never feels that the paper is ready. Most of their Phd students do not submit their papers in the 4 years of the PhD and some extend the PhD. In the end, the PhD just submitted the paper even when the PI still asked him for some new experiment. What do you mean by burning bridges?

I feel that the PhD is somehow burning bridges with the PI by forcing us to submit the paper. but he gets the first author. If I am also pushy, I will most probably get the second author / cofirst in my second year. I was just waiting and waiting for the PI to submit the paper, but it never happened.. so clearly playing nice doesn't work and impacts my career detrimentally. Yes, publications are not required, but they help tremendously. Now, I have no publication in 4 years, it looks like a red flag and I cannot do research whereas it is only partly my fault.

So you think that maintaining a good relationship with my PI is worth more than publication & authorship? If I can't force them, maybe the best way is to change the supervisor who is hungry to publish?

If you are second or third author on a work another supervisor isn't going to help you publish that. You would start over. Have a chat and ask what you can do to get a publication submitted quickly. Don't make an enemy.

I know, I will change supervisor to the one who is younger and hungry to publish and start over. It's demotivating to never publish a paper here and I am sad about my career..  How will all of these changes if I am the first author?

You want to publish something good, not just something. It may well be that the current supervisor is protecting your reputation as well. Talk to them also about getting into a doctoral program.

I can see what he's trying to do... it's just that his goal doesn't align with mine.. and I feel that this is OK if it is communicated in front so that we have clear expectations. But, the problem is he kept saying we were gonna submit it soon and never submitted it. If I had known this, I would have asked him for a smaller paper that I could submit fast...

Should I do my actual PhD with my advisor @buffy?

Is it my job to keep pushing my PI to get it submitted? Should I take ownership and keep pushing? or is it my PI job? Am I not independent enough by just waiting for my PI?

btw, from https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/comments/7xkui1/supervisor_refuses_to_publish/, some people say that career is also more important than the relationship and not to let our supervisor hold our career hostage. Which one is more important relationships or publications?

You can try pinning you PI down to a clearer definition of what "publishable" looks like. Try telling them you are keen to get the work published, and you want to make sure you understand what would constitute a publishable version of the paper. Every couple of months, sit down with them and check in on progress, and talk about what still needs doing to publish the paper.
It's not clear from your question if there's currently a concrete draft of a paper. If there isn't, you could ask about working on an outline of the paper to try and solidify everyone's ideas about what will actually be in it.
You may need to be a bit more assertive than you are currently if you want to get something published, although as Buffy's answer says you are limited in what you can do, and it is more important not to alienate your advisor than it is to get this publication.
When you talk to him, keep notes on what he says about what still needs doing for the paper to be publishable ("Okay, so it seems like we still need to do x and then we'll be ready to publish a paper. I'll get started on my part of that and check in on progress in our next meeting."). If he changes the goalposts later, bring it up politely. E.g. "I think previously you said that x analysis would be enough for this to be publishable. Do you feel like spending the extra time on y is worth it for the amount it will improve the paper?" or "Are we in danger of trying to fit too much into one paper? We talked about just including x before, do you think we could publish one paper with that work and then follow it up with another if we do y further work?"
If it seems like the suggestions in the previous paragraph are annoying your PI, then I'd drop it. You can't force them to publish so there's no point causing conflict over it.

Yeah, but do you think doing this will alienate him? If I become more pushy, then he might not like it because he's a perfectionist. How to do this without alienating him? or maybe this is unavoidable since if I am not pushy, I will never get a publication?

Also, my advisor keeps changing the goalpost, so he keeps changing what "publishable" definition looks like.

I think you can push a little bit without being rude - will edit my answer a bit.

There is already a manuscript in my first year, so I honestly thought that the paper was going to be submitted. But, my PI keeps wanting to improve the paper, so it goes on and on. We changed the model and revised the whole manuscript in my second year, but it turns out that's just because the dataset is different (random seed, slightly different codes). In the end, after the paper was rejected, we went back to the original model.

