text:
Why do undergraduate admissions in the U.S take into account nonacademic criteria?
College admissions in the U.S. takes into account many factors that are rarely considered in other countries and seem unrelated to academics.  For example, legacy status (children of alumni may be given preference), athletics, extracurricular activities, etc.  Why do these nonacademic criteria play a larger role in the U.S. than they do elsewhere?

This is related to (and possibly--but not really--a duplicate of): http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/44107/how-does-hiking-in-himalayas-show-academic-promise

A cynical but not implausible view is that by taking extracurriculars into account, schools are able to favor the children of the relatively elite classes in the US -- whose enrollment in turn makes a college more desirable to other elites. See e.g. Mitchell Stevens's book Creating a Class , an ethnography of how US private college admissions process serves "privileged families and the impressive organizational machinery they have developed to pass their comfortable social positions on to their children” (p.3)

Related question : http://academia.stackexchange.com/q/16367/948

Do they really do this?

@gerrit Definitely. There are high correlations with extracurricular activities and graduation rates and GPA. Besides, how else do you compare a bunch of 3.8 GPAs all from different high schools and backgrounds?

@AustinHenley I'm used to the system where they admit any student meeting the criteria and likely to succeed, and that competition only comes in when competing for merit-based scholarships.  An Erasmus Mundus Master Course I was at would admit 150–200 out of 500 applicants, but award 35–40 scholarships, with 45–50 students actually starting.  Why reject likely successful students paying high tuition fees, when 50 extra students in a course can easily pay toward hiring an additional undergraduate lecturer and/or rooms for teaching on a satellite campus?

@gerrit At most good US colleges (say, top-30 or so), that would likely result in getting 5-10x of their current enrollment numbers (at least). Many (most?) undergrads are not on scholarships either way and are paying through loans and/or parents.

I don't have time to post a full answer, but @AustinHenley touches on another aspect. With grade inflation in the US in high school, colleges (even non-prestigious ones) need additional information in order to determine who to admit. If you have 1,000 applicants who all have a 4.0 GPA and a 1550 on the SAT, but only 100 available spots, you need a way to determine who to select. This can be done by looking at other factors, whether they correlate to college performance or not.

Dutch medical courses simply draw lots in that situation. (Anyone average grades above 8/10 is admitted directly, but that is rare.  I've never met a 10/10 student, but I did read about one of those once, he made the national news.  I don't quite understand why grade inflation is so severe in the USA, and it also makes it difficult for students from countries with less grade inflation to get in, but that is a different question.)

@gerrit I don't think grade inflation in the US really affect international students. Most US universities already have quotas on how much of each incoming class can be from outside the US, and I think those are the bottleneck there. And I think that I would prefer being evaluated on extracurriculars over a random drawing.

Why not invite them all to write a test designed by the university?  Surely the university should be able to design a test where the majority of those applicants will fail and only a small minority will score over 90%.

@gerrit There's a million obvious reasons why that isn't feasible or desireable. Many have been stated in the comments and answers to these questions. Too add to them, what would you even test? One of the greatest things about the US education system is that kids don't have to choose a future career path until very late in their education.

@gerrit You think a test can predict success? Also, you're going to remove any diversity by only admitting the type of students that your test is designed for.

@AustinHenley I don't see how designing a test and admitting students based on test scores is any different from considering grade point averages at all.  Personally, I see tests as a necessary evil.  They are not the best predictor for success at all, but possibly better than a person's baseball skills or hiking experience.  I do understand from Anonymous' answer that, for example, Harvard's primary goal isn't to educate smart people, but rather to have an impact on the world by educating influential people, which does clear up a misunderstanding for me, but not every school is Harvard...

@gerrit Designing and administering a standardized test is more expensive than using GPAs that are already built into the educational system. Additionally, these tests already exist in the US and we know they have low correlation with college success rates. Creating more of these tests wouldn't help the situation; it would create additional and repetitive tasks college applicants need to complete in order to apply to a variety of schools. If I need to take test A for admission to school A, and test B for school B, I've now had to complete two tests that (hypothetically) measure the same thing.

Please take extended discussion to [chat].

As a high school student, I can attest that people obsessed with college are more concerned with "volunteering" for NHS (of course, without actually doing any volunteer work and preferably securing some free food for themselves) than studying anything even vaguely related to the careers that are the cause of their obsession with college. In effect, not only are the nonacademic criteria useless, they actually hurt students by encouraging them to waste time on nonsense instead of studying or enjoying their lives.

Why is this question on-topic here?  Our [help] says: "please do not ask questions about undergraduate-specific issues".  Isn't this question off-topic, according to that rule?

I don't see this as being undergraduate-specific in that sense.  As I understand it (others may disagree), policy or historical questions related to undergraduate studies are OK, as long as they are of genuine interest to faculty or grad students.  Mainly, the restriction is meant to rule out a flood of questions on how to get into college or how college works, but I see this question as something academics at all levels might wonder about (especially those outside the U.S.).

@gerrit there is a huge difference between GPA and standardized tests for people who have learning disabilities like dyslexia, ADHD, and dyspraxia. Many talented students with learning disabilities do poorly on standardized tests, but excel in their classes especially those based on projects and not only exams. GPA allows that to be taken into consideration as well. Also, looking at extra curriculars allows students to show case what they can achieve outside the testing environment e.g. for a computer science major contributions to open source projects would be relevant

As with any complicated social phenomenon, there is no simple and conclusive answer.  However, here are two important factors:

The U.S. didn't have world-class universities until the 20th century.  Even ones that are world-famous today (such as Harvard or Yale) did not particularly impress 19th century Europeans.  These universities had started out as vocational schools for pastors and gradually turned into finishing schools for the elite, but they weren't scholarly powerhouses.  In the early 20th century, there started to be more academic competition for admission.  This was very upsetting to the traditional students (largely wealthy young men from prep schools), who didn't want to be around too many Jews or other minorities or to have to compete with nerds for grades.  One tactic universities used in response was quotas for Jews, but the Nazis made that look bad.  Leading U.S. universities then moved on in the 1930's to develop other methods to ensure that they could pick whichever students they wanted.  For example, geographic diversity (you should take students from Kansas to avoid having too many New Yorkers), preferences for children of alumni, athletic recruitment (you really need a strong lacrosse team and fencing team), well roundedness (students should study hard but not be too nerdy), extracurricular activities, etc.  Jerome Karabel has documented this history in his book The Chosen.
What is Harvard's purpose in educating students?  People often imagine the goal is to educate smart people, and that corruption is the only explanation for why Harvard would deliberately admit a wealthy applicant over someone more talented but poor.  However, this is thinking about it completely wrong.  Harvard's primary goal isn't to educate smart people, but rather to have an impact on the world by educating influential people.  They want to educate the people who are going to grow up to become leaders of all sorts (social, political, commercial, academic, etc.), and while they are happy to help shape who becomes a leader, they know perfectly well that wealth and privilege play a major role.  When Harvard admits someone whose wealth exceeds his intellectual talents, it's because they want to help set the national agenda by providing this person's education.  From this perspective, all the strange admissions criteria are an excuse for Harvard to select whoever they feel has the most potential to change the world, taking into account all aspects of their talents and background.

So what about other universities?  The first axiom of higher education in the U.S. is that everybody imitates the most prestigious universities.  If Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are doing something, then everyone else will follow.  Not necessarily in exactly the same way: different universities may employ very different criteria for admission, thanks to different goals regarding who they want to educate.  But they almost all use the same basic framework for what information is relevant to their decision.

As an addendum to this answer, it's worth noting arguably the single greatest benefit a university supplies to it's students (even before academics) is the peer group. Part of being a "well-rounded individual" is being able to interact with and learn from people from many backgrounds. Since this is part of the university mission, it must supply students with that varied cohort. Similarly, privilege can be transmitted by proxy. It will be much easier to start a business if you have immediate access to capital in the form of a wealthy roommate.

The Myth of American Meritocracy by Ron Unz investigates this line (which made things harder for Jews, now is making it harder for Asians... to get more space for  the children of alumni and other "true Americans"). As of now, Caltech seems to be a meritocratic outlier.

Although you make some good points, this jaded outlook isn't always warranted. For example, one reason to admit more students from Kansas and not students, even more prepared students, from the coastal metropolises is to increase cohort diversity. Racial and ethnic diversity has been found to improve learning outcomes; I don't know if effects of geographic diversity has been studied, but it certainly makes sense that a New Yorker can gain a broader view of the world by interacting with someone from Kansas.

Yes, this is definitely not the full story, and there are other arguments in favor of the U.S. system.  As you point out, U.S. universities typically care about diversity (both for reasons of social justice and to create a rich, well-balanced environment), and having flexibility in admissions decisions certainly helps with that.  I emphasized these points mainly because they played a bigger role historically than diversity arguments did, and they aren't as widely understood today.  (But I certainly don't intend to say they are the only factors.)

I really like that you mentioned that it was to keep Jews out. This is really the reason there is holistic undergraduate admissions. Perhaps it would have turned out this way anyway, but lets remember the original reason for the change.

@Philip: "Racial and ethnic diversity has been found to improve learning outcomes" would you happen to have any links on this? Thanks!

