text:
How can I maximize my chances of a professor of another university accepting to be my undergraduate research advisor?
Next year I'm going to college and would like to do undergraduate research in the second semester under the supervision of a certain professor, who I'll call Prof. M.
There are three points against me and three in my favor. They are the following

Prof. M. works at another university, which is about 100 miles away from the one I'm going to. If he does accept to advise me, my plan is to travel to his university every week or every other week.
I am worse than terrible when it comes to social aspects: I talk too fast, lack common sense, and I feel horribly nervous when talking to other people (specially people I don't know), often leading to awkward behavior for not knowing how to act.
Prof. M. is a (local) bigshot. (I'm assuming he might be more selective because of this)
I have self-studied math and physics more or less to have approximately the technical understanding a second year graduate student would have. Of course, while I know about e.g. locally ringed spaces or bosonic string theory (or insert buzzword here), I lack most of the skills and experience a real graduate student would have, such as being able to critically read research papers or having research experience. Also, this is a self-assessment, thus possibly a faulty one;
The professor is welcoming and has a nice personality (I got this information from a friend that has a friend who was a phd student in the same university as Prof. M. and who talked to him personally);
He has supervised* undergraduate students in the past (about five years ago);

So,

should I talk to Prof. M. personally or by email?
should I mention a paper he wrote that I find particularly
interesting and ask if he would accept advising me to do similar
research?

In short, what is the best path to be taken here?

*Though all undergraduate students are from his university. See Professor Eldredge's comment below.

I have refeered to him/her by him/her to try to make this situation more anonymous

Does Prof Bigshot have a history of supervising undergraduates from your university?  In many fields, typically including math and probably physics, supervising undergraduate research is a net drain on the professor's time, resulting in lower overall research productivity.  A professor has certain incentives to do this for their university's own students (to some extent it's part of their job), but unless some sort of special arrangement exists, they probably have no incentives to do it for someone from another university.

@NateEldredge Dear Professor Eldredge,
Thank you for the reply (all the more during Christmas (eve)).
(S)he has supervised 8 undergraduates, all from his/her university. 1 out of 30 phds+masters+post-docs (s)he has supervised did her phd at my university, though.
Best wishes.

@DanRomik Dear Professor Romik,
Thank you for replying (all the more during Christmas (eve)). I'm flattered to know you think so; thank you very much!
Would it be better to try speak in person or by email? Also, I'll be sure to prepare for the quizzing, a small mini-qual, if you will.
Again, thank you for your kindness.
Best wishes.

@UndergradResearch I have no idea.

@DanRomik Dear Professor Romik,
Thank you for your reply.
Best wishes.

For reasons completely unrelated to your own skills and background, I think your chances  here are slim. The professor has little external incentive to take you on and doing so will complicate his/her already too busy academic life. There might even be rules forbidding it, though the chance of that is small.
But, you ask how you can maximize your chances, so I'll give some hints.
This is the sort of thing you want to do in person, not by mail/email. You certainly won't get a positive answer via an email exchange. You might get an invitation to visit, but that puts you face-to-face in any case.
This is the sort of thing you want to do in conjunction with an advocate/intermediary. If you were already established in "your" college, one of your professors would be good for doing that. Especially since the prof once studied there. But if you have a current teacher who knows this person (or is known) they might be willing to intervene on your behalf, perhaps even accompanying you on a visit to the other university.
I'm not sure that waiting until you are established at university is a good thing or not. You won't have a lot of time to become recognized before you need to make the contact. But it would give you the potential for finding an intermediary.
You will need to convince the prof that you have unique skills and that it would be a missed opportunity not to work with you. That is a pretty steep climb. It would help if some of your research interests align. So you need to demonstrate that you know something of the research of the prof and how you might fit in.
But I also have a small wonder about why you chose the university you did, rather than the other one. You would maximize your chance by going there instead.
Don't worry about being/seeming awkward. Lots of people in academia are likewise.

Dear Professor Buffy,
Thank you for your reply. (Specially during Christmas!)
From here on I will refer to the professor at the other university as Prof. M.
Is the following a good approach?

Ask a welcoming professor of my university for advice
Inquire at some point of the conversation about having an advocate/intermediary
Ask if (s)he either knows Prof. M. or knows some other professor at my university who knows Prof. M.
Or perhaps should I just ask to the point (but cordially) if (s)he knows a professor who is acquainted with Prof. M. as to save his/her time?
Thank you...

...for your advice and for the time you put at answering.
Best wishes.
P. S. A side question: is it wrong or unnatural to refer to the university one studies at as “my college” or “my university”? Or did you use quotes since I don't study there yet? Sorry to bother you with this (somewhat unrelated) question. (Note: I'm not a native speaker)

P.P.S. Thank you very much for the last piece of advice. Being awkward worries me a lot when I think about building relationships with professors, students, or (future) collaborators. It is very reassuring to know that I shouldn't worry about this.

I do not agree with the first paragraph of this response. I usually do not take on random students from other universities - however, if a student comes with clear interest in a topic close to my specialty, good background preparation and ideally a concrete idea (even if it is not the final direction of the research), I will always at least give it consideration to find a way of making a supervision feasible. Don't worry about awkwardness - if the prof is capable and has a pleasant personality, they will be interested in your science, not your nervousness.

@CaptainEmacs Dear Captain Emacs,
Thank you for your reply. (Specially during Christmas (or during the Holiday season, depending on your time zone))
I'll keep in mind to have a concrete idea for research when I do meet Prof. M. next year. Could you elaborate on how concrete the idea should be?
Thank you for reassuring me about my awkwardness.
Best wishes.

@UndergradResearch Basically, the point should be - why should they work with you? But it should also be interesting for you...

Dear @CaptainEmacs,
Prof. M. lists his main research interests in his homepage, one of which—let's call it X—particularly interests me (but I'm also interested in other topics he pursues)
Would it suffice to prepare for doing research on X (say by trying to understand some papers he wrote on X) and then asking if he would advise me in doing (original) research on X? (So that I could be useful to him in advancing his research (even if only a bit))
As always, thank you for your patience.
Best wishes.

@UndergradResearch Why do you want to work with him? That's the main question you have to ask. If that reason does not work for him, he is not the right person for you, anyway...

Dear @CaptainEmacs,
I want to work with him because

he is a great mathematician
he has a pleasant personality
works in an area which interests me very much. In fact, I'm not very interested in the research areas of either the professors of "my" university, or of the professors from a really close university in "my" city.

While searching for potential advisors sometime ago, I decided that I wanted to work with him because of (3), then I learned about (1), and finally (2).
If I can indeed work with him, compared to working with other professors, I believe that I might...

...

be able to do better work
possibly become a better scientist (than if working with other professors)

On his side, to also be able to "repay" him for advising me, I would strive to advance his research.
I apologize for the long reply. While I'm not sure if these reasons are right, I admire him a lot, and somehow have a "gut feeling" that he is probably the right advisor. If possible, could you give me an example of a valid reason? (specially one that would work for both an advisor and an advisee)
Thank you for your attention and time.
Best wishes.

The question was not really mine - this question is what you need to ask yourself and essentially answer in your contact mail. Keep in mind that a too effusive letter may have the opposite of the desired effect. It will cause him to worry about the fact that rejecting you may make you more insistent or may frustrate you too much. Keep it focused - your key reason to work with him is (3). The other reasons are not relevant for his decision-making. It is clear that a student will want to improve themselves - but what does the student bring to the table? That is what your prof will want to know.

Dear @CaptainEmacs,
I will be sure to keep these in mind, do my best at trying to understand the situation from his side, think deeply about it, and formulate an appropriate mail/conversation. Thank you very much!
Best wishes.

Another potential solution I don't think anyone has mentioned is to have an official supervisor at your own institution, and a collaboration with Prof M at '100 mile University'. A more limited scope of direct supervision (say 1/month contact with more frequent meetings with your local super to handle the day-to-day stuff) might seem like less of an additional burden if they are hesitant to add you to their workload. You would then have access to both their specialist knowledge and a local super for the more general stuff and university admin side of things.

Dear @The_Tams,
Thanks for the reply (specially during the Holiday season).
However, if possible, I would like to avoid following this plan for the following reason. There are no professors in "my university" closeto the area of Prof. M. (The closest being something like geometric topology and algebraic geometry, or data analysis and neural networks) I believe this clash of research interests might, in the long term, create a bad relationship between me, my local advisor, and Prof. M.
I'm not sure if this would present a problem, so please tell me if you think otherwise...

...My reluctance notwithstanding, thank you for your answer.
Best wishes.

Whether or not something like that would work is in part up to their personailties. I have worked with wonderful profs whose egos wouldn't find this arrangement a problem. Perhaps consider it a Plan C or such-like to have in your back pocket when you speak to Prof. M.