So you think that maintaining a good relationship with my PI is worth more than publication & authorship? If I can't force them, maybe the best way is to change supervisor who is hungry to publish?

btw, from https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/comments/7xkui1/supervisor_refuses_to_publish/, some people say that career is also more important than the relationship and not to let our supervisor hold our career hostage. Which one is more important relationships or publications?


text:
What are the pros and cons of joining a newly established department as assistant/associate professors?
I am an assistant professor with three years of experience. I am planning to leave and I have two choices: one is a newly established department A (2 years) while one department B is slightly older (5 years). They are in the same university. The field is epidemiology, biostatistics and public health.
Department A is splitted from an existing department, only 2 are associated professor or above, and 8 assistant professor. Department B started from the beginning, with around 20 faculties, and 7 are associated professor or above.
Both departments are good fits for me, and my qualifications fit their job ads. Department B has both bachelor's and master's programs, while Department A only has a master's program. Both departments could recruit PhDs. What are the pros and cons of joining a newer department? and Can I apply for both, if they are in the same university?

I think most people would consider these both very new departments.

What field?  Which country?

Also, why are the departments new? Are they entirely de novo or from a split or rebranding of an existing department? Are they filled with all new hires or a mix of senior faculty?

@BryanKrause and OP, I think that question is very important. I've seen new departments created from the dead-wood in other departments. Department heads were asked to "contribute" faculty to a new department. You can easily guess the result.

@Buffy Thank you for the comment, the field is epidemiology, biostatistics and public health. I am talking about China.

I don't know how things work in China, frankly, but a general response is:
The "pros" are that you might be able to shorten your time to tenure in such a situation, depending on your current qualifications and how you negotiate. Restarting the tenure clock would, on the other hand, be a "con". Another possible "pro" is if there are a few people there that are known to you that would be worth working with.
There are many possible "cons", however. You should try to get some idea, during any application process, of the long term commitment and funding for the new department.
But, I think the biggest issue, as I mentioned in a comment, is how the department was formed and who the current members are. In the case of a department split off from another or using faculty "contributed" from several departments, it is possible that the faculty in the new department were the "dead wood" from their original departments. I've seen this happen and it took years for the new department to gain much of a reputation, though it eventually did. The problem was caused by the method of creation, in which department heads were asked to "contribute" faculty. The ones contributed were either poor performers or headaches for the department head. Had it been done otherwise, more rationally, the outcome might have been quite different. But a search on the qualifications of existing members might give you an idea of the overall nature of a new department. This worries me more about your first example.
If a new department is created through  a hiring "blitz" with a prominent academic selected as head, it might be different. Faculty from other departments might apply and be selected, but they aren't just "dumped" into the new organization.
I'd also think that a "new" department might be more reliable if it had been around a bit longer, letting things settle down, but also starting to establish a reputation. Again, a search on the qualifications of the faculty can tell you a bit about whether they work effectively and, perhaps, collaboratively. This suggests that your second example might be a bit "safer", though not necessarily.
As a grad student I was in a large department that had several factions. Overall they didn't get along very well, but within each "faction" they were very effective and productive.
As for applying to both departments, I see no reason not to do so, especially if you are well qualified for both.

Note that much of the above is just projection of "expected in general" tendencies. Little of it necessarily relates to your particular situation, so you need to take care and do some research.
But, explore early tenure and get a sense of how it would be to work within any department you might consider joining.


text:
Approaching Professors for Technical Consulting/Endorsement
I work for a technology company and our company is interested in inviting some professors to review some of our recent technological innovation. It'd be more like writing an endorsement, or a preface for a book (and of course the professor needs to be comfortable with our work), so we can promote our products to the clients.
We don't have strong academia connections, so we might have to write some unsolicited emails to approach professors. Are there some tips regarding this kind of emails? I understand professors receive thousands of emails every day, so I want to make sure our email doesn't get buried.
Also, should we bring up compensation numbers in the first email, or this should be left for future discussion?