Not handy but I know it was essentially the winning argument by Michigan in Grutter v. Bollinger so you can start there. They made a very calculated decision not to argue on the basis of racial equality being a desirable thing, but rather on the learning outcomes. Let me know if you can't find anything and I'll hunt it down.

I think this is a good answer, but it is somewhat of a simplification. I think even Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Yale, etc. don't know exactly what they want. So I think they muddle their criteria to get a bit of everything -- future politicians, scientists, businesspeople, celebrities, civil rights activists, etc. You can call this group "future leaders", but I think it's a product of uncertainty more than clarity.

My dad was admitted to the university in Novisibiersk in the late sixties, which was indesputably one of the top three technical universities in Russia. He said the only admission criterion was an exam with olympiad-level math questions, which kids studied for all through high school much like some American kids study for the USAMO etc.
Now, the reason I mention this is because he said the reason why admissions here are different not only from Russia but from most of the rest of the world is because in other countries, the students study to serve the state, while in America, the universities provide education as a service to students.
In most other countries, a student is accepted on the basis of the expected value he can bring to society if he is given the appropriate educational opportunity, and then his education is subsidized on the expectation that by studying he can improve the general economy of the state.
However, in America the state pays little (especially for private schools) because education is not a service the individual is doing so he can better the state: it's a service being given to the individual so he can better himself. Even when the government expands measures to pay for student loans etc. the main motivation is to aid poor people in improving themselves, not aiding smart people in improving the state. There isn't anything inherently wrong with this, it's just different and perhaps less efficient.
So that's why American schools don't care so much about academics: they don't care as much about how you do because they aren't investing in you. In fact, you're investing in them, and the return on that investment is an education you can use to get a better job. So they take into account criteria related to how much you'll improve their image, how much you'll be likely to donate later in life, etc.

I'll answer the less-obvious point that other answers so far missed:

Colleges practice sport recruiting, whereby athletes are recruited by the colleges for their athletic promise, over other applicants who might be more qualified in terms of academics.

The reason for this is that most US colleges are funded in large part by college Alumni donating money.
And college Alumni donate more money if the college has a successful sports team(s).
Here's one study showing causation
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/07/03/report-finds-alumni-giving-among-other-areas-correlated-football-success

Anderson’s report found that for NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision teams -- teams that compete during the season and are potentially eligible for postseason bowl games -- winning football games increases alumni athletic donations, enhances academic reputation, increases the number of applicants and in-state students, reduces acceptance rates and raises average incoming SAT scores.

Please note that the other benefits are also somewhat explainable - college athletics is pretty visible in US culture, and therefore a university's brand among possible applicants is raised significantly - a LOT more people can name top NCAA winners than top colleges with best biology superstar professor.
A totally unrelated reason is tradition - USA has a very long tradition that sound body is a big plus for a sound mind (it's not a uniquely USA thing, of course - the same idea was held from Ancient Greece to Russia to modern scientific studies results). As such, a good student was always expected to be able to do athletics for well-roundedness.

Interestingly, the "legacy" point also is influenced the same monetary way - a wealthy Alumni is more likely to donate to the college if their family member, especially offspring, will attend.

Many of your questions are difficult to answer without a larger industry/history lesson, but you can find much of that information by searching for it.
As for your actual question, why do schools care about non-academic things;
There are many reasons, but these 'non-academic' things are what makes well rounded people that are likely to succeed.  Leaving the country and helping people in need is just one of many ways to show that your mind is broader, which helps creative thinking, which helps problem solving, which helps you to succeed.
The act of doing something non-academic in a group setting shows ability to work cooperatively.  It shows a diverse background, which is regarded as important by many prominent institutions because diversity in academic settings helps improve educational experiences.
In essence, your question is the same as "Why do undergraduate students in Engineering need to take non-engineering classes?"  If you don't know the answer, im sure you can find other posts about this.

What @user1938107 states is, at least, the official narrative Americans tell themselves when discussing these matters. In reality, it's just what Americans have historically done, and consider important. Whether it really makes for better leaders, engineers, or teachers is a separate matter that can be debated. Most European countries don't take such factors in account yet, arguably, have better teachers and engineers. I think the real answer is just: for historical reasons.

@WolfgangBangerth My answer was based on the OP question.  If they said, 'Why do american universities care about these things when the better schools like the ones in europe dont?' I wouldnt have bothered.  My answer is based on what the universities reason is, trying to improve success (as Anon Math) points out, success is impact for many.

This is from 'Americans' so maybe it cant be trusted, but its a bit more information on why things beyond grades matter to schools: http://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/97003B7B-055F-4318-B14A-5336321FB742/0/DIVREP.PDF

I would like this question to be discussed more seriously than the other cynical answers, i.e. these non-academic criteria are a way to exclude minorities. Historically that could be true. Is it still true today? Don't the non-academic considerations actually incentivize American students to do community service and other things outside the classroom? As someone who grew up in Asian high school but went to US colleges, I know that my peers and their parents think very highly of the non-academic considerations.

@WolfgangBangerth Don't generalize what 'Americans' do. Your generalizations would be more appropriate for liberal arts schools, not Americans in general. Most American engineers, for example, do indeed focus almost solely on engineering. In my case, for example, I took exactly 3 classes in college that weren't directly related to the work I do as an engineer. One of those was a bowling class that I took just for fun in addition to all of the other classes that I would have taken anyway that semester. Also, I would definitely argue that point about Europe 'having better engineers.' :P

@reirab: Yours is a fair point. At the same time, the general education requirements at my own state school, Texas A&M, equate to approximately 1/3 of the credit hours students have to take for their 4-year degree. This is true whether you're a liberal arts major or an engineering major. So I think it's not state schools vs liberal arts colleges, but something that may be specific from university to university. Either way, your point is well taken.

@WolfgangBangerth It's starting to be known that character like conscientiousness is a better predictability of success than IQ alone. It is well written here.

Maybe. But does this correlate well with admission criteria?

Extra-Curriculars
There are a few reasons why US Colleges make some of these selection criteria. Having extra curricular activities shows a number of potentially important things:

the ability to juggle more than just school (I can volunteer and play a sport on top of keeping my grades
travel can indicate a wider range of interesting experiences
Interesting students will do interesting things, which can be good for recruitment
Being successful in a variety of areas indicates a general ability to succeed better than being successful in only one (and Universities here gain prestige by having successful alumni).

Something worth noting - in most places in the world University is about specializing. You take one subject, gain mastery in it, move on to work in that subject.  In the US this is not the case.  We value a "broad" education where you are required to study many subjects that have little to do with your major - in fact many people do not decide their majors until a year or two in (we feel this creates "well-rounded" people).  As a result students who have evidence of non-academic achievements can be favored over those who focused their efforts (especially if both candidates have comparable grades).
Affirmative Action
You highlight on "quotas" (often referred to here as "Affirmative Action"). Ultimately it is a political issue. The idea is to ensure fairness. At one point (basically any time before 1970) a perfectly qualified black woman would be passed over in preference for a white male.  Rules (and often laws) were enacted to say that women (and other minorities) needed to be fairly represented in the school (and business) - the quota was the way to ensure the school would look at the non-preferred candidates.  Legally Affirmative Action is not discrimination, and in many jurisdictions it is still legally mandated.
Whether the practice is discrimination or not is highly subjective (to my incredibly intelligent mother who likely got a chance at earning her BS and MS in Computer Science only because Duke had to let women in for their "quota" it was not discrimination).
Finances
(Disclaimer, there is a large amount of politics in the discussion over what is "necessary spending" for universities in the US, and the high cost of tuition)
The rest of your questions are actually talking about the same point. I am not familiar with universities in India, but in many places in the world universities are fundamentally part of the state - the state either directly runs the institution, or it subsidizes most to all of the cost for the students attending.
In the US there are a few state sponsored schools, but individual US States get to determine the amount of support those schools get, and most schools are not well funded in the state's budget. In addition there are a large number of private schools that do not receive any funding (Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, etc.). For most schools in the US, they have to fund their own budgets.  These budgets include facility/maintenance fees (paint, lights, utilities, etc.), staff pay (student, faculty, and non-faculty employees), expansion to the campus, and all the other things the school pays for (e.g. having a gym, hosting symposiums, etc.).
Tuition is very high ($20000+ per year is pretty common), but even still is often not enough to cover the budget.  Thus the school relies on other things to pull in revenue - research grants can help, but are earmarked for specific projects and do not help with general budget goals. The two other major sources of income Universities can get are donations, and "event fees".
Donations often come from alumni who are grateful for their success.  The school does not want to upset great donors - nor potential future donors - and will give preferential treatment to children of alumni as a result.
"Event Fees" can come from a number of things (e.g. hosting a conference/symposium, putting on a play or concert, etc.), but in general Universities believe that Sporting activities bring in the most money (for the rest of this I will assume that is true, even though there is evidence that is not always the case). Sporting events bring in money through a few avenues:

More donations from fervent supporters of the school's teams
Ticket sales
Merchandise sales
Advertising
Concessions
Some competitions pay winning teams in some way

Because the schools with the best teams get the strongest support and thus the most income from all of those avenues, schools do what they can to ensure their teams are the best. Sometimes the best athletes are exceptional academically, but more often they are not.  Since the school wants the best athletes they will provide scholarships and admission to candidates who might have been disqualified academically.