Dear @The_Tams,
From what I heard about Prof. M.'s personality, I think he wouldn't mind this arrangement. I'll be sure to know a pleasant prof (with reasonable ego) working in the university I'm going to study at to have Plan C available. Thank you!
Best wishes.


text:
Non-EU PhD title in Germany
I am a German PhD student in South America and am worried about whether my PhD title will be accepted in Germany (as Dr.) and internationally in general.
If you successfully complete a PhD in the EU, you are allowed to carry the title "Dr.", as any PhD in Germany does.
I am working in a faculty with a professor with international experience, who, for research reasons, left a reasonably strong department in Europe for the position in South America, which is incidentally one of the strongest two departments in South America.
I am attending international conferences every now and then, have two papers published in international journals (one jointly, one alone) and two more papers in preparation.
For all I know, I can reasonably expect that my research performance (and eventually, my PhD thesis) is not below the European standard.
The default format for PhDs from a non-EU country is something like "Hans Wurst (Doutorado, Universidade de Ipanema)", which looks like I should just use my self-confidence instead and not mention that I did a PhD unless someone asks.
I don't know if it's off-topic, because this might just be "too localized", but of course I am wondering if it is possible to have my PhD accredited to use my PhD title in Germany like any "normal" PhD.
I'm also wondering, whether the international community is as strict as German law, or whether I should just call myself "Hans Wurst, PhD" on job applications, my professional webpage, etc. (where the place will be listed somewhere), and hope nobody tells me it should be "Hans Wurst (Doutorado, Universidade de Ipanema)" instead.
Did I make a mistake in my career planning in that the only title that is worth carrying (until full tenure, I guess) I can't carry without a large number of not-so-fancy accessories?

It would be helpful if you check the possible accreditation of your title in Germany (I don't know local rules). Also, if you have a strong research and your professor is well connected internationally, you may able to set up a joint degree between your SAfrican university and an German one. it is not easy, and very much depends on your political skills. You may able to find a German university eager to build international programs willing to be partner in this.

How your PhD is counted depends a lot on from which country you obtained it. Currently, degrees from Australia, Canada, Japan, Israel, and most doctoral-granting American universities are recognized as fully equivalent to "Dr." Beyond that, however, the PhD is listed as a PhD, so long as it's been granted by an institution accredited to give out doctoral degrees. (It has to be legitimately "earned.") You just would not technically be allowed to call yourself "Herr Dr. Hans Wurst"; you'd be "Herr Hans Wurst, Ph.D." (or whatever the formal name of your degree is).
Unfortunately, the classification of the degree does matter in Germany. Someone who holds a Dr. rer. nat. (sciences), for instance, will have a harder time getting a position in an engineering faculty than someone who holds a Dr.-Ing. (engineering). PhD's may or may not count as being equivalent to either degree, unless the specific regulations of the universities allow for this. (This can make a difference in setting up thesis committees, depending upon the regulations of the faculty in question. Yes, it's really annoying, but that's the way the system is set up.)
Fortunately, as Nate says in his answer, the rest of the world is nowhere near as strict as German law (even the modified version now in effect).
Also, you can apply to the Zentralstelle für ausländisches Bildungswesen (Central Authority for Foreign Education) for recognition of a foreign-obtained degree as equivalent to the corresponding German degree.

I said "South America" because Australia, Japan, Israel, Canada & the US are not in South America. My university gives out a "Doutorado", which translates to "Doktor". I guess that makes me "Herr Hans Wurst, Doutorado" nonetheless.

Thank you for the link. I had found this link before. The database already cites my university as being of the highest rank "H+"; in general, the "Doutorado" is also listed as being "equivalent to German PhD program" but also emphasizes that this doesn't imply the quality of the PhD is actually equivalent. In particular, it doesn't entail authorization to carry a title from this university. I wonder whether filing an accreditation process may just tell me what I already know: My "Doutorado" is equivalent to a German PhD, but as title I may only carry "Hans Wurst, Doutorado (Univ. de Ipanema)".

Whenever I read anything about the German academic system, I find myself happy to be in the US and not have these worries.  In the US nobody really cares what title you use or even which university you got your PhD from.  The strength of your research record is everything!  (I almost never use the title "PhD" or "Dr" for anything.)

Did I make a mistake in my career planning in that the only title that is worth carrying (until full tenure, I guess) I can’t carry without a large number of not-so-fancy accessories?

No. You make the good old German mistake of thinking that ‘carrying’ the title has any relevance whatsoever. You will have the equivalent of a doctoral degree from a respectable university (presumably) backed with a reasonable publication record. This is what’s going to matter. Whether it will be called a doctorate or a PhD does not matter to any employer (that you would actually want to work for). Also, for practical purposes, the people that care about such things will be calling you Dr. Hans Wurst anyway, even if you technically have a slightly different title. It’s close enough.

The default format for PhDs from a non-EU country is something like “Hans Wurst (Doutorado, Universidade de Ipanema)”, which looks like I should just use my self-confidence instead and not mention that I did a PhD unless someone asks.

I don’t quite understand. You don’t want to mention your PhD because of ... what exactly?

I’m also wondering whether the international community is as strict as German law, or whether I should just call myself “Hans Wurst, PhD” on job applications, my professional webpage, etc. (where the place will be listed somewhere), and hope nobody tells me it should be “Hans Wurst (Doutorado, Universidade de Ipanema)” instead.

Practically, on anything but the most formal documents, I have seen people in similar situations call themselves anything out of: Dr. Hans Wurst; Hans Wurst, PhD; or Hans Wurst, PhD (Universidade de Ipanema). All of those mean essentially the same thing to the pragmatic observer.
Clarifications
First off, I am not German myself, but Austrian with strong ties to Germany (and Austria is the place that Germans make fun of because we are presumably so fond of our academic titles), so I do think I am able to comment on this issue.
Second, I think it is required to distinguish a few things which are somewhat mangled up in my above response as well as the questions:
Will the OP formally be allowed to carry the title Dr. Hans Wurst?
No, not without going through nostrification, as indicated in other answers.
Will people informally still refer to him as they would to the holder of a European PhD? (e.g., put a Dr. Hans Wurst on his door in the office?). Basically, would people in their day-to-day life consider the difference to be a technicality?
Yes, I am convinced that would be the case in most places. If non-EU people were treated as “not really doctors at all”, we would not have any foreign faculty or postdocs. In Vienna, while I did my postdoc there, we had people who had received PhDs from Austria, Germany, the US, and China, and they all were uniformly referred to as “Drs.” by peers and university administration alike. It may not be formally correct, but people are also not stupid (in general).
Will it make a difference in his professional life?
Assuming the university is indeed excellent (I have personally never heard of it, but my knowledge of African universities is very limited), it should really not make a difference. I guess the main problem is that if the university is not very well-known, a hiring committee might not go through the trouble of actually finding out whether or not the university is good. However, at least in academic posts, I would not assume that the OP will have any disadvantage in comparison to a holder of a German PhD. International experience is usually considered a big plus. The examples provided by aeismail and Nate Eldredge are completely opposed to every personal experience I’ve ever had.

xLeitix, are you actually German?  I'm not either, but my understanding is they do take the use of the Dr. title extremely seriously; its misuse is actually a criminal offense.  Here is a case where an American PhD was investigated by the police for using the title improperly.  They have since amended the rules to allow the title to be used by holders of a PhD from a US research university (can't find a link right now, sorry), but as to South America I do not know.

That's not to say I think it will make a difference to @Martian's career, but it could affect you on the level of etiquette / proper usage.

@NateEldredge: The law has since been changed, at least for US PhD holders from research universities.

I guess I'm not the only one making the "old German mistake of thinking that 'carrying' the title has any relevance whatsoever". Customer service, for example, is so much better for "title holders", although that won't be of much professional relevance. However, if thesis committees or other professional roles do depend on the country where I obtained my PhD, as suggested in aeismail's answer, then I guess my eccentric choice of university might well cause me some headaches, if I choose to pursue an academic career in Germany.

@Martian I also hold a Doctorate in Austria since a little more than 2 years now, and I also had it been added to all my official documents etc. (mostly because my parents insisted on it :) ), and I can safely say that my non-professional life has not changed in any recognizable way since then. The times where being Dr. XY has brought you instant respect and better treatment by anybody are, for the largest part, gone.

"I guess the main problem is if the university is not very well-known, that a hiring committee might not go through the trouble of actually finding out whether the university is good or not." Assuming the OP stays somewhere near his field, then if the university is really famous then IMHO the hiring committee will know them. Otherwise, give a reference that provides this connection. BTW: Most (German) Dr.s I know don't use that grade (it is not a title) in everyday life.

@NateEldredge: to put the criminal offense in context: it is the same criminal offense as pretending any other professional grade. I.e. the same as pretending to be a tax advisor or accredited accountant without having the accreditation or claiming to be a pharmacist without having the grade, etc.

How did this become a discussion about "african universities"? The OP says they are in South America, and Ipanema is in Brazil.

@xLeitix I would agree that carrying the title or not won't have significant impact on job applications - if you apply in the Academic field. It may have some impact on small companies though. But in particular, it can help you out of the Academic world, e.g. when applying for an apartment in highly competitive housing markets. As a landlord has to try and judge your trustworthiness and financial status based on very little information, this can be something that they take positively into consideration. (Or negatively if you they are very anti-establishment^^)

To address your last question: the international community is not as strict as Germany.  Here in the US, there are no formal regulations on the use of the title.  If you hold an earned doctorate from a reasonable university somewhere in the world, nobody is going to complain about your use of "Dr." or "Ph.D." or both.  Even holders of honorary doctorates, or those from non-accredited universities, usually get away with it.  On the other hand, we typically don't use those titles as universally as Germans do.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
A quick question about deadline extensions
I'm applying for several summer schools, workshops, and travel funds. I've also applied for a few fellowships. Almost all of these have extended their deadlines for application submission and/or supporting material submission. I've completed (or plan to complete) all of the applications before the original deadlines.
My questions are:

What are the typical reasons that deadlines are extended?
Do you think it'll increase my chances for admittance since I submitted my application before the original deadlines?