Why should a prof be interested in using/evaluating your tool? That's the question you should ask yourself. This is not a paper to review, so this is the question you have to be able to have your target reviewer answer themselves.

@CaptainEmacs Not sure if it's a good answer, but we are willing to pay for his work.

It's absolutely OK to write an unsolicited email to a Prof. Academics are contacted for all sorts of things, and your email will definitely be read. In writing your email, it's important to remember two things - 1. professors engage in things that they find interesting; 2. they fiercely protect their reputation.
So, since you are asking for tips, here are a couple:

Find those professors who are interested in maintaining and developing links with industry (as opposed to those who are focused primarily on advancing the theoretical foundation of their discipline). If you look at their profiles, such profs would mention consulting work, executive education, industry-sponsored research, and membership in professional bodies. These are the guys/ladies you want to talk to first.
Describe your product/project in terms of its intrinsic interest or novelty - that's what most academics will find interesting. From an academic's viewpoint, writing a preface or endorsement for your report is just a byproduct of learning something new and interesting about the field they care about.
That said, be upfront about the fact that you want something from them and that you are not seeking to influence their judgment in any way.

Whether to mention compensation in the first email depends on where you/they are country- and culture-wise. But to be on the safe side, I would not mention money in the opening email but use words like "consultation" or "expert opinion" to signal that you are happy to pay for their time and expertise.
Good luck! ))

"your email will definitely be read" I'm not sure about that, but agree with the rest

In my fields at least, professional membership isn't correlated at all with willingness to consult.

I wouldn't beat around the bush on the money thing -- don't write it in code.  Say something like "there is compensation for this role".  For a first contact, you don't need more detail than that.


text:
Understanding the value of short-term undergraduate internships for host universities and professors
I am currently exploring the possibility of participating in a summer internship. While researching, I've noticed that many internships offered by universities last for approximately two months. This duration seems quite brief, especially in an academic research context where significant results often require extended periods of investigation and study.
Given this, I am curious to understand the perspective of the host universities and professors regarding these short-term internships. What are the perceived benefits for them in offering such brief research opportunities? It seems unlikely that substantial academic results or contributions to ongoing research projects can be achieved in this limited timeframe. Are these internships designed more for the educational benefit of the students, or do the host institutions and professors have specific expectations or objectives that they aim to fulfill through these programs?

This will depend on the exact situation, but I suspect that in most cases these internships will be mainly seen as an educational activity. The expected value of the research output from the intern will often be negative: Even if an intern will work for free, it still needs to be instructed and supervised by someone who is not free (from the point of view of the university). If the output from the intern is going to be used in real research, that output will again have to be checked (and probably completely rewritten) by someone who is not free. I think of ChatGPT as in intern producing lots of text. This says something about the quality of ChatGPT, but also something about the quality of the output I expect from interns. It will in many cases be cheaper and quicker to let that same work be done by a PhD student or post-doc. The expected educational benefits from an internship will in many cases be positive or very positive. If done well, it gives the interns an experience that is hard to give them at that level any other way. Even if the outcome is that the intern at the end of the internship decides that research is not for her or him, that is still a positive outcome: It prevents the situation where that student starts a PhD and after an x amount of time decides to quit.
An added bonus for the university is that you get to meet potential candidates for things like PhD programs.

To add a bit to the answer of Maarten Buis, such things give students a "taste" of research, but not an opportunity for independent research per se. That taste can help students decide on their future direction, which is one of the goals of an undergraduate education.
Students in such programs may get a close up look at how research in the field is done and contact with serious researchers. It prepares them to go deeper, just as many undergraduate courses do. Professors get a chance to mentor good students and help them set goals. The actual contribution to the research may be small, but the contribution to the overall educational mission is larger. And the opportunity for personal growth can be huge. Think of it as an apprentice program for serious research.