I wouldn't generalize the U.S. at all in the manner you've done in your first section. Quite a lot, perhaps a majority, of U.S. college students do indeed choose their major before admission and do focus on it. It's more the liberal arts schools that don't do that, not all schools. Engineering schools will generally focus almost solely on engineering, for example.

Would just like to point out that affirmative action and quotas are not necessarily the same idea. For instance, if we assign a hypothetical score between 0 and 100 to each applicant, we could add 5 to all applicants from [group X], then proceed as normal. There's no "minimum number" of people we need to admit from group X, but they still got a bit of a boost.

Universities routine skim a cut (called "overhead") from research grants, and some of that goes into the general budget. The funding agencies keep an eye on overhead levels so there is a limit to how much general funding can be developed in this way, but some definitely is.

I think a lot of the other answers here have some good points, but I think the most important thing you need to remember about universities in America is that they are BUSINESSES. Education is the primary service that they provide, but they are also selling things like prestige (how good does your University degree look on your resume/CV?), contacts/networking, sports programs (many professional athletes start at colleges that have top-notch sports teams), etc.
My guess is that the United States probably has more universities than any other country and therefore has the most competition amongst them than in other countries. A university's admissions "formula" is like a food company's recipe or a technology company's patents - it provides a competitive advantage (hopefully) and is constantly reviewed and tweaked in an effort to maximize profits.
When looked at through the eyes of a business looking to maximize profit, it's pretty obvious why legacy students, promising student athletes, minorities and foreigners, etc are admitted - it all ultimately leads to more revenue over time.
Some examples:

Endowments are the #1 source of funding for universities. Harvard's is around $35B (yes, that's BILLION) while Yale's is around $25B. Thus it's obvious why sons and daughters of alumni are given preferential treatment in admissions.
College sports is BIG business. Recruiting and admitting talented student athletes is a no-brainer for universities.
Part of the "university business" is hiring and keeping the best professors. Famous people like former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Henry Louis Gates Jr., and Cornell West can teach anywhere they want. I bet they don't want to teach at a university with a homogenous (i.e., dull) student body. Professors are also very liberal and therefore support initiatives like affirmative action. Also, they want to go where the money is!!

Like I said, other people have some good points, but having received my undergraduate degree from Harvard and my master's degree from New York University I've seen firsthand how these educational institutions are just like any other business in America.

Specific example of why this is considered:  MIT has been known to turn down people with top grades when there's evidence that they will deal very poorly with no longer being at the top of their class. Someone who can draw good grades and sustain extracurricular activities is more likely to survive in that environment than someone who got those grades by doing nothing but study.

One further point that I haven't seen yet in the other answers relates to a general philosophy of education.
My impression is that in many countries, the philosophy of education is centered around the development of technical skills.  In the United States, however, it is often held that the primary purpose of education is to develop a creative and insightful mind.
This philosophy is reflected in the "breadth" or "common core" requirements that appear at many universities, which assume that a student cannot be considered "well educated" unless they have been taught to think in ways other than is preferred by by their discipline.  For example, as an undergraduate at MIT, I was required to take classes from a range of scientific disciplines (math, biology, physics, chemistry), and also a humanities course in every semester, as well as doing a humanities focus entirely unrelated to my major.
This notion that intellectual "breadth" is as important as intellectual "depth" seems to play a strong role in the way in which admissions are handled for US undergraduates.  Whether it is truly a good or bad thing is something there is currently no clear answer to, but some have argued that this philosophy may be an important contributor to the highly successful US "startup" and small business culture.

My impression is that in many European countries, these broader subjects are just covered in the equivalent of high school instead.

@TobiasKildetoft In the US, they are also covered in high school.  University courses, however, tend to go much deeper and expect much higher performance out of students than high school courses in the humanities, just as they do for technical courses.

I suppose it depends on the specific course and the country. As far as I can tell at least the language courses tend to be very introductory (and those math courses that seem to be commonly taken by non majors certainly cover less than what I learned in high school).

In the US, it all comes down to decentralized control and funding.

Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United
  States.
[source]

This is actually a consequence of the US constitution which limits the reach of the Federal government in States affairs. Even in the few instances where some Federal funds are allocated to education, the Federal government will usually disburse those funds and leave the implementation details to the States themselves.

It is States and communities, as well as public and private
  organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges,
  develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and
  graduation. The structure of education finance in America reflects
  this predominant State and local role.
[source]

In other words, there is not one single academic standard that runs across the entire United States and there is not a single standard way to measure the abilities of students. One could say that the SAT and the ACT are such standards, but those are not government-sponsored, nor government-mandated, they're just private and proprietary products owned and licensed by the companies that developed them, and those tests are just partial bandaid solutions that have evolved over time as a direct result of not having standards in the first place.
In any case, even if academic abilities could be measured accurately, there is still the issue of which entities and special interests are funding the University. If it's a particular State, it wants the children of its electorates (this is usually written in their charter). If it's private donors, then it means they want their children and the children of their friends to be accepted (that's also written in their charter, but instead of using the word "nepotism", the euphemism "legacy" is used instead). If it's the military (through the ROTC, or the GI Bill), it wants its recruits and its veterans and/or their dependents to be accepted by the schools it funds (keep this in mind if you ever want to become a Medical Doctor and don't have the best absolute grades for it).
If a University was started by funds from a particular religion, or if it is supported by local politicians, or by local private interests, that are predominantly one religion, then it will tend to favor members from that particular religion. The same goes for Universities that practice racial discrimination (whether be it the negative kind of discrimination and preferential nepotism, or affirmative action which is supposed to correct past discrimination and past nepotism).
And if a University depends on the funds from college sports, either franchising, rebroadcasting rights, increased publicity, and/or increased donations from Alumni, then it will do its very best to recruit athletes for its sports teams through its admission process.
In the US, professional sports leagues are government-backed monopolies (exempt from anti-trust regulations). Those sports leagues artificially limit the number of teams they allow to very low numbers (at least compared to our population size). And semi-professional college leagues end up filling the gaps left by professional leagues, except that schools are legally required not to pay their athletes (except for tuition and expense reimbursements), thus creating a real bargain for each school.
Also on the athletic side of things, even if you're not good enough to play on a college league for a University, having attended school both in France and in the US, I'll disagree with you and say that athleticism probably has a bigger role in France than in the US. The French school system has a standardized and a rigorous way of testing high school students for general physical education, which will figure as a part of their Baccalauréat and therefore indirectly be a part of the overall criteria used for University admissions. But physical education in the US is largely dependent on the particular high school you attended. In California, where I attended, it was basically a joke (and thus can not be relied on for University admissions, unless you took sports as extracurricular activities, thus this would explain why they would want you to list those extracurricular sports on college applications).

Extra curricular activities indicate levels of involvement and discipline that grades alone don't always reflect.  If two students have equivalent grades and equivalent coursework, it's more impressive if one student was able to do that while participating in a sport, a music group, and volunteering while the other student did not have these additional time constraints.  A university would likely see a student with strong extracurricular involvement as one who would be more likely to be involved in activities in college, which can benefit the school by improving its image ("look at our students giving back to the community") or through research (the "do it all" types may be more likely to participate in undergrad research).  Colleges like well-rounded students, and having extracurricular involvement shows well-roundedness.
Legacy students...that's an entirely different matter in my opinion.  That may be more to appease the alumni parents who might donate.  Also, if the parents are alums, the kid may be more likely to matriculate (because colleges want a high matriculation rate among accepted students) and be successful (if the parents were able to graduate, the kid probably would as well).

I always assumed parents would complain that their precious child was not being measured accurately if admissions criteria did not include ridiculous things like hiking in the Himalayas.
But there’s also not really any choice. As a current college student in a fairly elite college with fairly elite stats, I of all people know that high-school GPAs and the SAT are meaningless for college success. A lot of high schools, like inner city or rural schools, produce kids with high GPAs and the inability to do basic math. The SAT is something you can study maybe three weeks for and get a full score on. The most impressive thing I can see on a resume is doing well in Math Olympiad or high-school programming/robotics contests. That is not something available to everyone.
In the end, colleges need to separate kids somehow, and the basic criteria, like GPA and standardized test scores are just not adequate. So they turn to feel-good things like trips to Nepal. It’s almost not the college’s fault... except they could imitate the Asian system and administer their own personal examinations for entrance. That would make a lot more sense, but you would have to refer to my first comment about over-sensitive parents and college administrators as for why that would not work.

i would be way more impressed by someone substantially contributing to an open source software project before graduating high school then doing well in a programming/robotics contest. Another example is that   I personally knew a fellow classmate when I was in high school that was actively involved in fighting for the rights of diabetics including health care rights on a fairly high level which was impressive. These are only some examples of extra curricular activities that might hold weight other then the aforementioned hiking in the Himalayas (which is completely irrelevant).