Possible reasons for extensions:

Not enough applications have been received
The applications/applicants are not up to he expected standard (Almost the previous point in th esense that more applications is hoped to raise the standard)
Something has happened in the bureaucracy that means an extension is necessary

Sending in an application to meet a deadline is always necessary and being early may set your application apart from the others but there is no guarantee. Having an impeccable application is a better bet on getting noticed than sending it in early. By impeccable, I mean well written, clear and concise, including all the necessary materials in neat order. But early is certainly not a negative but may not really show to the persons responsible for evaluating the applications.

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


text:
Should previous final exams be released to students?
In general, you can find the past exams for the past 15 years or so at my school. However I had one prof in Calculus III who chose to withhold his exams. This was the only instance in which a prof has chosen to do so in my two years at university studying engineering. His justification was that he didn't want students studying exams rather than the actual course material which I find to be interesting.
As a student, I notice that solving past exams from the same instructor as practice can be helpful for a couple of reasons:

it helps you get accustomed to the instructor's style of exam so you're less nervous when you're writing the actual exam. I find that even seeing the familiar cover page helps in calming me down just before an exam starts.
it  helps you figure out what type of questions the instructor likes to put the focus on (i.e instructor A prefers to put conceptual questions, instructor B hasn't put a question on the laplace transform in 5 years so maybe I'll study that later if I have time, instructor C always has a 2nd-order circuit as question 1, etc...)

Of course, the 2nd point is exacly why my calculus instructor chose to withhold his exams. But at the same time, some students may benefit if they use them responsibly as challenging practice problems without jeopardizing their learning experience (i.e someone with the mentality of "I know instructor B hasn't put a question on the laplace transform in 5 years, but I need to study it anyway because it's important"). Most of my other instructors release their past final exams, but do not post full solutions (or full solutions to just last year's exam). A few have chosen to release just the final answers to the questions without the full solution.
Is it better for the students if the instructors released the past final exams? What about full solutions (or just final answers) to the finals exams? Are there studies that show if one strategy is better than another?
I understand that the answers and arguments may vary depending on the field so I should add that I am particularly interested in an answer for the fields of mathematics, science, and engineering.

Some students do take photos of the exams and share it with students of next year, but only with some of them. This creates an extremely unfair environment if the instructor gives similar exams every year. This should be taken into consideration when answering this question imo.

At my university in Italy, publishing past exam texts and solutions online is mandatory.

@Kogesho where I go, there is no such phenomenon of students taking photos of their exam paper. Cell phones and communication devices aren't permitted in examination rooms, and I have never heard of any student silly enough to attempt to do something like that.

@BenCrowell taking photos usually happen when students are checking the correctness of grading of exam papers. When 2-3 students are doing this in a small office of the instructor, it only takes a few seconds to take the photos. Meanwhile, instructor checks the answer of a student who objects to a question etc. There are many creative students around. It usually leaks.

@Kogesho That is if the instructor discusses the exam papers with multiple students at once... In most places, you cannot discuss one student's grade in a group, it has to be done one on one..

I don't have an opinion on releasing solutions, but the exams should definitely be released.  Some students will have access to them through previous students, one way or another. Making them officially available makes sure everyone has the same access.

Long ago at Ohio State this question came up.  The fraternities had files of old exams.  So some students have access to them.  Is it not unfair unless all students have access to them?  An argument for release of past exams.

And this is why at my institution students are not allowed to take exam papers, nor any notes they have made, out of an exam.

@IanSudbery: The system in the UK is different enough from what I know that I don't know whether that actually works there, but in the US (and Canada), that's exactly the sort of fake precaution that doesn't work. With a big class, groups of students can each memorize a single question and reconstruct the exam after, and organized student groups like frats have the motivation to that.

@IanSudbery I am certain that a modest-sized group of students with a coherent strategy could easily produce verbatim copies of the exam from memory if they tried.

@Tiercelet - yes, that is possible. But so far i'm not aware of such organised attempts to cheat. Or perhaps it happens and makes no difference. I did once have a colleague tell the students what the exam question was going to be in advance. The papers weren't appreciably better.

I would strongly say yes.
Personally, I am very unconvinced by this argument:

His justification was that he didn't want students studying exams rather than the actual course material which I find to be interesting.

Why is there a mismatch between the course material and the exams? This angers students and doesn't accomplish anything. Well-designed exams don't admit shortcuts, but rather force the students to learn the material which the instructor wants to teach.
It is human nature to respond to carrots and sticks --- ask anyone employed as a personal trainer. These carrots and sticks can be lined up with whatever intrinsic goals the instructor wants to promote.

"Why is there a mismatch between the course material and the exams? "....... I can see the face of my students if I tell them " You have 3 hours to write down everything I taught you in 60 hours of teaching"..... The reality is that often in math we cannot test every single concept, formula and theorem we taught..

There's often a mismatch between the previous final exams and the current course's material, as the course content evolves over time.  The previous exams may also contain questions that the instructor determined after the fact were too hard, too easy, or erroneous, and that will not be representative of future questions.

Since you cannot prevent students from writing down from memory the questions they just got on an exam -
Yes, the only coherent choice is to fully release these exams
Otherwise, you're just putting an artificial barrier before this release: The barrier of someone coming to the exam and wasting some of his/her time copying its contents. Or of having a student with eidetic memory simply take the exam as usual, then reproduce it later. Any half-decent student union would get these exams (re)produced and publish them, possibly with solutions, as a service to its members. That's what happens in my Alma Mater, anyway - they had a nice store of printed exam booklets.

Availability of worked answers/past papers etc should ideally be consistent across all sections of all courses within a given degree program, be it a pure STEM subject or a dual award/tripos structure. Anything else risks the level playing field that supposedly exists. In practice the only way to ensure fairness is to let all the information be freely available.
E.g. I went to a collegiate university, and found that the availability of past papers, worked solutions, already completed lecture notes (my courses typically had handouts that had gaps to be filled in at the lecture) varied between the colleges. The variation was most prominent in engineering, where some colleges had access to past students notes and solutions to problems as well as past papers, all of which had been scanned and uploaded to the intranet, some had access only to past papers, and some had no such access.
Obviously this creates quite a disparity in the amount of material one has to look over to understand a concept or problem and furthermore, with access to such material crucially one learns how to best layout an answer for maximum marks, something that wasn't otherwise shown. If papers/worked solutions are formally withheld, you can almost guarantee that some will be available informally to some small part of the student group through connections to higher years (in this case collegiate). This results in an advantage unrelated to your actual ability in comprehension and implementation which is the supposed testing target of university exams.

If you mean to say by "all courses in a subject" "all sections of a given course, or all options for the same subject in a given program," then you're fine. But if you mean consistency across unrelated subjects, then I don't thin this is accurate.

I meant all options for the same subject in a given program, I had already reworded this to try and make that clear, but will reword again.

Sorry, even with the clarification this answer still doesn't make any sense.

There is a degree program, within which there are course options potentially spanning multiple subjects. Thus "all courses within a degree program" covers courses within pure STEM subjects as well as those within dual award/tripos structured programs.


text:
What is "Oberwolfach style"?
I've read the following in a description of a workshop:

We have about 15 participants and seek an “Oberwolfach style” with a relatively low density of talks.

I couldn't find anything about this style in Internet. But I found out that there is The Mathematical Research Institute of Oberwolfach, and according to Wikipedia

It organizes weekly workshops on diverse topics where mathematicians and scientists from all over the world come to do collaborative research.

But the sense of this “Oberwolfach style” is still vague to me.

I've heard that in certain (mathematics) Oberwolfach meetings, there is no schedule of talks set up before the participants arrive. A schedule is essentially made up on the spot, and people just talk about what they're working on at the moment. (But I am but a grad student and this is just something I heard once, I have never been to Oberwolfach; it sounds pretty fun though!)

@AruRay - I heard that only the speakers of the first day know that they will have to give a talk, while the other speakers are told a day in advance.

My advisor once told me that on the evening the participants arrived at Oberwolfach, the organizers asked for volunteers to speak on the following day (my advisor volunteered). Perhaps this varies from meeting to meeting?

I also just remembered that apparently there is randomized assigned seating at meals (or maybe just dinners).

A blog post about the Oberwolfach experience: http://recursed.blogspot.com/2010/08/oberwolfach.html

This is indeed a reference to the Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach (Oberwolfach Mathematics Research Institute), a conference center in the small German town of Oberwolfach.
The Institute has developed a rather idiosyncratic style of meetings.  The most common events are weeklong workshops on specific topics, whose participants are invited by the organizers.  Speakers are chosen from among the participants on just one or two days' notice.  The talks are indeed relatively "low density", perhaps 4 or 5 x 45-minute talks per day, so not all participants will give talks.  Long periods are left unscheduled to encourage informal discussion and collaboration.
The conference center is isolated and so most people don't leave the campus during the week.  Participants are housed and fed onsite and meals are communal.  As Aru says, there are also measures to "encourage" a more social atmosphere: seating is assigned and changes from meal to meal, and Internet access is not available in the guest rooms until 10pm or so (edit: Najib Idrissi's comment below suggests that this policy has changed).

I should point out that this is also the "Dagstuhl" style and possibly even the "Bertinoro" style. It's certainly the "Barbados" style, and eventually might become the "Shonan" style. Yes these are all places that run this style of event.