As others have noted, this is typically just part of the educational mission of the University. There can be benefits to the University however. If this is funded through a grant, then there is overhead money associated. A successful internship program sets a precedent which strengthens future grant, and especially center level grant applications, which again contribute to growth via both reputation building and generation of overhead funds.
The process also allows the university to look at high achieving students for potential graduate recruitment.
Finally, even though this is never the goal, you can end up with students genuinely contributing to research. Typically these are students who have already been active in research at their home institution and are highly motivated (usually the ones that end up becoming faculty one day). This is always a great surprise, but not expected.

It seems unlikely that substantial academic results or contributions
to ongoing research projects can be achieved in this limited
timeframe.

You might be surprised what dedicated undergraduates can accomplish in 10 weeks.
I've found that with some planning and structure, I can almost always get more value out of an intern than work I put into scaffolding them. I've done this over years of both academic research and industry non research. Throughout the year I collect a list of sub projects to my work that are individually not critical, are simple enough for an intern, and could potentially have impact. By the time intern season comes around I usually have a menu of 6-10 for my interns to pick from and see what they can do.
One summer me and a colleague had so many of these "intern projects" on our NSF grant, we took on a dozen summer interns and their work was a great boon to the project as a whole.
And the interns are getting something out of it too as many here have stated. They might not be doing the most cutting edge of the work, but they're getting started. They aren't generating results that will get them published that summer (although it could potentially happen), but they are getting attribution for their contributions that can help with the next phases of their careers.

Over the past 20+ years my groups at a US national lab have hired many student interns at both the undergraduate and graduate levels (and a few high school students, but that is another story). Since the students are constrained by the time between the end of the spring semester and the start of the fall semester (not to mention time to move here and back again), yes, they are usually 10 weeks or so on site.
There is some burden on the staff to have a project for the student, but there are always things that should be done but someone hasn't gotten around to doing quite yet. After someone has mentored a student a few times it actually gets pretty easy to plan the scope of a summer for the student. Now, each intern has their strengths and weaknesses, so being agile during the summer is necessary to revector if needed.
Usually though, any 'revectoring' is because interns have significant capability to amaze and overachieve. You make the mistake of underestimating what a good motivated student can accomplish in 10 weeks fulltime. Sure, they need to come up to speed in some areas (our ES&H training is extensive for example), but they often are quite smart and adaptable. For one student project last year we hoped they would help build some novel hardware and participate in the high voltage testing. They ended up taking over running the tester, identified some hardware and software issues, fixed them, and wrote some new data analysis routines to get a better, faster output. Both sides thought the experience was very worthwhile.
Now, what does the lab get?

Many staff like to mentor and work with students. It is enjoyable to have them around - fresh eyes, fresh perspectives, good questions. Most of the staff did various internships when they were in school, so this is a way for them to give back, but also get stuff done.
We get to identify talented students who are interested in the work we do. We can bring them back the next summer if they are good (and willing). If an undergraduate we can help them determine what grad schools to apply to, write letters of recommendation, and suggest what advisors to contact. If a grad student we may have relationships with their advisor, and may want to hire them fulltime when they are done.
We build a pipeline of possible good hires in the future. Now, HR has complained on and off that the percentage of interns that we end up hiring is not very high. True, but most of the staff did internships somewhere, so we are helping the whole community not just ourselves. (For instance, I didn't do an internship here.)

I have no doubt that hiring student interns has been a net positive for my people, their projects, and for the lab overall.