As Najib Idrissi pointed out, nonacademic criteria play a large role in the admissions process in the US, because it is a way for universities to discriminate students while keeping plausible deniability. It is a common misconception, however, that it's mostly rich White men who benefit from this:

Perhaps the most detailed statistical research into the actual
  admissions practices of American universities has been conducted by
  Princeton sociology professor Thomas J. Espenshade and his colleagues,
  whose results were summarized in his 2009 book No Longer Separate, Not
  Yet Equal, co-authored with Alexandria Walton Radford. Their findings
  provide an empirical look at the individual factors that dramatically
  raise or lower the likelihood of acceptance into the leading American
  universities which select the next generation of our national elites.
The research certainly supports the widespread perception that
  non-academic factors play a major role in the process, including
  athletic ability and “legacy” status. But as we saw earlier, even more
  significant are racial factors, with black ancestry being worth the
  equivalent of 310 points, Hispanics gaining 130 points, and Asian
  students being penalized by 140 points, all relative to white
  applicants on the 1600 point Math and Reading SAT scale.
source

Here's how it typically works:

Consider the case of Tiffany Wang, a Chinese immigrant student raised
  in the Silicon Valley area, where her father worked as an engineer.
  Although English was not her first language, her SAT scores were over
  100 points above the Wesleyan average, and she ranked as a National
  Merit Scholarship semifinalist, putting her in the top 0.5 percent of
  high school students (not the top 2 percent as Steinberg mistakenly
  claims). Nevertheless, the admissions officer rated her just so-so in
  academics, and seemed far more positively impressed by her ethnic
  activism in the local school’s Asian-American club. Ultimately, he
  stamped her with a “Reject,” but later admitted to Steinberg that she
  might have been admitted if he had been aware of the enormous time and
  effort she had spent campaigning against the death penalty, a
  political cause near and dear to his own heart. Somehow I suspect that
  a student who boasted of leadership in pro-death penalty activism
  among his extracurriculars might have fared rather worse in this
  process. And presumably for similar reasons, Tiffany was also rejected
  by all her other prestigious college choices, including Yale, Penn,
  Duke, and Wellesley, an outcome which greatly surprised and
  disappointed her immigrant father.
There was also the case of half-Brazilian Julianna Bentes, with slight
  black ancestry, who came from a middle-class family and attended on a
  partial scholarship one of America’s most elite prep schools, whose
  annual tuition now tops $30,000; her SAT scores were somewhat higher
  than Tiffany’s, and she was an excellent dancer. The combination of
  her academic ability, dancing talent, and “multiracial” background
  ranked her as one of America’s top college recruitment prospects,
  gaining her admission and generous financial packages from Harvard,
  Yale, Stanford and every other elite university to which she applied,
  including the University of Chicago’s most prestigious academic
  scholarship award and a personal opportunity to meet Chelsea Clinton
  while visiting Stanford, which she did, before ultimately selecting
  Yale.
Finally, there was the case of Becca Jannol, a girl from a very
  affluent Jewish family near Beverly Hills, who attended the same elite
  prep school as Julianna, but with her parents paying the full annual
  tuition. Despite her every possible advantage, including test-prep
  courses and retaking the exam, her SAT scores were some 240 points
  lower on the 1600 point scale, placing her toward the bottom of the
  Wesleyan range, while her application essay focused on the
  philosophical challenges she encountered when she was suspended for
  illegal drug use. But she was a great favorite of her prep school
  counselor, who was an old college friend of the Wesleyan admissions
  officer, and using his discretion, he stamped her “Admit.” Her dismal
  academic record then caused this initial decision to be overturned by
  a unanimous vote of the other members of the full admissions
  committee, but he refused to give up, and moved heaven and earth to
  gain her a spot, even offering to rescind the admissions of one or
  more already selected applicants to create a place for her. Eventually
  he got her shifted from the Reject category to wait-list status, after
  which he secretly moved her folder to the very top of the large
  waiting list pile.
In the end “connections” triumphed, and she received admission to
  Wesleyan, although she turned it down in favor of an offer from more
  prestigious Cornell, which she had obtained through similar means. But
  at Cornell, she found herself “miserable,” hating the classes and
  saying she “didn’t see the usefulness of [her] being there.” However,
  her poor academic ability proved no hindrance, since the same
  administrator who had arranged her admission also wrangled her a quick
  entrance into a special “honors program” he personally ran, containing
  just 40 of the 3500 students in her year. This exempted her from all
  academic graduation requirements, apparently including classes or
  tests, thereby allowing her to spend her four college years mostly
  traveling around the world while working on a so-called “special
  project.” After graduation, she eventually took a job at her father’s
  successful law firm, thereby realizing her obvious potential as a
  member of America’s ruling Ivy League elite, or in her own words, as
  being one of “the best of the best.”
source

Whether or not one agrees with the stance/opinion of this answer, it should be edited down and not just a copy-paste of a large chunk of text. It also doesn't seem to address the question "why does X happen", it merely quotes at length some sources saying "X has led to Consequence Y which we think is very bad"

@YemonChoi : I DID respond to the question "Why do undergraduate admissions in the U.S take into account nonacademic criteria?", explaining that it is a way for universities to discriminate students while keeping plausible deniability. And I quoted from a source that addresses this issue in great detail to refute one of the most common misconceptions about who is discriminated and why!


text:
How should I write an email asking about the status of my PhD application?
I applied for a PhD position. As part of the admission process, the professor requested two letters of recommendation, which have been sent. I was then asked to wait a week, but now two weeks have passed and I have not heard from the professor yet. So, I would like to ask about the status of my PhD application. I have no clue how to write it. Please help!!!
Thank you in advance.

Welcome to Academia SE. It would help if you expanded your question with additional details, as it is, it is very vague and hard to answer.

Thank you very much. The question is edited accordingly.

Thanks for editing, this is much clearer now and I retracted my previous comment.

You applied directly to a professor? This is most unusual, normally you apply to a department or a university.

@RoboKaren: This may be most unusual in some countries, but it isn’t in mine.

I wouldn't make too much fuss about it. A simple short and polite email which states that the current state of affairs (letters were sent, you were asked to wait for a week) and inquires whether there were some problems with your application and what its status is.
On the side note, a week waiting is not at all alarming in academia, unless some explicit deadlines are in place. I would wait for at least another 10 days before contacting the professor.
I also agree with RoboKaren, it is highly unusual to apply to a professor. Therefore, another cultural/professional practices may apply in your case. However, a polite email is almost always acceptable (whether or not it is ignored is another question...).

It really depends on OP's location. In Europe it would not be "highly unusual" to apply directly to a professor, it is actually pretty normal.

I'm from Europe and the only instances where I heard of such practice is when you transition from undergraduate to graduate within the same institution. In those cases the process is usually somewhat informal, although the future graduate student still has to go through the admission process. "Outsiders" first pass the admission and afterwards go to a professor for supervision. Prior communication with the desired mentor is not unusual, and the professor can convey their impression of you to the committee, but you still need to address your documents to the official admissions.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How do I navigate a tenure track job offer, having already accepted a 1-year postdoc offer?
if I already accepted a postdoc offer from Europe (only 1 year) and later received a tenure-track assistant professor offer from a research university in US,
I do not want to lose both opportunities, are there any good suggestions to handle these offers, how to write a letter to the professors/chairs?

Is there any reason why you can't quit the postdoc? It'll be inconvenient for them, but they'll sure understand.

would the university be willing to delay your start date? When are the relevant start dates?

What is your goal here? To tell the post-doc you changed your mind so you can start the faculty position? Or to do both?

I tell you what, if the postdoc that I accepted to my lab told me she landed a tenure-track job here in the US, I'd be excited for her and wish her good luck if she needed to back out.

A general observation to supplement the answers below: tenure-track hiring is a long-term endeavor.  A department offering you a TT position hopes that you will be there for the rest of your career.  Waiting one extra year to get someone you hope to employ for decades is not such a big deal.  (Although as Aru points out, the department may face other constraints.)

Many universities would be willing to defer your start date by 1 year. A 1 year postdoc, with eg few teaching responsibilities and not worrying about finding your next job, can be extremely fruitful! So in that sense it also benefits your future university. It’s very reasonable and usual to ask for such a deferral.
EDIT: Regarding how to broach the topic with the TT/postdoc places, personally I would suggest to be up front and honest. Your mileage might vary depending on the university/institute. You said that the TT offer is from a research university. For any university or liberal arts college in the US where your TT job will have a substantial research component, this request should not surprise them. When you negotiate the terms of the TT offer, write something like the following:

Earlier this year I accepted a 1-year postdoc position at
[[INSTITUTE]]. This would be a valuable opportunity to get my research
up and running before starting a permanent position. Would it be
possible to defer starting at [[UNIVERSITY]] for one year?