People give talks at Bellairs? Since when?

I've been to Dagstuhl a few years ago. It is a nice secluded venue in the woods, focusing on computer science workshops; from what I remembered, socialization is encouraged, dinner seats are assigned randomly, but the seminar style is less extreme than what is described here. We did have a schedule.

@Suresh I've been to Dagstuhl a few times (but not Oberwolfach). The meals, "isolation" and are similar at Dagstuhl to what has been described at Oberwolfach but, at the meetings I've been to, the talk schedule has been planned in advance and a little denser than described here, though still much less dense than a typical conference. Wifi is available all the time at Dagstuhl; frankly, I can't understand why anyone would want it blocked: these days, the internet is so important to research that blocking it is like forbidding writing at certain times of the day.

@DavidRicherby: At Oberwolfach, wifi is always available in the common areas.  It's blocked until 10pm only in the bedrooms, to discourage people from antisocially holing up in their rooms.

@JeffE when we were both there together :). But I agree that your experience "working" there is far more extensive than mine :)

@NateEldredge Because nobody could possibly be visiting from a radically different timezone (say, the US or Japan) and want to Skype their partner back home. And nobody could possibly want to work on their own for a couple of hours and still have access to the internet.

@DavidRicherby Nate Eldredge is only repeating the Oberwolfach point of view; he was not being sarcastic, or negative in any way. Oberwolfach's common area has some very open tables which are clearly meant by people who want to socialize and collaborate, but there are other areas (such as the library or the common areas in the library building) that are more isolated and still have wifi. Each institute is entitled to their views and opinions, and Oberwolfach is very successful, albeit different.

@user45756 Of course, I wasn't shooting the messenger.

I have been to Oberwolfach several times. Oberwolfach's schedule is something like two or three talks in the morning, followed by lunch and free time until around 3 or 4 (I don't remember exactly). Then they serve you cake, and you go to a couple of more talks before dinner.
As there is no wi-fi in your rooms (until 10pm or so -- new addition!) you are expected to socialize and discuss mathematics with your colleagues during the free time, which often leads to fruitful collaborations.

When I first went to Oberwolfach (late 1970s) there was no wifi.  No internet.  No one brought their own computer.  Guess what...we had to talk to each other!


text:
How to write a PhD thesis in three months?
I am planning to write a thesis in three months. How to be more organised towards writing and get the first draft ready in three months? Has anyone written the first draft of the thesis in three months or so?
I have some writing done already as I have published some conference and workshop papers.

Consider using the early hours of the morning, so that you don't get distracted by family, friends, text messages etc etc Some find 5.30AM to 7.30AM tend to be worth about 4 hours of time later in the day due to distractions...

@Solar Mike, Thanks. Yes, I will definitely try this. I get distracted easily with different things.

Well, it worked for a couple of my students last semester and a long time ago for me (and I am no morning person :) )... So best of luck then!

There’s no one-size-fits-all answer; it’s totally dependent on your specific circumstances, psychology, and work habits.  If you’re typically good at working fast under pressure, and have already done most of the research for the thesis, then it’s definitely possible (I wrote almost all my thesis in the last 3 weeks before the deadline, following 6 months of complete writer’s block).  If you’re not so experienced at writing quickly under pressure, or if the research isn’t sufficiently prepared, then this is a bit of a gamble and will need more discipline.  But in any case, best of luck!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomodoro_Technique might help

If you are in CS, then you might be able to do it in a few weeks if you can just staple together your pubs and smooth out the transitions between chapters.

@PLL, i have done most of my research. As there is probably nothing like the end of research, I decided to stop and my supervisor agreed. So, its mostly the writing. But english is my second language, and I get exhausted by writing more than 4 hours. So that's a limitation.

@Eric, I have installed the tomato app and tomorrow I will use it. This is an useful idea.

@Austin, I have my fingers crossed. After seeing many comments in this post,  I am really hopeful. I will probably be able to write quicker than three months, let's see.

This question is on-topic. It applies to many people other than the OP.

This is an on topic question.  The situation is surprisingly common for Ph.D. students, approaching a majority of them.  I think the moderators or voters were too literal in their evaluation of the question and the rules (a common problem on sites like SE, wiki, etc.)

Make an outline and a schedule, then follow the schedule.  Include time for revision and feedback in your schedule.
If you know all the content already, the writing can be done much faster than that.  In my field, it is only necessary to write about 90 generously spaced pages, so three months is less than a page a day.  In more verbose fields, your thesis need not be more than 500 pages, so that's an achievable 6 pages a day.
The real problem is when you do not know the content you need to write - that part we cannot help with here.

I can't imagine writing a 90 page math paper. My dissertation was <40 pages.

@MattSamuel I'm in math and I am working with some coauthors on a paper we are considering splitting because it is going above the ~100 pages mark.. (lots of technical lemmas needed for the interesting results :))

I wrote my thesis in 10 days.  Granted, I was well published before, so 3/4 of it was a cut and paste.
This was 90s so I had to use lab computer for typing.  Went in at night and typed.  Then did a morning run, ate breakfast and slept.  Avoided distractions from lab group.
Avoided complicated LaTex and just did it old school.  Even xeroxed in figures versus fancier drafting program.  Did individual chapters to correspond to papers. Picked easiest endnote system (by chapter).  I think I even did individual files by chapter because Word got complicated trying to do multichapter work.
At the end of the day, it's pass fail.  Just get it done.

Thanks, I really like when you said "it's pass fail. Just get it done.". It took a lot of pressure off. It's admirable that you managed to write the thesis in 10 days.

At the end of the day, it's pass fail. – Some PhD theses are graded.

@Wrzlprmft It may be graded, but will the people who are hiring you care what the grade actually is?

@chepner: Depending on your country, field, grading system, employer, and the grade difference, it might. For example, if I were to higher people with a PhD in my field from Germany and they got the lowest or second-lowest passing grade for their thesis, this would at least make for a question in the job interview.

I'm not discounting your scenario, but that's pretty specific in the grand scheme of things. Further, how would you judge a candidate who didn't have a graded thesis for the same position? Would you give a careful reading of their thesis to determine its relative merits?

Make sure that you know and understand the required formatting. A big time waster is writing a large chunk and then finding out it's in the wrong format.

@DDuck using sensible document preparation practices, differences of basic format should be a complete non-issue to address. In LaTeX, it's a matter of changing some header declarations to denote a different desired arrangement. In Word, it's a matter of using page and text styles in a disciplined manner, rather than manually doing things like bolding and centering each heading.

I thought TeX was the old school way? Word and LaTeX were first released in the same year.

For chemists, Tex is hard.  Lots of people prefer a word processing software instead.  My point is I remember people proposing to me either Tex or very complicated use of Word (lots of section breaks and such).  Just doing without learning a new (to me) typing program at the same time doing my thesis under pressure ended up much smarter.  I saw a lot of other people pull their hair out with Tex.

Having done this myself, one thing I did was work at certain desks in the stacks at my college library that happened to have metal walls. This acted as a Faraday cage, blocking all wifi and cell phone signals. It was very helpful for focus, while a the same time allowing me to easily access the internet if I needed to look up a paper simply by standing up and walking out of the work area. You may not have something similar, but the key issue of removing easy distractions like phones and especially the internet is very important.
Similarly, I would suggest not using your personal laptop to do this--it's another way for distractions to creep in. You'll want something that can download papers, compile TeX, and pretty much nothing else. You may be able to get a loaner laptop from your department for work purposes or get an old used laptop for cheap.
I also heavily relied on copy and paste from my previous papers, and even some of my advisor's papers. Obviously the sections from my advisor's papers had to be rewritten, but it gave me a complete draft, which was a big change psychologically. Having a complete document that needs lots of revisions is way different from having an incomplete document, even if the amount of work left to do is similar.
One last thing--keep a regular sleep schedule that gets 8 hours of sleep and involves waking up before 8. This is something grad students are notoriously bad at, but you'd be amazed at how much better you feel.

Thanks. I think getting the first draft by copy and pasting the papers is a great idea. At least, this will give a big picture and then revising them to smooth out the transitions between chapters will get the whole thing in a good shape. Initially, I was thinking to go chapter by chapter, but now I think I will get the first draft by copypasting and then revising chapter by chapter. Thanks eyeballfrog and Austin for the suggestion.

I found spending at least some time (a few hours/week) with a 'writing group' of people similarly in need of a focus on writing to be very helpful. We booked a conference room, took turns bringing in coffee and snacks to share, and set a common timer for when we'd take breaks. Even without any mutual accountability (we were all in totally separate fields, working on our own theses and papers), the shared goal was a strong force to keep us focused and averse to our own distractions.

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


text:
How to efficiently work on multiple machine learning and data science-related projects?
I am working on multiple projects on Machine Learning and Data Science. Is there any systematic way to work/manage projects to maximize efficiency in terms of getting things done while maintaining a work-life balance? Different projects are at different stages --- some are at the beginning stage, some are at the writing stage for publication --- require different types of involvements in terms of time and energy. Expert opinions are highly appreciated.

I think this is too personal for a general answer. Individuals do things differently. Some are driven by a schedule, others not.

I am sure this is personal but still learning from personal experience is not too bad I guess. Some people are very efficient in managing different research projects and would love to hear from them.