I had such a role (paid) one summer in my undergrad, but at a different university.  This was in a physics research group, and what the group got was someone who could dedicate a few weeks to a fairly simple but time-consuming task, building a new experimental setup.  The one busy technician couldn't set aside enough time, and there was no one else to take it on.
Such a short term role can often be paid from the scraps of funding at the end of a grant, so while the PI might prefer someone more experienced and capable, that's not likely to be an option.


text:
cheating in theoretical exams as there is no time!
We all know cheating in exams is almost an academic crime. However, a friend of mine has some extraordinary circumstances..
He works full time job and studies at uni at the same time five days a week so he has no time to study.
He can't quit the job as he is paying for uni and he can't stop his studies as he needs a IT Bachelor degree for his job (He is actually working some administrative stuff for the meantime).
He is very hardworking and clever guy. He does all his assignments very perfectly.It is only that he doesn’t find time to memorize stuff for exams i.e. he studies for the important content exams such as coding but he doesn't for the theoretical parts such as: "define system administration" or "explain validation in JS", and this sort of thing, using cheat sheets.
He deserves full marks for his hardworking and attention. That's why he cheats the theoretical parts in exams. He gets full marks and -until now at least- survives in every exam he cheats although many of his colleagues get caught.
He is feeling guilty. He doesn't want to lose marks over theoretical content he can't find time to study, and at the same time, he doesn't feel proud nor happy with all his 'A' grades he is getting- the curriculum is full of theoretical contents.
He thought about confessing to his professors but what is the benefit of that!
He asked me, and I am asking you in turn, for any suggestions he can/should do.

How exactly does he "cheat in the theoretical parts"?

copying from some cheat sheets. something like THIS

What should he do?  Stop cheating, get his butt in gear, and study.  And he doesn't "deserve" anything he hasn't earned.

I'm not sure what kind of answer you expect. If he feels bad, he can stop cheating for the future. For the past, he wouldn't gain anything by confessing anything to anyone, the best way to remedy that is to learn the missed material, i.e. the material he cheated on, to catch up on the knowledge required for his degree.

Working full time is no excuse for cheating. Many people have done it for both undergraduate and graduate studies. There is no need to get As in all courses.

He deserves full marks for his hardworking and attention — No, he doesn't.  Grades (are supposed to) measure mastery, not effort.

@user3209815 if you understand the content without memorizing the words written, that doesn't mean you lose knowledge..

@Alexandros any suggestions on how to study enough in the weekends only? which is only 2 days and you wanna divide them for 5 course-load! What he does in weekends actually is focusing on the important knowledge he should gain from each course.

A working day has 8 hours. He still has 4+ hours to study each day.

Weekends only? Bah!  During my grad school days, I worked a day job for eight hours, then studied and did school work for another 6-8 hours, getting home around midnight.  Your friend should put on his big-boy pants and get to work.

Re: on-hold votes, this can perfectly happen in graduate school as well, even more so when grad students pay less attention to coursework and more to research/jobs.

@BobBrown & Alexandros During week days, he exactly has 9 hours for both studying and sleeping, if we want to forget about something called "mind resting". I am only trying to get help from you guys -not arguing-

he needs a IT Bachelor degree for his job — If the classes your friend is taking are as useless as you seem to think they are, he should look for a better degree program.  But by taking the class, he's agreed to be graded according to the instructor's standards.  Moreover, by requiring an IT degree, your friend's employer has accepted that social contract and is expecting your friend to do the same.  If news of his cheating got back to his employer, I expect he'd lose his job pretty quickly.

I am only trying to get help from you guys -not arguing — It may not be your intention, but your responses are pretty much the definition of arguing.

@JeffE you got it, mate! It is not about the curriculum but about the type of questions. when a book explains about how to connect two computers together, you aren't expected to define "network" nor to memorize words but to be able to connect them in the real world. That's the point. and sorry for taking your time:)

If he cheats on the small stuff now, and can rationalize it to himself as "it's not important", then your "friend" has a serious character flaw and I wouldn't want him as part of my team. Learning information for exams shouldn't be a memorization game. If you know the material and really learn it you don't need to memorize. Theoretical is important for future debugging. You need to understand the why not just the how or you are setting yourself for 3am conference calls because your system failed.