If you are nervous, you could consider being a bit more vague in the first part, for example by saying "I have the opportunity to go to [[INSTITUTE]] for up to one year", rather than saying you accepted an offer.
There may well be reasons that they cannot grant you a deferral, or maybe they can only defer for part of a year, but it's a reasonable to thing to ask for. It's worth remembering that once you have a TT offer, the ball is in your court, and it would be virtually unheard of for them to retract the offer.
If the TT offer is for a position with little or no research expectation, they are less likely to grant a deferral. But it might still be worth asking for one.
If they agree to defer, they will create a new offer with a new, agreed start date, and the procedure to accept will be the same one as now.
For the postdoc offer, again your mileage may vary depending on the location and your responsibilities. At my current (pure mathematics) institute there are numerous postdocs with zero teaching or administrative responsibilities, so if someone accepts an offer and then later changes their mind, that does not make a huge difference for us (yes this does periodically happen). This just opens up another spot for us to fill in a future application round, or off the waiting list. If your postdoc comes with teaching responsibilities, or you are supposed to be doing something specific in e.g. someone's lab, it will be harder for them to find a replacement. If you know someone at the postdoc institution, e.g. a postdoc mentor, it would be best to ask them directly for advice. If you were made an offer from someone's personal grant, backing out of an offer, while possible, is a delicate procedure and should be undertaken diplomatically.
Source: I work at a research institute in Europe where numerous people spend such 1-year postdocs (I am extremely curious if that is where your postdoc will be!)

This is a good answer, but you might want to add a bit about how to communicate with the various places as well.

i agree! Working in Europe even for 1 year will benefit my career. So how to write a letter to defer the offer from US? should we sign an agreement with the US school?

I added some text about how to contact the two places, I hope this helps!

Yes, I agree with this completely, in the USA.

thank you so much!

I've run faculty searches in STEM at a top-5 University in the US. It is extremely common for us to hire someone in a tenure track (TT) position and then recommend that they do a one or two-year post-doc before coming to our department.
As somebody else stated, this usually benefits the department as well, because you learn something new, and they clearly think very highly of you already, which is why they gave you the TT offer in the first place. So just ask the department if it's okay.

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


text:
Undergraduate European Computer Science Schools and their application process?
I'm a U.S. sophomore (junior in the fall) studying Computer Science looking to transfer. I have three questions:

What schools in Europe should I look into for Computer Science? To clarify what I'm looking for out of this question, I'm not asking for schools tailored to what I'm seeking (ie, will this school be good specifically for me), but rather the shared consensus of which schools are considered respectable for Computer Science. For example, even in the states I think everyone would say Oxford and Cambridge are well respected, but beyond that most (including myself) are not aware of other schools not in the U.S.
What is the timeframe for applying to these schools? In the U.S. most schools allow you to transfer into the spring or fall semesters, with the application being due approximately 6 months in advance (for example, due in March for fall semester that starts in September) and the application process starting 9 months in advance.
Ballpark, how much does it cost for international students to study at these schools? I've heard that University tuition is much lower in Europe. I have tried transferring to schools in the U.S., but for both schools I got accepted into the financial strain of ~30k in loans per year made it impossible to transfer. I don't want to waste my time applying to schools across seas if the same will happen.

I suppose you're looking for advice related to undergraduate courses in Europe? In that case, perhaps you might want to re-frame the question title to reflect that...

You are correct. The title has been revised, thanks.

That's three questions in one - please just ask one question at a time. And please be aware that, in general, this site doesn't take questions about undergraduate study - see the FAQ: http://academia.stackexchange.com/faq

Independent of the issue about undergrad scope, I think the first question might be better posed on cs.stackexchange.com since it's very CS specific.

I grouped the three questions together because if someone knows the answer to one of these questions, they'll most likely know the answer to all three (based on the perspective of a European asking me the same questions about U.S. schools). If I must split these questions, should I farm this into three questions asked concurrently or serially? And if it is believe to better ask the first question on the CS board, I will happily move it.

I think these three questions make more sense together than apart.

One thing you need to be aware of is that most undergraduate courses are taught in the native language of the country. It is only (and not always) at the masters level that English kicks in. There are of course exceptions.

maybe you could ask this question on this site proposal: undergraduates. Follow it if you find it interesting!

As there are many different countries in Europe, each with many different Universities, and each probably has its own application procedures and costs. You will need to consult each candidate university's website to find the appropriate information.
As an example, I googled "International Admission University College London" and clicked around to this page. It estimates 11-14,000 pounds living costs (food, accommodation etc) per annum and, clicking further, 24,500 pounds of tuition fees (I guess, per annum). London is expensive to live in.
There's plenty of information on the web. Universities are competing for students, and are happy to take your money, so they provide good web sites to make it easy for you.
Regarding timing, I think it's good to start looking into it now. On one website (ETH, I think), they said admissions closed at the end of April, but late admissions will close at the end of July. Time is tight.
You need a strategy to get this done relatively quickly.

Do a bit of googling about universities and countries.
Select a few candidate places and find their web pages about international admission procedures and fees. Also check whether they have a program in English.
Perhaps make a few phone calls, though with the time difference this will be difficult.
Narrow down the set of candidate universities to relevant ones that fit your budget and are in sufficiently interesting places.
Apply!

Don't forget that you will need to obtain a visa, and that can take months (especially if you were to come from a dodgy country).

If you believe in university rankings here is the one from QS. According to it, the following nine European universities belong to the world top 50 in Computer Science: Cambridge (UK), Oxford (UK), ETH Zurich (CH), Imperial College London (UK), Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH), École Normale Supérieure, Paris (FR), University of Basel (CH), University of Amsterdam (NL), London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) (UK). Basically, I would say that all universities in the world top 200 list are good.
Moreover, depending on what are in Computer Science you prefer, it might be a good decision a university outside of this top 50/200 if they are specialised in the area you like.

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


text:
"Due to many requests, the submission deadline has been extended" is this real?
following different CS conferences I see the following phrase very often:

Due to many requests, the submission deadline has been extended.

Or something similar to this.
I won't overestimate if I said 80% of the conferences (I have followed) have this attitude. This brings me to the question of whether this is true or people (conference organisers) admit a lie when say this. Why does this attitude exit in CS conferences? Do other fields experience the same thing?

Even if this were a lie, why does this bother you?

Because it's unprofessional to lie.  If the organizers always intended to use the later deadline, then it's manipulative to announce an earlier date.  If it's an unplanned extension because the organizers are disappointed in the number of submissions, then it's misleading to suggest that the extension is because of great demand.

maybe to learn how CS conferences are organized ..

In order for the extension to happen, you'll need more than half of the organizing committee to approve, right? That should constitute "many."

The last conference I submitted to sent out an e-mail five days before the deadline: Warning: the deadline will not be extended!.  It seems very common for deadlines to be extended, at least in the geosciences.

Warning: personal opinion.
I view conferences that regularly shift submission deadlines as a little suspect. You're right that this happens in CS conferences, and it soon becomes pointless because everyone expects the extension ("Nobody expects the extension!!"). But your estimate of 80% is rather off. Almost none of the (many) conferences I submit to have deadline extensions for submission of the full paper.
And don't underestimate the level of pleading that goes on. People will always ask for an extension if they have even a smidgen of hope that the pleading will work. It's only when a conference takes a firm stand for many years that people stop asking.

In my fields (Software Engineering, Web Engineering) 80% seems about right. Basically none of the A conferences move their deadline, and basically all of the B-or-Weaker conferences and workshops extend.

More importantly, and pertinent to the OP's concerns, do deadline extensions in any way undermine the reputation/quality/prestige/integrity of the conference itself, regardless of the reason?

@Paul that's hard to say. It does for me personally, and also for people I speak with, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a widespread feeling.

@xLeitix then I'd say the OP needs to look at better venues :)

@Paul Arguably, yes. Deadline extensions because there weren't enough submissions are obviously bad. Deadline extensions because of many requests mean that many papers were rushed and written at the last minute, so are more likely to contain more errors.

@DavidRicherby: I guess it all depends on the lens with which one looks at it.

Extensions are common in conferences because many people procrastinate and or otherwise just need a little more time to complete their paper, prompting a heavy demand for extensions.  Unless the conference is overwhelmed by submissions (which is very rarely the case), there's usually room for a little bit of flexibility in the submission deadline.
It's not a lie... Organizers tend to anticipate it based on past experiences in previous conferences.

It may not be a lie - there may be indeed  many requests for extension. It's unfair to those who submit their papers before the first deadline.

I agree with @scaaahu. I consider late submissions unprofessional and often such submissions still have rough edges due to being rushed. I can only hope timely submissions get the benefit of the doubt over late ones when applicable. Ofcourse this depends entirely on the people handling the CfP.

I fear that because it is so prevelant, and everybody expects deadlines to be extended, conferences may feel that if they announce the true deadline (after which they will be too rushed for the rest of the process), they will not get enough submissions by then...

This is a chicken-and-egg issue though. People "expect" it because it's already happened before, and "it's been done before" because allegedly people "expect" it. The easiest way out of this cycle is to  not do and make it clear that you won't do it.

The people who do submit their papers before the first deadline usually withdraw their paper to work on it more and resubmit, or they just enjoy their week off while everyone else scrambles.

This is outside CS, but in my field, I've only had three conferences extend submissions, and they were all for low numbers of submissions.