And any answer would depend on the definition of "efficiently". Why is efficiency important compared to, say, effectiveness?

Both 'efficiently' and 'effectiveness' is important. The ultimate goal is to get things done without hampering work-life balance.

This question is of the "boat programming" type (i.e. the problem of how to work on multiple projects is not restricted to academia), so I'm voting to close.

Work-life balance isn't clear from the question, and is, of course, different for everyone. Maybe you need to rework it. A better question might get some answers. I have my own methods, but they might not work for you.

@astronat : Does it matter if the question is not restricted to academia if the question is indeed relevant to academia?

It's relevant, but it's not a problem that's specific to academia, which is what we're interested in here. There are thousands of articles, blog posts, forums etc dedicated to productivity and project management, and I expect the vast majority of the proposed solutions will be applicable to academic work.


text:
Is there a citation style with just the first author's last name, and year
Is there citation style that only cites it as (FirstAuthorLastName,year)
that can be downloaded as a .csl file and incorporated into mendeley/readcube.
However a simple nature style [1] is too short.
And I would like to see the author's name in the text.
Is there citation style that only cites it as (FirstAuthorLastName,year)
Meaning no other coauthors name, (since that not how I remeber the article anyway) and no et al.
(because i already know it's "et al", it's just redudant text).
is there a citation style that is like this?.
Or is there a website when one can see different citation syles?
Thanks

If you're just writing quick notes, why do you need to follow an established style?

Ideally it would be implemented in readcube, mendeley, or papers, any type of .csl file, e.i a citation style, than can be searched in a reference manager.

I guess I don't follow what you're trying to do

I favour BibTeX's alpha mode, which produces citations such as [Cam07], which provides many of the advantages of (Campbell, 2007), but is more compact.

I understand the appeal, in my oppion its a bit too sparse information.
or in other words, if i was to remeber the citation (i.e the reverse, where you lookup an article from memory of the citation),  if I then wrote cam07 into mendeley or readcube, it might not be able to find it, whereas Campbell, 2007 would.

In a comment you mentioned that you're looking for a .csl citation style file, e.g. for use with Mendeley. It turns out that Mendeley has a generator for, and repository of such files. In particular, one can opt to search by example. Using that tool for citations of the form "(Campbell, 2007)" reveals some examples, the most relevant of which is a modified Chicago style that appears to be associated with Colorado State University - School of Biomedical Engineering:

Example Output
Inline citations
(Campbell, 2007)
(Ahlquist, 2009; Borges, 1999; Campbell, 2007; Mares, 2001)
Bibliography
Ahlquist, J. S., & Breunig, C. (2009). Country clustering in comparative political economy (MPIfG Discussion Paper No. 09–5) (p. 32). Cologne: Max-Planck Institute for the Study of Societies. Retrieved from www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_dp/dp09-5.pdf
Borges, J. L. (1999). Selected non-fictions. (E. Weinberger, Ed., E. Allen, S. J. Levine, & E. Weinberger, Trans.). New York: Viking.
Campbell, J. L., & Pedersen, O. K. (2007). “The varieties of capitalism and hybrid success.” Comparative Political Studies, 40(3), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414006286542
  “CSL search by example.” (n.d.). Retrieved December 15, 2012, from http://editor.citationstyles.org/searchByExample/
Mares, I. (2001). “Firms and the welfare state: When, why, and how does social policy matter to employers?” In P. A. Hall & D. Soskice (Eds.), Varieties of capitalism. The institutional foundations of comparative advantage (pp. 184–213). New York: Oxford University Press.

I have not tried it myself, but I hope it does the trick.

Thank you, perfect - and search by example is a helpful tool for others who are in need of a different style.

I agree with anyon. Well, that's the basic citation style and it is the mostly used. Since you said that your doing a quick not, this will style will be okay for your writing.
..this site might help..
http://www.cws.illinois.edu/workshop/writers/citation/apa/intextcitation/


text:
Would it be weird to cold email former students of a prospective advisor?
I was accepted to a PhD program, and the two professors I mentioned in my application have reached out to me to discuss research. Now I am wondering what is the best way to gather information on them. Is it considered odd to cold email a recently graduated student from the program? Or current students? I'll likely be in the same community as these people for awhile so don't want to be considered strange ...
Basically, almost all the PhD advice I've come across stresses the importance of talking to an advisor's students. But how do I contact these people? I will be visiting the school but am not sure I will have time to both meet with all of the faculty I'm interested in and their students.

At what point do you have to choose an advisor?

The initial assignment seems to be made quite early (before matriculation), and then they must confirm it by the end of the year.

This is an opinion and you may get opposite opinions, of course. If it is weird, it is only a little weird. I think it is something worth doing, actually. "How is Prof X to work with? Does s/he provide a lot of help or only a little. Any thing I should be aware of?"
There is very little worse in doctoral education than having a poor or abusive advisor. All you really need to know is that they treat students appropriately, even if they are (very) demanding.
You can find a lot of horror stories about advisors by searching/browsing around this site.
But just keep it informal.
I don't recommend cold calling professors, but would treat calling students differently.

Is it considered odd to cold email a recently graduated student from
  the program?

This is sometimes encouraged by the professors themselves. When I was applying for a PhD, a professor told me to contact his current student should I have any question about the lab, the school, the city and so on.
Back to your question, I think it's good to contact former PhD student. If they had a very good or very bad experience, they would be very eager to tell (or complain to) you.
In many countries, e.g. US, UK, the PhD theses are publicly available for download. And you can have some information from the Acknowledgements in their theses.

Did they thank their advisor passionately?
Did they thank their advisor for "always being available for discussions" or "allow them the freedom to do their research", or just "introduce the problem". You know the implications.
Did they thank other people in the lab, in particular fellow PhD students?
...

If there is no acknowledgement, that's the worst.

I doubt the details of the acknowledgements section of a thesis are all that informative.

@Bryan, I actually think the exact opposite. I know students with poor advisors in my program typically thank the advisor in very cold and formal language. This is a great suggestion in my book.

@Dawn Interesting. I just wouldn't trust that people put that much thought into the message their acknowledgement conveys, especially when people who are afraid of their advisor are still dependent on letters of rec etc around the time they are writing their acknowledgment, and people who trust their advisor a lot aren't worried about brief praise being anything but genuine. I just think an informal conversation is much more likely to be fruitful.

This is the only answer that doesn't imply that it is weird to contact former student. It is certainly NOT weird! I've been contacted and I've answered very honestly. The idea of looking at thanks is dissertation is interesting, but conversation/email is better.

I feel the other answers are not stated strongly enough.  Yes, it is weird, but you should absolutely do it.  You can use this method of cold-emailing:

Subject:  Your work with Prof. X
Dear Dr. ____,
I am contacting you because you were a student of Prof. X.  I am
  considering joining the group of Prof. X at ___ University.  I would
  like to get a PhD in (specialty) and pursue a career in (whatever
  industry).  Do you have any advice for me?
I will keep your advice confidential.
Thank you in advance
Your name

Generally when I do this I get a prompt response telling me how wonderful Prof. X is.   If you get other results, do not work with Prof. X.  While you are doing your cold-emailing, take note of the jobs Prof. X's students have.  Are those the jobs you want?  If not, find an advisor who can help you get those jobs.

It's a little weird but understandable why you want to do it.
If you could sidle up to it a little, I advise that.  Start with current students and do the discussions one on one (and not written, telephone or in person).  Ask a set of general questions (field, department, university, town) and include the advisor relations question(s) as a subset.
If you contact previous students, I would send a general email (thinking about doing research in X subfield, like to get your perspective) and ask to have a conversation.  [If you know there number, I would go direct to a phone call...leave a composed, short voicemail.  If you get them direct, just ask for a time to talk to them (so it is not sprung on them to consume their time immediately.]  Then same advice for current students as before applies.  Ideally, you may have some point of contact with the old students (shared network, same undergrad, etc.) to make it a little less cold.  But given you are not hitting them immediately with the questions, just the request to talk, I don't think a cold outreach is unreasonable.


text:
To what extent is being a quick problem solver (e.g. doing well in brain teasers) predictive of research success?
I hope to begin a PhD in the near future in a technical field. I feel that my strength is in being able to ask interesting questions / come up with a creative high level approach / make new connections between fields or ideas (several of my mentors have commented on this) and being extremely motivated and hardworking. I've done pretty well as an undergrad and one of my mentors told me that I shouldn't have trouble getting into my top choice PhD program.
However, my huge weakness is in quick thinking. I am embarrassingly slow to answer "brain teaser" type questions and feel that essentially all of the people I interact with in a research context are way faster than I am in their speed of problem solving and understanding technical papers.
So my question is: for those of you working in fields such as computer science, statistics, applied math - how important is raw speed of technical problem solving? Can I compensate for my slowness with hard work, or will I eventually reach some ceiling? I sometimes consider switching to an "easier" field, but I don't like the idea of giving up ...
It has taken me some time to see myself clearly (in large part because I had perfect scores on almost all standardized tests back in high school, and so thought I was "smart" ...), and after frankly looking at my strengths and weaknesses I suspect I might do better in a field where asking the right question is the most important part, and answering it is largely a matter of being motivated and conscientious. However, I can't think of any such field that truly excites me at the moment, and that also has reasonable exit options outside of academia.