@Jad I know this guy - great guy. He builds cars. Great cars. Unfortunately, they do not contain a gear. You see, he has no time to build the cogs, too much detailed effort, and why would you really need them? There's an engine and a chassis. He's very hardworking, so why waste time cutting little cog teeth? Well, and there's this car. Great stuff. Except: either it doesn't run, or, when he turns on the engine, it went full speed into the wall. But really, he's a great car engineer. - Obviously, I invented the example, but that's what your friend is doing.

He is doing the external requirements, while missing some of the essence. The car in my example is not just flawed - it looks like a car, has many aspects of it, seats, engine, but is ultimately unusable. So will be the degree of your friend if he cuts out an essential aspect of the study. Why study at all? He will be found out quickly, like with my car example.

He should stop. YMMV with regards to confessions...
He's both harming himself and the reputation of his university. Future employers will look at his qualifications and expect him to know certain things. If he has no idea, then that's not good for anybody.
Being in the unenviable position of having to work full time in order to pay for your studies is no excuse to cheat.

That's the point.. No one will ask him define system administration at work! So, his cheating won't affect him professionally, he says

If he's hired as a system administrator, his employer will expect him to know the scope of his duties, in other words, to know the definition of system administration.
Your friend is rationalizing his cheating, i.e. lying to himself.

@BobBrown at that time, he can prepare for his interview. Don't tell me you're still memorizing theory from college days!

@Jad the fact that most people quickly forget how to answer a precise question word-for-word neither excuses cheating, nor means that the knowledge they had is 100% gone. It comes back easily enough. Cheating is wrong – you cannot rationalize your way out of it.

Don't tell me you're still memorizing theory from college days! — "Theory" isn't something one can memorize.  But yes, I'd be in pretty serious trouble if I couldn't give definitions for the basic vocabulary of my field.

@JeffE But you construct those definitions based on a thorough understanding of the concept in question, not on memorising a string of words, which appears to be what is expected of Jads friend.

@Jad Stop asking us what we people do and the stuff we have memorized. Contrary to your friend, almost all of us have BSc, MSc and even PhD degrees. Your friend has not. So, if he wants to get a BSc degree and we tell him to stop cheating he should stop. Period. Otherwise, why is he asking for advise, if he does not want to listen?

@Jad cheat: to act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage. I honestly don't know what else there is to add. It's not our burden to persuade your friend. We have quite unanimously told you that it's wrong, so unless you intend to steer the discussion in a productive direction I suggest we leave it at that.


text:
Advice for job application to a university position as a non-student
I originally asked this question at the workplace.stackexchange, but they told me this may be a better place for my question.
I am applying to a job at a nearby university as a lab technician. One of my motivations for doing this is that the position comes with tuition reimbursement, meaning if I get accepted to graduate school at the same university next year the cost would be significantly less. I get the sense that I shouldn't mention that in my cover letter or interview unless directly asked.
Other than that, is there any other advice I should know for my resume, cover letter, or interview? Should I expect the process to be about the same as applying to a for-profit company, or will it be significantly different? Should I emphasize my prior education more more, less, or about the same? I tried searching for this type of information, but kept getting articles about applying for jobs right after university instead. Thank you for any advice you can provide.

Do you intend to apply for a masters or a doctorate?

Master's and doctorate afterwards. I don't think I am competitive enough to apply to doctorate right away. Would that really come up when applying for just the job?

Hmmm, are you asking about what to reveal for the job application or for the graduate admissions application(s)?

I am asking about the job application. I can find plenty online about applying for graduate school and I can always made another version of my resume and cover letter if it ends up the two processes are different.