One I know because the day a office mate and I submitted (the last official deadline day) we were abstracts 001 and 002, and we were not early morning people. This one, ironically, is probably the closest to your experience, and arguably was a CS conference, even though I'm not in CS.
One has a chronic problem with this, because the session they're recruiting for (its a big enough conference that there are multiple sessions each with their own abstract committees) is a lot of work without much payoff.
One was because the sequester made travel by federal employees in the U.S. impossible, which meant a quarter of the abstracts were suddenly gone. So the "late breaker" deadline got moved way back.

So in my experience its fairly uncommon, and either symptomatic of a larger problem with submissions, or some unforeseen circumstance.


text:
A manuscript I refereed gave me an idea for a paper, not sure how to proceed
So, last week I refereed a paper for a journal. The paper in question is a reply to a previous paper by a different author: it points out a serious problem in the original paper and then proposes a solution. The evaluation I sent back to the editors is that, while the problem is real (to the extent that a different researcher has independently identified it), there are a number of reasons why the proposed solution is not going to work.
Over the weekend, I started thinking about the paper in question again and suddenly realized that I know how to solve the problem (in a nutshell: you need to use a technique originally developed to solve a mildly related class of problems, but which nobody had yet thought of applying to this particular domain). Right now, I have a bunch of handwritten notebook pages with everything I need to write a paper, and all I have left to do is to find a couple of hours to sit in front of my computer and type it up properly.
The question is, how should I proceed now? On the one hand, given that I've developed my own solution, I'm not plagiarizing the paper I refereed (in fact, I intend to give it proper credit for discovering the problem). On the other hand, if I hadn't been asked to referee this paper, I wouldn't have put enough thought into it to come up with my own solution. More generally, to what extent is it acceptable to write a paper that directly builds on a paper you've been asked to referee?

Is there a preprint of the paper available, or any other way how you could have learnt about their work beside being a referee?

I'm not sure why you think this is a special case? Had you read the paper in pre-print and come up with the same idea would you have a problem then? I'm not sure where you think the issue lies?

The issue lies in the idea that you can't cite to a non-public source. If there were a pre-print on the web, you can cite to that as the source of your inspiration even if the pre-print turned out to be wrong. On the other hand, you have a duty of confidence in an article you receive for review. It doesn't really exist outside the review process.

@JackAidley: There is also the ethical concern that the OP gave what amounts to a negative evaluation of the paper (a measured one, but the way these things work one presumes the journal will not publish it), but at the same time the paper has turned out to be -- somewhat indirectly -- of real value to him.  I think his instinct of inquiring how to behave honorably here is a good one.

To be sure: in related situations, I've wondered whether there's a conflict of interest pushing the author to reject the paper to publish his one.

I think there are two questions that need to be answered first.

Is it important to you (e.g. for career reasons) to publish solo, or would you consider publishing with the other author?  Keep in mind that publishing jointly may have extra benefits: the two of you together might come up with an even better solution, or it may lead to future collaborations on other projects.  Or do you perhaps not care about getting credit at all?
Is the manuscript public?  Has it been posted as a preprint on arXiv or a similar server, or on the author's website, etc?

Depending on the answers, there are a few cases:

You don't care about getting credit. Write your report on the paper: "The approach to agrobaric frobotzim via PDQ analysis is unworkable because of foo, bar and baz.  However, this could be fixed by using QPM analysis instead.  [Sketch your idea here.]  Pending this fix [and any other suggested revisions], I recommend the paper for publication."  Expect that when the paper is published, there will be an acknowledgement: "We thank the anonymous referee for suggesting the approach used in Section 5."
You want to publish jointly. Contact the editor: "The author's approach to agrobaric frobotzim via PDQ analysis is unworkable, and as such I cannot recommend the paper for publication as it stands.  However, I have some ideas about how to resolve the problem, and I would be interested in collaborating with the author to work them out.  Would you be willing to put me in touch with her?"

The editor says yes. Great!
The editor says no, and the manuscript is public. Submit your report pointing out the flaws and recommending rejection.  After a decent interval contact the author: "I saw your preprint, and had an idea to improve the results using QPM analysis.  Would you be interested in working together on this?"  Opinions vary on whether you should reveal that you were the referee; it is possible the author will guess anyway.
The editor says no, and the manuscript is not public, but you know who the author is. Submit your report pointing out the flaws and recommending rejection.  The next step is a bit controversial.  Some would say you should wait until it is public, so as not to break the anonymity of the reviewing process.  Others think it is fine to reveal yourself and contact the author directly to suggest collaboration.  I am not sure what to say here.
The editor says no, and the manuscript is not public, and you do not know who the author is (double-blind reviewing). You have no choice but to wait until the manuscript is made public (maybe until it is published somewhere else), since that's the only way to find the author and suggest collaboration.  If you think you should give up on finding the author and publish solo instead, see below.

You want to publish solo.  Write and submit your report.  Now, is the manuscript public?

The manuscript is public. You may write your paper, citing the other author's preprint and giving her due credit for noticing the problem.  This is ethical, but if you meet the author at a conference, don't expect her to buy you a beer: she was hoping to solve this problem but you beat her to it.
The manuscript is not public. You may not proceed.  As a reviewer, you received the manuscript in confidence, and to write a solo paper based on it would be to take unfair advantage of that access.  You must wait until the preprint appears publicly.  (This might be when it is published in another journal, or maybe never.)  It's possible that in the meantime, the author will discover your solution independently; those are the breaks.  This would be a great time to reconsider seeking joint authorship.

In case 2, if your field has a notion of "first authorship", that would be something you'd need to negotiate with the other author, based on your field's norms.  (Mine uses alphabetical ordering almost exclusively, so this issue wouldn't arise.)

I think the morals of this also depend somewhat on seniority.  If the referee is more senior than the author, then 1 is definitely the right thing to do, and 3.1 would be pretty unethical.

@NoahSnyder Why does seniority play into this? If the OP is a post doc or assistant prof and the original author is a PhD student, the ethical choice is to gift the younger author with a central idea for a paper? I'm not convinced. All in all, I think all of the above are ok from the point of view of research ethics. However, 3.1 may indeed not make you any friends. I would try to make 2.X work.

Btw., super-good summary of a complex issue! +1

@xLeitix: It's pretty common in pure math for competing with a grad student to be viewed as unethical.  There's an expectation that grad students will work on independent projects, and pressuring them to collaborate or coauthor could hurt their careers (by making it look like they weren't capable of independent work).  As for giving them an idea, they should certainly credit it to the referee.  But turning the idea into a paper is usually a far more substantial project than just coming up with the idea, unless it's an amazing idea or a mediocre paper, so this may not be an unreasonable gift.

@AnonymousMathematician Interesting! How do you decide whether you are competing with a PhD student? For all you know, for every problem you are working on, there might be a grad student somewhere just one step before a solution.

@xLeitix: Yeah, accidents certainly happen.  Mainly the expectation is that if you know a graduate student is working on something, then starting to work on it yourself would be unethical (while it would be perhaps rude but ethical if you were competing with someone more senior).  There are certainly limitations to this: if a grad student announces their intention to solve the Riemann hypothesis, that's not taken seriously.  One way this works in practice is that the advisor will go around telling experts "My student Alice is trying to do X." (to try to keep accidents from happening).

@Nate Eldredge: thanks for the very useful reply. I'm going to go with option 2.3, which is pretty much the case. I don't like option 1 because it's one thing to hint at a certain way of doing things and a very different thing to write a whole paper for another person and then have only his name appear on it. We are both about the same level of seniority and he's one of the people I want to have my name associated with. So, joint publication it is.

@Koldito: I'd be careful about 2.3.  If the editor refuses to put you in touch with the referee, then the editor may feel this is unethical (in which going ahead and doing it anyway could be a problem).  2.1 and 2.2 are much less ethically fraught.

My advisor told me a problem that I solved and turned into part of a dissertation.  (At the same time, another researcher came up with an independent solution, but that is not the point.)  The problem was obviously inspired by a paper he was reviewing, and the authors of that paper later welcomed my solution.  No discussion of who the referee was ever reached my ears.  I suspect they didn't care.  If someone did care, in court your lawyer could ask you to "plead the fifth" and tell the jury that you learned it from the actual referee, whose identity you are protecting for other reasons.

Co author.... all the way.
But don't ask if he wants to coauthor after you've completed the paper 100% because then you're not really asking, your telling him. Which is generous true... but in a sort of superior way.

This is a good point.  As an author, I'd be much happier to be asked "Would you like to work with me on the following idea?  I've got some promising preliminary results, so perhaps we could write a joint paper." than told "I decided to work on the problem myself and have finished writing a better paper.  Shall I add your name to it too?"

You really do have three options: 1) don't write a paper (ok, not an option), 2) write it by yourself (I don't think a great option), or 3) write it with the other person as a co-author.  It depends a little on how your field assigns authorship.
Here is what I think I would suggest.  Write the paper and when it is basically complete, email the author of the paper you reviewed and let them know you came up with a solution and have written a paper on it.  Offer them an authorship on your paper and then send them your paper with a timeline of when to get back to you.
This way you are not burning bridges and you are collegial. Then they can decide if they want to be on the paper or not.
It is a tough position to be in but given their paper got you thinking it is probably best to ask if they would like to be an author.
BTW, if you are a student, discuss with your supervisor. :-)

You wouldn't offer them authorship if their paper was published and you built on it; why should you just because their paper isn't published?