Anecdotal experience: I spent a block of time yesterday swapping brainteasers with Ph.D students at a Super Bowl party. Not one person was able to get an answer to any of the brainteasers within 5 minutes. (Of course, this excludes everyone who knew the solutions already). Make of this what you will, but I honestly doubt I could find more than 5 people in my department (CS) who believe that solving brainteasers quickly is a prerequisite for research success.

Your strengths as you've described them are what I look for in a research student.  Research is a marathon, not a sprint.

From what I understand, research mathematics tends to have theory-builders and problem-solvers. I imagine in practice tend to be the former, maybe by temperament, maybe for funding purposes, but there are a few notable ones, Paul Erdős comes to mind, in the latter group. On the other hand if your goal is a nonacademic career, being a quick problem-solver might very well be to your benefit.

I hope to begin a PhD
understanding technical papers

You should not expect to understand technical papers even as an advanced undergraduate. These are often written to impress and placate referees more than to make readers' life easy. Sure, some papers will be fun to read, but most of the time reading a paper is a painful exercise in balancing between patience and criticism. I have read 0 non-expository papers in my 5 years of undergrad.

how important is raw speed of technical problem solving?

As a cause: probably fairly unimportant. Your output won't suffer much because you are a slow thinker. Researchers don't usually spend much of their time solving problems; it's closer to 10% problem solving and 90% bookkeeping, teaching, and other chores. If the former 10% take up 20% of your research time instead, well, you'll have a little bit less spare time then, or do worse at teaching, or compensate otherwise.
As a symptom or correlate: possibly, if the theories about thinking speed being (highly correlated to) a central component of intelligence (read the unending flamewars around Spearman's g if you think modern science has gotten boring) are true. But if several of your mentors have vouched for your motivation, willpower and creativity, you're likely not in much trouble either way. Very few scientists have "maxed out" all these attributes together.
Sorry, this was somewhat of a reddit-style answer, but then again it is a reddit-style question. Quantitative results are scarce. I don't recall seeing any studies correlating academic success with thinking speed; most studies use measures like SAT, which themselves are mediated by thinking speed. Feel free to respond with citations :)

I've done pretty well as an undergrad and one of my mentors told me that I shouldn't have trouble getting into my top choice PhD program.

I think there’s your answer right there, staring you (sort of) in the face. You will apply to grad programs, and the best and most experienced researchers out there will take all the data you and other applicants will submit, and use their best judgment to determine who among this group has the highest potential to succeed. If you get admitted to a top program (a big if - it’s certainly nice that your mentor says so, but I wouldn’t pop the champagne just yet), what that would mean is precisely that to the best of anyone’s ability to predict based on available data (which is much more data than is available to us here on this modest forum), you would be as well-positioned as anyone else to succeed in research.
Put differently: if grad programs thought that being good at quickly solving brain teasers was important, guess what - they would very likely try to have you solve brain teasers as part of the admissions process. Since they don’t, well, that kind of tells you everything you need to know about whether that’s considered an important skill...
By the way, everything I said above also applies if you get in to a very good program that happens not to be at the very top of your list. Plenty of really smart people end up in those programs. So basically, the admissions process is precisely the kind of evaluation that has been optimized over many years to measure (as best anyone is able to do that) your potential to succeed. There is no need for you to come up with other, external metrics. Just give it a shot, and if you get in, that by definition means you’re qualified. Good luck!

Answer after edit:
If you are getting perfect scores on standardized tests, I wouldn't doubt the general horsepower.  Perhaps there is some very specific aspect of mental processing that enables you to perform well on GMA tests, but not on brain teasers.  And perhaps even there are fields that benefit from fast brain tease ability. But this is a subtlety, among many when you look at what to do with your life (which has no Euclidean answer).
However, the comment on picking right problem is very interesting.  One of the most important aspects (very underrated) is having good intuitions about which problems are high likelihood of success.  Lot of sad stories from grad students who spin their wheel on "a problem the boss gave me".  Conversely I picked something I knew would work, sounded cool, and was cool; and project selection made my time so much more calm.  I think almost every field has cool problems and that when you get into it you will find them, especially if you think identifying good problems is a skill of yours.  Specifics will come from getting into the field though.
Personally I would go towards whatever interests you.  One small advice I would give is not to underestimate the experimental or applied sciences.  I was the classic "math science" type who wasn't perfect at a lab notebook and test tube cleanliness (and was scared by subjects involving difficult experiments or apparatus building...figured I was a pencil/paper type).  However, the truth is that a lot of what determines success in those fields at the real research level (as opposed to school courses) is picking projects and ability to read and interpret the literature. And they are a lot of fun...
Answer prior to question edit:
Your question is rational and candid.  We all have to look for comparative advantage.
There is a huge literature showing a correlation between IQ and performance in mentally complex jobs.  See, for example, meta studies by Hunter and Schmidt.*  (It is the strongest statistical relationship in nonpathological psychology.)
Of course, nothing is 100% as a predictor, but in general there is a certain amount of smarts needed to handle some areas like grad physics (Jackson E&M) and grad math (God knows).  And having more seems to be better even for those who have the minimum in those topics.
Again, it is not a 100% predictor.  Neither is speed or strength or size for certain sports.  But it is a strong factor.  Consider that there have been only 25 NBA players in the history of the league who were 5-9 or less.  Conversely if you meet a 7 foot man, there is a 1/6th chance he has or will play in the league.  So obviously specific traits (talents) can influence performance at high levels.
Note that there is some sorting of and probably different floors by academic topic.  With the more mathematical topics needing more horsepower and the more applied  ones less.    See XKCD:  https://xkcd.com/435/  However, be of good cheer.  The good part is the more applied ones are more interesting--more hair on the ball, more direct connection to industry/society.  Or so I tell myself to feel better for not solving Fermat's Last Thereom.  ;-)
*Link: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.172.1733&rep=rep1&type=pdf I think this is the classic summary paper of theirs, but they have published several others, including some more recent.

Please actually link to Hunter & Schmidt.

Thanks for the link! I'd be more interested in studies that explicitly focus on research-centered jobs, though. Gwern made a rather overwhelming overview of studies on intellectual outliers, but that transforms the problem into one of finding a needle in a haystack.

Yeah, I used to have a whole file on that stuff (had to do some support for a major consulting company on the topic).  It is hard copy and offsite.  And dated.  Had papers on several jobs.  H and S is a good start though (I think I got every paper they referenced also.) Sales is one of the more interesting ones in which there appears to be a factor other than GMA or conscientiousness.  I guess "sales ability"...or something.


text:
How to make a list of potential graduate school?
I will be applying to graduate schools the upcoming fall and I have a list of schools that I like based on professors, research work, etc. But, how can I realistically narrow my list to schools I can actually get into? I am a top student at a good public school, but it is certainly not an MIT or Ivy.
I have around a 3.9 and will have taken 4-5 grad courses by the time I graduate, with research with 3 different professors and a minimum of 1 paper co-authored.
I feel like getting into schools such as Berkeley or CMU is out of my reach, but I love their programs.
Can anyone suggest me a strategy which makes it much easier for me to make choices?
(Lesser the number of available options, quicker and better will be the decision.)

You are competitive for all of them by the sound of it.

It sounds like you already have 1) a list of potential schools and 2) some idea what schools you can realistically get into and which you cannot.
So take these schools and split them into three groups: those you should be able to get into (safety schools), those for which you have a 50-50 chance, and those which you would be delighted to get into (like Berkeley and CMU). It doesn't have to be a very scientific split; a rough one based on your intuition or whatever it was that made you think Berkeley and CMU are beyond you suffices. Then apply to some schools from all three groups.


text:
Advice for a career in healthcare management
I have a bachelor's degree in Applied Nutrition and Dietetics and an MBA from a AACSB accredited university. I have about four years of work experience in the field of healthcare management. I have worked in corporate (pharmaceutical) and government (health) sectors. I am interested to further my education to sharpen skills specific to healthcare management. Is it a right career choice to go for a second Master's degree in Healthcare Administration (MHA)? or is it advisable to go for a Ph.D program in healthcare management? What would be the pluses and minuses of getting a second Master's degree (MHA) after MBA in terms of more employ-ability?
Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you!

What do you mean by more employ-ability? Industry or academia? If Academia, PhD is a must. If industry, I am not sure PhD is worth it.

Just some thoughts and hopefully others will provide more ideas for you. I am answering with the assumption that you're in the US.
First, I don't think a Master in HCM is going to be a good fit. These programs want to prepare workforce for the HCM but you have already done that with real experience under your belt. Unless their syllabus contains a good amount of materials that you absolutely want to learn, or you feel that you're lacking the theoretical base for a PhD, I wouldn't suggest that.
PhD program seems sensible. And I'd also suggest checking out programs such as DrPH (Doctoral in Public Health) degree which usually gears toward applied rather than theoretical. I believe a DrPH selection committee will value you more than a PhD committee does. Regardless, since you want to come back out and work rather than stay in academia, look for a large mix of applied components with perhaps 30-40% research training.
As employment potential... I guess that depends on what you want to be. But generally, if I am to read a resume of an HCM candidate, I'd value experience and knowledge in:

Program monitoring and evaluation
Health economics
Cost effectiveness analysis
Statistics, biostatistics, or econometrics
Qualitative methods
Leadership training and conflict management
Budgeting and management of organization
Grant writing and management

That should open up some doors. Save some credits to specialize (it's better to have a broad research/work interest and a focus one, because funding streams are different in these two levels.) For instance, if you want to work in some large hospital, you may add a couple courses (or summer training or capstone project) in clinical trail management and electronic medical record. If you want to serve more specific group such as undeserved Hispanic population in California, then you can add a couple more components in health equity, community participatory research, and coalition management.
I guess my ultimate confusion is that you have already worked in HCM for 4 years, which means you were/are employed. What prompted you to get more employ-able? What is that extra thing you want? If you want to advance to the management position, then I'd perhaps suggest checking what kind of degrees these people have, and perhaps talk to a couple seniors and mentors in your company.
Regardless, I'd suggest opting for a slower pace and complete your degree while keeping the job. The affordable health care act is going to be an experience and you should keep involved in the field while studying. Apply what you learn back to your office, make your company treasure you (or even invest more in you.) When the degree is done, and if you're not happy enough to stay, then consider leaving.


text:
mentioning my country situation in motivation letter to demonstrate dedication for learning
I'm located in Syria and I'm writing a motivation letter to be used in applications for master of computer science scholarships.
Would it be useful  to mention how I managed to succeed with my studies despite all the awful things that happened in my country and my city ?