As a university staff member in academia for 15 years, this is how I earned a Masters degree (at an R2); I am also working on two other Masters simultaneously at an R1.  Many of my colleagues are earning degrees as well.  It's a standard benefit for many colleges and universities in the US.  There is no reason to mention this at the time of application.  Once you have the job, it is a benefit you are entitled to take according to the policies of your institution.  One common policy is a waiting period prior to being eligible.  You also may not be able to take classes in every school.  I am not able to apply for a degree at the medical school but can take a limited number of classes there.
As long as you are considered staff and eligible for the benefit, you do not need to disclose this to your supervisor up front.  You would wait for the semester you wish to enroll in classes to disclose the desire to use the benefit and work out schedules if needed.  However, it may be important to suggest you have a general interest in the science and would like to continue your education.  So to be clear, you do not have to commit yourself to a program at the time of this job application and "disclose" the intentions to use tuition remission.  You should only disclose your interest in the science as it relates to you being a better candidate for the job you are applying for.
As far as applying for the degree, the strategy depends on the program.  For my first masters, I did it in 5 years instead of the expected 2.  There are frequently limits on number of classes per term, and the pre-reqs can drag it out for many years.  I was able to finish it within the required timeline, which I had researched in advance.  I took many classes prior to applying for degree, which the program allowed.  All classes counted towards the degree.  I am doing something similar for the other programs I am working through now.  It helps to lower expectations given a busy job.  If I don't finish the program, it's not entered in as failing a degree, I just took many classes.  I am working towards microcredentials to be sure there is something finite in the meantime.

You only need to emphasize the experience you have in supports research and educational activities. You might do things like preparing experiments, maintaining equipment, safety standards, and assisting in research, all those technical stuffs. So just tell them you can do all of them.
If you intend to use the position to further advance in the academic career, it's best to have your resume includes your prior education as well, because you might get the offer from that very school.

I gave my answer, but I have to point out that very often the university, or specifically the departments have their master and PHD students do the lab technician position, seminar holding and sometime lectures as well. What I mean is that you might not get accepted by any department at all, they have their students do that for free

... yes, or, well, they have their grad students (etc) do many things as part of their obligation for tuition remission, etc...

I think it's hard to know in advance what the overall attitude of the hiring PI is.
On one end of the spectrum is that they solely need a warm body to do the job, much like a company would. In that case, even if tuition reimbursement is a deserved perk of the job, knowing that you are interested in pursuing additional education is orthogonal to the task they need completed, and if anything letting them know you plan to take advantage of this benefit may be seen as a downside, because any time you spend on your education is not time spent doing your lab technician job.
On the other end of the spectrum is that universities and their employees have an educational mission, and academics more generally feel a bit of responsibility towards the future of their field and the academic adventure overall. In that context, the very best people to hire are those interested in furthering their education. Hiring someone like you is an opportunity not just to have a task completed but also to cultivate the next generation of scientists.
In between are some ways that your goals interact with the position directly. If you're interested in graduate school at the same institution, that means keeping you around longer; training and retraining is a pain and costs a lot of time - if you're going to be motivated to keep the same position for multiple years and there is funding available for it for multiple years, that could be a win-win even if the hiring PI doesn't care at all about your future. I'd also say that in my overall experience with research staff at your level, motivations are really important and relate to job success; people that have higher aspirations related to their job are just better employees. They have more intrinsic motivation and are naturally thinking about how to do things better even when not officially working. They're putting in their best effort rather than the minimum to get paid.
My recommendation would be to focus the most on your qualification for the position itself, but not to be shy about your other motivations for both the near and short term. In your application, that might involve stating your goals briefly in a personal statement or cover letter, making a case for how the job fits into your overall career plan. In an interview, I'd ask specifically about how long the position is expected to be available for: is this a short-term gig or will it be available for the next couple/few years? If the latter, I'd be clear that you plan to be around for awhile. I'd also answer honestly any questions about your plans and why you're applying for the job and how it presents opportunities for you.
If your boss is going to be someone who is upset that you're interested in further education, that's going to lead to miserable situations for both of you, so it's actually probably better for everyone involved if it gets counted against you.

How you intend to use your benefits should you get hired is your business, not the employers.
That said, there are often limits to how such benefits may be used.  There may be credit count limits, for example.  There may be limits on graduate courses, too -- or a multitude of other surprises.  Also, the benefit is likely taxable if the courses you take aren't related to your job.