Because you reviewed their paper and shot it down. :-)

That has nothing to do with authorship

It depends a lot on the situation, but if you rejected a paper and then published on the same topic it could be viewed as non-collegial. In my field, at least, first and last authors are the most important. The one writing the paper will get first author (in my field) and offering a middle authorship doesn't cost anything but could be beneficial.  It does depend on how authorship in the OP's field is assigned.

Why not do the whole thing together? Email telling them you know how to solve the problem, and propose to work it out together.

It depends on how authorship goes in the OP's field and how collegial the original author might be.  If the OP has already figured out the solution, then, my feeling is that the OP should write up most of the paper and then contact the original author.  If the OP only has "an idea how toward the solution" but not the solution, then, sure, maybe contact the original author and discuss how they could solve it.  But it sounds like the OP has the solution. It is a balance, no question there.

@Steve To play a bit Devil's advocate: Isn't this all independent of whether Koldito was a reviewer or not? If the work done in identifying the problem is worth a paper (I can think of quite a few problems where this was the case) it ought to be published. If Koldito would offer co-authorship to someone after reading that published paper, he ought to do even if it isn't. Also how would co-authorship work here? It seems to boil down to "Hey I read your paper and decided to work on the problem myself and actually solved it. Shall I add your name to the finished paper?".

@Steve I assume the paper would focus more on the actual solution, since there's already another paper out there showing that the original paper is flawed. Summarizing this would certainly require a citation and citing unpublished work is always complicated, but is this really co-authorship? To be completely hyperbolic here (it's 4am, if this counts as an excuse :-)): Wiles certainly read some accounts of Fermat's last theorem from which he got the idea to work on the problem, but giving him the idea wouldn't really qualify for co-authorship - he probably cited the source though.

@Steve That's how I interpreted "while the problem is real (to the extent that a different researcher has independently identified it)". Certainly if a large part of the paper was proving this assumption I would agree that that would change the matter at hand.

@Voo: ah, my mistake then. I interpreted "points out" to mean that doing so was original, I didn't really clock that the independent confirmation was already published before this author came along...


text:
Appropriate response to misattributed title?
There are many questions here on how to address someone by their title or current status.
What should one do in the case they are addressed by a title they do not have?
Some example of this:
A student submitting a paper and the editor emailing using the Professor/Dr. title.
A PhD in a research lab (not university) being invited for a talk and a letter stating "Dear Professor..."
A researcher (non PhD) being referred to as Dr.
If this is too broad, the question can be edited to just one situation.
In this type of case, should one reply and directly address the title?

I reply and correct (I had people address me as "Professor Grinberg" even back when I was in high school -- I suspect someone taught them it is better to be safe than sorry, and they are doing it to everyone). If you ask me, the very idea of addressing people by title belongs in a museum.

@darijgrinberg "This belongs into a museum!" (cue Indiana Jones theme song)

@darijgrinberg: Good luck with that, especially in Germany. . . .

Closed as a duplicate of a question that was posted 10 months later?

@user1938107 Yes, this happens sometimes: when a high-quality question and answer set emerges that people do not realize is a duplicate at the time, then people may choose to close the earlier answer if they judge it lower quality than the later.

The standard answer to such issues is to ignore. By and large, these situations arise because the editor etc. did not care to look up the recipient's real title. There is no malicious intent, actually there is likely no intent at all other than trying to use a catch-all title that the editor assumes will not offend anybody (typically Dr. or Prof.). No harm is done by not rectifying this error, and indeed spending more than a short chuckle on this is too much effort.
(also, being addressed by the wrong title is, at least for me, so common that I mostly stopped noticing it)

I am not sure about "no harm is done" -- the author might view your silence as a confirmation that you, in fact, hold that title, and then the title will wind up in the press or on the internet, often in a context that will create the impression that you have agreed to its use. (Back when I was the only schoolkid in my town taking part in math contests, I had a fair share of press about me, and I learnt a lot about not leaving things to be misunderstood...)

@darijgrinberg: It needs to be corrected if it's a "persistent" issue.

I'd go with calmly correcting them at the next easy opportunity to do so without causing them too much public embarassment, just as you would if they got your name slightly wrong. Drop them an e-mail, or bring it up next time you're talking with them: "For future reference, I prefer to be called Mr. Blanc, not Doctor Blanc." (With or without explanation of why the other form is incorrect.)

When I was a graduate student, I was often called "Doctor", and now as a working research scientist I am often called "Professor."  I also frequently have people misattribute my affiliation, e.g., saying that I'm at my alma mater rather than my current affiliation.
How I respond depends on the context.  My main categories are:

Interactions with an organization that doesn't care about me (e.g., review request from a journal, conference spam): I don't bother to correct: they aren't making a judgement based on the title, and they may not actually have a reasonable ability to correct it if they do, given that many journal and conference management systems use atrocious software.
Interactions with an organization that really does care about credentials (e.g., serving on government review panels): Here, I note the misattribution and check to make sure that my actual credentials satisfy the requirements of the organization, because otherwise I might be wasting everybody's time and money.
Interactions with colleagues and long-term interactions with students (e.g., co-advising): Gentle correction when I feel the misattribution could be perceived as giving me status that I do not have.
Brief, role-based interactions with students (e.g., questions at a guest lecture in somebody's class): I feel it would be actually rude to correct a student who really doesn't care about the title at all, and just wants some help understanding something.

Mostly, I take the stereotypical American position that we shouldn't care too much about title and affiliation, because we are all ultimately judged by our works, and most of the time nobody involved in the interaction really cares all that much about your title. In those cases where getting it right might actually matter, though, don't be shy about inquiring and correcting as needed.

Point #4: As a student, I do my best to use the correct title, but I often get it wrong with professors who I don't know well, especially at the start of of a new semester. That said, the majority of students just don't really care and default to 'professor', with the exception of introductions at seminars/presentations where the speaker has introduced themselves with a specific title.

There is going to be a large cultural bias depending on the country.
I have been addressed "Professor" even though the person speaking to me had "Dr" in front of his eyes, just because this was the tradition there.
In Italy you are a "doctor" when you get a MSc.
In Germany titles are very important, you do not want to make a mistake there.
In many other countries you address someone who graduated from medical studies as "doctor", however in Poland they do use "lek. med." as opposed to "dr med." -- the first one being the generic title for someone who graduated and is licensed, while the second clearly indicates that he or she has a PhD. You would still address that person as "doctor" in a conversation, but would refer to him or her as "lekarz" (the official name, where the abbreviation lek. comes from) when talking in 3rd person.
So it really depends on the place.
The only case where I would care is if this gets formalized (in a book, in proceedings, ...) or at the beginning of a long-term relationship.

Before I finally finished the doctorate, my syllabus said, "Call me Bob or Mr. Brown, whichever is more comfortable for you. but not 'doctor' or 'professor.'"  Other than that, I didn't worry about it with students.  Faculty all call each other by first names anyway, so it never came up in that context.  (Now the syllabus says, "Call me Bob or Dr. Brown, whichever is more comfortable for you.")
My professional correspondence (email and postal mail) includes both my degree and my academic rank, so anyone corresponding with me has the correct information whether they need it nor not.
Outside school, I corrected those with whom I expected a long acquaintance, such as a new dentist, by saying, "Please call me Bob."  If that didn't work, I added that I did not hold a doctorate.  For everyone else, I ignored it.
In my institution and many like it, "professor" is used as a courtesy title by students for faculty who do not hold the doctorate, and less as a title of academic rank.  How one reacts to "professor" will depend on local custom.  Whether to correct those who call you professor depends on how it's used where you are.  If one is a faculty member and "professor" is used as a courtesy, no correction is necessary.
I am reminded of a novel in which a character addressed as "doctor" says, "Oh, no!  Not 'doctor."  I'm only a humble F.R.C.S."

Yeah, addressing someone as "teacher" just feels wrong in college, somehow (or Mr./Mrs./Ms., if you're using their last name as well).


text:
How much can you trust a reference of a paper that is not available
It recently occurred to me that probably more often than it should happen, while reading someones paper, they see a reference to a different paper, and just use the reference without looking.  In my area, a common example is in referencing data, such as average human height, etc.
I came across this as I was looking for data on human dimensions from a somewhat smaller country that does not use English.  I found 9 papers that all referenced the same data sheet.  I then contacted the author of that data sheet and was informed that there is no online version (never has been), and the only print copy exists in that country.  The author herself does not have this book.  I'm guessing the only reason the other authors referenced the data was because the author of the referenced data wrote a paper that referenced her own data.
I am not interested in how to format these citations. I would like to know if it is appropriate to cite this information at all, or cite that someone else cited it.  I am curious as I am not sure about the accuracy of the information.  If I do cite someone else's citation (which i am 99% confident they never saw the data), it seems like I can just make something up myself.  Is there a way to express that maybe this data is accurate, but that I'm not sure, since it is the only available source about that data?  Or should I ignore it all together and pretend as if there is no data?