Yes, you should mention these issues.  Your situation is unusual, and it's helpful if the application puts everything in context for the admissions committee.  I don't know whether it will help your chances of admission, but if there are deficiencies in your application it might explain why you could not fix them, and in any case it certainly won't hurt your chances.


text:
mentioning MOOC's I took in my scholarship application
I'm preparing my application for a master degree scholarship, would it help to put the MOOC's I took in the application, I earned five MOOC certificates and expecting another two in the near future.

Yes! Why not? It shows that you go beyond what is required of you, and you have a genuine interest in learning. I always list certificates from MOOCs.

FWIW, I put the MOOCs I've completed in my tenure portfolio as a professor and it actually went over really well. So yeah, go for it.

Maybe mention a brief comment about what the MOOC means (and means to you and what you liked about that college that offered the MOOC) in your letter of application.
I bet, the older you get, recent MOOC completion statements will be getting more informative to any reader/recipient of your application than grades from a, say, 10 year old college degree.


text:
Should I submit my math subject GRE score? (Engineering undergraduate applying for Applied Math MS)
I scored 740 (63 percentile) in the math subject GRE. I am applying for a masters in Applied Math in the US. Given most unis have the GRE requirement optional, would submitting the score affect my application positively/negatively/neither?
PS : I studied electronics engg in undergrad. So was wondering if I should submit the score to strengthen my application (if it does).

Does this answer your question? How are Ph.D. applications evaluated in the US, particularly for weak or borderline students? Am I likely to get into school X?

Does this answer your question? Should I send a 60 percentile Math GRE score to Applied Math PhD Program?

It is hard to give a direct answer, but note that no single thing is determinative in the US. Note that the math GRE test is quite difficult, even for those who have studied math as a major in undergraduate work.
Also note that applied math is quite different from pure math. So, it is difficult to say whether it is a "strengthening" outcome. You also don't say which math courses you have taken in your program, but the GRE test emphasis is on calculus (broadly speaking) and abstract algebra.
The other problem with a prediction is that applications are evaluated by individuals with their own ideas about importance. Make sure that your other indicators of success are strong, especially letters of recommendation. In that case, the score probably doesn't matter much.
Yet another factor is the nature of the program(s) you are applying to and the likely competition there.
Perhaps (perhaps) it is better to omit non required things that aren't obviously positive.


text:
Is it normal, advisable and safe to work as a teacher in the UK (Scotland) without a contract?
While I am not an expert on the legal subject, I understand it is legal to work without a contract in the UK (although not very advisable as it is harder to defend your right).
My University was looking for a PhD student to cover a class for which they were missing a teacher. I am a 3rd year PhD student, and the syllabus of the class matched my expertise perfectly. As the slides already exist, it wouldn't take me much time per week, and the proposed salary was very attractive.
The University is always late every year with the TA contract, so I didn't mind much not receiving the contract in the first week of teaching. However, when I asked the person that made me the offer when I would receive it, they told me that I will not receive an offer/contract, and that it was never done for people in my situation.
My first reaction was to believe I was scammed, or the like. However, I assume that if that was the case, I would have (hopefully) heard about such malpractice in the past. I believe the University would uphold their promise to pay me at the end, but it does make me uncomfortable that I would have no "written agreement".
Does anyone have such experience in a UK (specifically Scotland) university? Have you heard or seen it before?
Note: I am not asking a legal opinion (as this is not the correct SE website) but rather, has it been done, and are University usually behaving correctly about this kind of thing if it is indeed common.
Edit

The position is paid, with a "one-off lump sum" given at the end. Not based on hours done
This is not a TA position. This is a proper teaching position.

Is the position compensated? I assume there are laws covering work for pay.

It is. There is a "one-off lump sum" given at the end. Not based on hours done

I believe it to be completely standard at UK universities that TAs don't have a signed paper contract. There should be some small level of interaction with HR - they have to check your right to work in the UK, and you need to be put on payroll, etc. This not happening would indeed be a cause for concern. Otherwise, the important part is that it is clear what you are supposed to do, and what you are supposed to get paid. This suffices for you to have a work contract, it doesn't have to be a piece of paper.
Other details are probably clarified in university regulations anyway, rather than in individual contracts.
If you are concerned that the university (or some of its representatives) might be taking advantage of you, get in touch with your local UCU (https://www.ucu.org.uk/) representative. Their support is going to be way more useful than a signed piece of paper.

I always had a "contract" for my TA activities. Rather called a "letter of engagement" which need to be signed, with the hours requirements and the work to do, the salary and the supervisor associated with it. No activities can be done without one

Thanks for the insight on the rest.

I agree with Arno above. At my PhD institution and my posdoc institution, even those who deliver entire series of lectures don't get a contract if they already have a position in the university (e.g. graduate student, postdoc, lecturer), unless it's considered a new 'position' or very much a longer term commitment (e.g. 6 months +). I think (not a lawyer) that they make a distinction between ad hoc engagements of people who are already employed or tied to the university in activities that are beyond their usual duties/responsibilities and actual specific employment for that activity. Sometimes, they do offer zero-hours contracts instead for ongoing teaching by graduate students though.
I haven't heard of anyone not getting paid because they didn't have a contract. (You or the department head will have to fill in a form to claim payment though - just find out who needs to do it. And HR/Finance office at various departments can take an age to actually process things, but that is a slightly different issue.)


text:
Is it conventional to point out harmless typos in mathematical derivations in lecture notes?
I am on a physics course. Often I struggle with following mathematical derivations, so I aim to scrutinize them very carefully to make sure I understand them. Sometimes I find mistakes in the lecture notes, which are harmless from the overall point of view (ie we get the same result, it won't affect subsequent lines). Nevertheless, they are wrong. Ie instead of writing J(x) (J as a function of x), lecture notes contain Jx, ie function of J times x. We mean the former, and later use the former interpretation. Or: writing exp(0-), where 0- is the limit of x as x approaches 0 from below, while the right thing which follows from the previous lines would be exp(-0-). Of course these are equal so not much harm done, but it is still wrong. Or when on the lecture it is said that "do check this at home you will get X", and I go home and check it and the answer is not X, that seems to be problematic. Almost noone bothers to check though, so it doesn't seem to be a big issue.
My usual reaction to this is to write a kind email to the professor to point these out. I thought it is useful for both of us, he gets to correct a typo, or I get to learn something new in case it is not a typo & I am wrong. I noticed though that this is not something common to do. Once I checked this on a course, and more than half of the entries on the list of erratum in lecture notes are the things I have pointed out. Am I a weirdo and I should stop pointing these out, or this is normal behaviour?

What is the professor's reaction to your comments? The fact that they maintain an erratum suggests that they see it positively. Some professors create a collection of notes that they refine and keep using for future offerings of the course, so you are probably helping future students as well.

It really depends on the prof. And sometimes, physicists have good reasons to not be as wxact as mathematicians

I am usually sent a "thank you for pointing that out" or something like that message, or I get no reply. In the former case I continue my habit, in the latter case I usually stop.

Professors sometimes plan to eventually turn their lecture notes into a book. That would make them particularly grateful for corrections.

Is J a linear map?  Then Jx is actually standard notation (but the mistake in the notes is not to mention this). Also why would 0- not be the limit from below? Generally I would say: yes, people are happy about having pointed out even the smallest typo, but you shd check with some other student if these really are typos.

To illustrate my personal view: I always announce that there will be bonus points for everybody who finds a mathematical error in my lecture notes. The students have to submit the error in a forum attached to the lecture and bonus points are only awarded once per error.

If you want to improve the notes, the most useful way seems to be to collect all the typos and only send one email at the end of the course. I'd think that would make it easiest for the professor to use the information.

I think it is a good idea. While the typos you find may be harmless in their respective contexts, they can be a hindrance to properly understanding the concepts, particularly for students who find the material challenging and are not immediately able to identify when something is just a typo. A harmless typo, such as an incorrect expression that just happens to match with the correct answer for a particular problem, can lead to errors if applied to other problems. Furthermore, "do check this at home you will get X" not giving X is not harmless — students would not be sure if they did not get X because they applied a method incorrectly or because it was just a typo, which would waste time and cause confusion, as you also mentioned.
Whether you should report the typos depends on the professor. If they explicitly encourage students to report them, then certainly you should. If there is no explicit guidance, then unless they react negatively to your corrections, it would be a good idea to inform them, and as you say, get a confirmation that your understanding is correct. If you are still in doubt, you can always ask what they would prefer.
In your specific case, the fact that they maintain an erratum suggests that they see it positively. Some professors create a collection of notes that they refine and keep using for future offerings of the course, so you are probably helping future students as well. In fact, some may encourage it to the extent of giving extra credit for finding errors.
I am not aware if it is "conventional" or "normal" behaviour in general, but I see no reason to not do this, as long as your corrections are accurate, useful, and you have the (even implicit) support of your professor.

If others in a class might be misled in some way then it might actually be essential to point out errors.

@Buffy Agreed, but it will be successful only if the professor is receptive. Some may see it as "yes, it is not exactly correct, but you get the point being made" and leave it at that, even if it could be misleading to other students.

I know it's a bit against the policy to say thanks in the comments, but thanks a lot. Most of the time I spent studying any course was figuring out whether something is a typo, or it has a deeper meaning that I am just missing. It is difficult for me, and I assume many, to dismiss an authoritative source as a typo when the entire reason I am even reading the thing is the implication that I know less than the source.

When I was an undergraduate, most lecturers downright encouraged us to aggressively hunt for typos. One first-year circuit theory lecturer brought a chocolate bar to each lecture, as a reward for the first person to find the (deliberate) typo in that lectures' notes. Of course, some had >1 typo in them, and thus you weren't allowed to eat the chocolate bar until after the hour was up, lest you have to subdivide it into (n_typo_finders) pieces beforehand...

Culturally, some physics people seem to take pride in using notation that's just sloppy - expecting the reader to figure out what was meant from the context if they understand the physics. For example, Lev Landau (Nobel 1962) sometimes wrote just T (temperature) when he meant kT (energy = constant * termperature).  He also sometimes wrote  "(something)/2mT" when he meant "(something)/(2mT)". He figured, if you understand the context, you can't possibly misinterpet this as "(something)/2 * m *T". My own grandfather was a physics professor and sometimes wrote like this too (they both studied under Abram Ioffe). I heard a plausible conjecture that some physicists who write like this, studied Hebrew as children and were taught to write just the consonants without the vowel signs, and expect the reader to figure the vowels from the context.
In my opinion, learning to decipher what the writer meant, from the context, as opposed to what they literally wrote, is still a useful skill for a physics major to learn. (Less so in other disciplines, such as economics or chemistiry, where most people aim to make their mathematical notation as readable as they possibly can.)
But there are way more than enough examples of this phenomenon in physics papers to master this skill. Helping make your class notes better for future generations is a noble goal. You also learn something in the process. Your instructors don't seem to mind (they maintain the errata). As long as they don't tell you that your corrections are over the top, you should keep going.


text:
How to decide contribution percentages for authors of a paper which is based on a patent?
Suppose four authors namely, A, B, C and D (in decreasing order of contribution) are inventors of a patent. The inventors agree to write and publish a research paper, however, authors B and C do most of the paper writing and experimental work. Author A provides them help while not directly indulging in the ground work.
My question is, does author A still deserves to be primary author of the paper? Or, the contribution of authors for paper has to be evaluated separately from patent? Please guide.

"The contribution of authors for paper has to be evaluated separately from patent" Yes, in theory. Sadly not always! A lot of politics goes into that deciding who is the first author these days.

It sounds like the project resulting in the paper began with the patent, but has since then required a large amount of additional technical work (the writing itself may count as well, but is generally much less important).
As such, it would be scientifically dishonest to pretend that the other work did not exist, and that authorship should be derived only from the patent, since the patent is clearly only part of the work being presented.  Authorship should thus be re-evaluated on the basis of the total contributions, both in the patent (since it does not count as a peer-reviewed publication) and in the subsequent work.
Without knowing exact details, however, it is impossible to know what order the authors should be in.  It may be that the patent work is so much more significant than the subsequent work it still makes sense to keep the same author order; just as easily, it may just as easily be that the subsequent work weighs more heavily, and that the order changes when the full work is taken into account.


text:
Why do a lot of publications ignore better results from other papers // compare only to old results (example in deep learning and biomed)
Before starting my experiments using open-access data, I compiled a list of the current publications using this same data and their results. I regularly faced the following situations when reading these papers:

Publications with better results are not mentioned in the comparison/previous work. Not only recent papers, which could have been published after the original submission date, but often older papers.
The benchmark used for comparison are "old". While robust they are not representative of the results obtained during recent years, or what could be call "state-of-the-art".
Additionally results from these benchmark, or even "state-of-the-art" papers, are recomputed with lower results (the motivation may be to get similar experiment settings).
The experiment setup used in the original and subsequent papers solving the same tasks are not used. The results are often still compared to the original work.

As a result, there are several papers claiming to obtain the "best" results, to be "state-of-the-art" or justifying the modifications they made to their experiments by showing they outperform other results when really they don't. I often find papers published in 2022/2023 which results are outperformed by papers published in 2019.
Specification: I am working in deep learning and biomed/medical imaging. The reasons may be field-specific (especially considering all the issue I mentioned, tho I am certain some of these can be found in a lot of experimental fields), but I am also looking to know pure academic reasons (i.e. possible explanation: publication is easier? students pressured into obtaining good results?) and if it happens in other fields what are the reasons.
Question:
Why is it done?

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

I would say that there are three factors here.

Like in all fields, there are some lazy and opportunistic practices. Researchers are doubly disincentivized from doing things like hyper-parameter optimization over the benchmark models: first because it is tedious and time consuming, and second because making the benchmark model work better will weaken the claims they can make about their new model.
Ideally, the referees are the counter force that will prevent authors from getting away with too much. However, deep learning is a bit of a mess in this regard, because there are so many papers, and there are only a few places where algorithms can really be tested apples-to-apples. In many cases, the only way to prove that a benchmark algorithm can do better than the authors claim is to look at the source code, find the problem, and ask the authors to rerun it (or rerun it yourself). This is way too much work for most reviewers. The other counter-force should be the  authors' concern for their reputations, but in deep learning, reputations are based on "breakthroughs" rather than consistent reliability and rigor.
As a result of the above, a lot of junk gets published every year. Most of it is harmless because most of it doesn't get much attention anyway. However, there is a certain "buyer beware" when looking all papers except for the most famous. And so it wouldn't really be reasonable to expect authors to identify every relevant claim, validate them, and then use the good ones as benchmarks. Rather, authors only bother comparing themselves against the widely accepted (pre-validated) ones.

It is admirable that you have been watching the literature so closely. But, I would advise you to be skeptical toward some of the published claims. For example, I once found a paper that claimed that it could do unsupervised clustering (put all the dogs in one pile, cats in another pile, etc.) without being told anything about the classes a priori. This seemed useful, and the idea seemed like it could work, so I spent a few days implementing the algorithm and doing some sanity checks. I eventually realized that the authors had neglected to mention a key limitation: the algorithm only works if all classes have the same number of exemplars. This assumption may be true for certain popular test datasets, but in "real life," the whole point of doing unsupervised clustering rather than supervised classification is precisely because you don't know what's in your dataset. So that was a waste, and I learned to be more skeptical of papers that made strong claims but hadn't been widely adopted.
Finally, I wouldn't necessarily assume that older is worse. For example, this Tel Aviv U / Facebook AI paper from 2022 indeed outperforms U-Net from 2015 on a biomedical segmentation task, but only slightly (mIOU from 66 to 69). Is it worth trading a well-established and simple model like U-Net for a much more complicated diffusion model in exchange for 3 points? Your mileage may vary.

good insight thank you.

Yeah, Unet is not the best example. I also beat all the paper I found with a optimised Unet and good data augmentation. However as I mentioned and you highlighted, the benchmark are not optimised, so the comparison is done with "worse" model rather than the metrics reportef by optimised model in other paper

Also I can echo the advice on skepticism. I recently read new papers to update my tables as I'm writing up my thesis, and I found some ... interesting results... let's say. So I started doubting a bit and I'm glad I can read you advice, as validation

Carelessness and the (perceived) need to portray the new method as outperforming existing ones certainly make their contributions here.
Some other possible reasons are:

There is no software provided with the papers supposedly introducing better methods, or potentially existing software may run into trouble when used by users other than the original authors.

The supposedly optimal performance in some papers may not reproduce in the hands of the authors of the newer paper.

The supposedly optimal performance in some papers may be a product of a lot of tuning and experimenting in order to achieve an "optimal" result, which a normal user other than the paper authors will not normally do and potentially not be able to do, at least not on a different data set. If authors play around a lot with tuning in order to achieve a good performance on certain data sets, there will be heavy selection bias.

Furthermore, a normal user cannot be expected to put a monumental effort into tuning, and the authors of a new paper will often justify the fact that older methods are not used in the optimal way by referring to a straightforward use that could be realistic by a normal user in practice. (They may also think that they shouldn't spend an all too large amount of their own time into making competing algorithms perform as well as possible, not only because they want to make their own method win, but also because it may indeed take too much time that you really only want to spend on your own algorithm).

Your skepticism is justified anyway though. My aim is not to excuse anybody. As a statistician by the way I am often astonished by the way many researchers in computer science seem to think that "optimal" performance on a handful of benchmark data sets that everyone is using is a reliable indicator for good performance on new data sets. If that performance on the few benchmark data sets even is really optimal, that is.