I agree with ff524's answer, but I want to add that I think this is a really terrible situation. Just yesterday I found a study with over 400 citations which, once I obtained a copy, was extremely sloppy/borderline fraudulent.

Interesting related paper on arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.2272 From the abstract: "We develop a stochastic model of the citation process, which [...] shows that about 70-90% of scientific citations
are copied from the lists of references used in other papers." (People who copy the reference line may still obtain and read the cited paper, but still...)

Related question in physics.se.

Is there a way to express this (not as a citation format), that maybe this data is accurate, but not sure, since it is the only available source about that data.

How about something like: "X, measured by Jones in 1950, is commonly given as the value for Y (as cited in Smith, 1989 and Cutler, 1995). However, the original manuscript by Jones describing this result is not generally available."

Or should I ignore it all together and pretend as if there is no data.

Don't do this. If X is cited often in the field, then by pretending as if there is no data, you give the appearance of not knowing your field.
Whether or not you should use X (knowing that it is unreliable) depends on your purposes.
If your work hinges on having an accurate value for X, then you definitely should not use X if you cannot track down a reliable source for it. (Nor should you make something up.)
If you are using X just as a "sane" value for something, and it isn't central to your work, on the other hand:
If you think you have a better value than X, and can justify why you are using a different value than everyone else in your field, go ahead.
Otherwise, if you need a value, you should just use X (unreliable as it is). A bit of unreliable data that is accepted in your field is still better than a bit of unreliable data that you just made up with no justification.

I agree that you shouldn't ignore the existing data, and that it is appropriate to cite it.  But you should not use if you aren't convinced that it is reliable.  Of course, if you have no reliable data, and can't produce your own, then you might not be able to proceed with this project; that's just the way it is.

@NateEldredge I would say it depends how much that value impacts the rest of the work. If you're using X as a "sane default" for something tangential, then an accepted but unreliable X is not such a concern; if your whole study hinges on X, then you have a major problem.

Sure.  I guess by "reliable" I meant "reliable enough for your purposes".

@NateEldredge agreed, clarified in an edit

yea in this situation it is anthropomorphic measurements, so theres no way I can sample a large population size to get my own estimate, but it does data weighs heavily on the project

Actually, "there is no online version (never has been), and the only print copy exists in that country" shouldn't be an obstacle - that's what inter-library agreements are for; univeristy libraries generally are able to get [a copy of] that book for you even it's not online and the physical copies are all located abroad.
It's not conventient and does take time for it to arrive, but if it's widely cited but suspect, then taking a look at the original (and publishing what you find out) would be a Good Thing.

Some sources are just not retrievable  - ILL only goes so far. But if your library can track down the source, that's definitely the way to go!

as I mentioned, there is only one copy, so ILL is not an option.  Its also at a national library, not a university


text:
What is an empirical study?
I always read phrases such as "empirical data" and "empirical study." What does it mean when a study is empirical?

In computer science, this terminology is often used to indicate that an algorithm has been run on real (or simulated) data sets, and observations are made as to how it behaves (how fast does it run, does it solve the problem correctly, and so forth). The experimental procedures are usually not so much of an issue here, because the testing environment can be so well-controlled (i.e. you can generate infinite amounts of random test data).
This is to be contrasted with analyses which are based on mathematical proof, i.e. proving that your algorithm has certain behaviors (e.g. proving it is always correct).
Some times you will see papers in between these two poles.


text:
How to differentiate between articles, conference proceedings, etc.?
I have many PDF files for some academic papers. I want to sort them into journal articles, conference proceedings, reports, etc.
How can I know which one is an article and which one is a conference proceedings and which one is ... (any other type of papers)?

Unless the publication information is stored in the PDF file, either as text or metadata, this task is essentially impossible.  The same paper (or at least a paper with the same title, authors, and abstract) may appear first as an arxiv preprint, then as a technical report, then as a proceedings paper, then as a journal article, and then as a chapter of a PhD thesis.  Which version do you have?

Totally agree with @JeffE comment. you might look to the "Papers" app. I remember it does something similar. it still however has its limitations.

May I ask why you want to sort them in such a manner? In my reading, I do not care where the material came from, and the only time I needed to differentiate was where the publisher demanded special reference formatting for each type of entry.

@JeffE this depends on the field - in some disciplines it is extremely unlikely for the same paper/abstract to appear in multiple formats. Also, in life sciences there is a central database for papers, which contains much of the metadata, so it can be extracted from there.

Reference managing software such as Mendeley usually provide an import feature for PDF files. You simply supply a list of PDF files and the software automatically extracts the metadata such as title, author names, journal, and so on. The accuracy is usually pretty good, and then you can easily sort and organize the files in whichever way you want.

Do you mean that the software can tell me which one is article and which one is proceeding, etc?

@Saqqaf: Only if the metadata for the paper is available to the software. A generic PDF may not have this—especially older PDF's.

@Saqqaf the program will try to reconstruct the metadata from the text of the PDF, or extract a DOI/pubmed number from the document and get its metadata from a database. So it might find the name of the conference or journal. This could make the job of categorizing them easier. It will probably not be able to say that a paper is a review unless the text (or its metadata) says somewhere that this is a review.


text:
Why do principal investigators not hire grant writers?
The success of a research-active professor is related to his successful proposals for securing research funds. For this purpose, he should spend something like half of his time for writing proposals, but still he misses several possible calls for proposals due to the lack of time while the current proposals are not idea.
To resolve this problem, many people have this idea to hire a grant writer to perfectly and quickly write/re-write proposals. I personally heard this from many junior and senior professors, but in practice I have not seen any example.
This plan seems reasonable (the salary of a grant writer should be less than a postdoc), but why it is not common?
Researchers pay much more money to patent attorneys to have legally ideal text, then, why not investing on the text of proposals, which can directly enhance the chance of winning?

This is a good question. However, given the technical nature of the grant, perhaps even a postdoc couldn't do it well?

Writing a proposal needs subtle technics more than scientific content. So, an inexperienced person is unlikely to write a winner proposal.

Related: the comments following this answer.

In central europe, we have professional grant writers. We call them postdocs.

"[A] research-active professor [...] should spend something like half of his time for writing proposals" [Citation needed].

@user13854 "a proposal needs subtle technics more than scientific content" I really hope we have not fallen that far.

@StrongBad It is like a patent, we are playing with words in the text. Our phrasing can attract the attention of reviewers. Our claims in the text are not always the way we meant.

@user13854 That is nonsense. The reviewers are people who are scientifically very close to the subject reviewed. A few stupid mistakes by a professional "grant-writer" will kill your proposal. He can be very useful to check the formalities, make sure that the less scientific parts of the proposal are understandable to the political and administrative reader, push scientists before deadlines, etc.

Most research staff and many students are paid by grants, but most grant terms do not allow for you to pay for administrative staff or proposal writing time. So the funding has to come from the universities or departments. Most of them don't have the funds to hire a grant writer, though some do. I think most departments would rather have half the funding for another professor than a grant writer. I also think your estimate of the salary of a good grant writer in the sciences is off by large margin. The good ones, employed by institutes with large enough institutional budgets make as much as full-time researchers or professors.

To expand a bit on my comment:

In central europe, proposal writing is one of the core jobs of postdocs. In that sense, we do have "professional grant writers". Postdocs write proposals sometimes in their own name,  but more often they actually do it in the name of their professor, so they actually come pretty close to what you envision above.

That being said, I have never heard somebody talk in honesty about hiring an actual, dedicated full-time non-scientific employee for writing down grant proposals in the name of the professor. I would see the following problems with this model:

Funding. How do you pay for this guy? The university will likely not be overly happy if you hire somebody from their budget to basically do your job, and funding agencies certainly don't cover these posts.
Qualifications. Writing grant proposals is damn hard. Even assuming that all the ideas come from the professor, you still need to be an experienced writer. You need to know the content field to write down things technically correctly. You need to stay up to date with funding agency policies and politics. You need to have connections in the field. And asking for all of that for, as you say, a salary less than a postdoc seems very ambitious, especially if combined with the next point.
Perspectives. What is the career outlook of a professional grant writer? What can you offer her/him in compensation for a relatively meager salary? This is a general problem with these kinds of "non-academic" positions at universities - there is usually no career track at all for such people.
Incentives. Junior professors or postdocs are very motivated to write successful grant proposals, as quite literally their own professional well-being depends on them. This would be much less, or at least much less directly, the case for a professional grant writer. If you disconnect the process of writing the proposal from actually benefitting from an accepted proposal, I would assume the quality of the proposals to drop significantly.

That being said, none of these problems are unsolvable. Indeed, the big industrial players in the european funding circuit (FP7, now H2020) actually employ staff that are basically full-time proposal writers, similar to patent lawyers. However, those people are certainly not cheap clerks.

I know of a few instances of people who have been hired to handle and facilitate the grant writing process but they are hired with the title and salary of postdocs. Despite their postdoctural role, they have very few laboratory roles but serve as super lab managers who handle the finances and long-term strategy of the lab. As mentioned, the sources of funding to pay for these non-laboratory staff are limited but for larger and wealthy labs, they can typically siphon enough funds to pay for these positions.