text:
Harassment and intimidation by fellow students
I live in Western Europe and began a CS degree 1.5 years ago. I had no prior programming experiences but the degree was aimed for beginners.
The male-female student ratio was 100:1 (as also stated by the official statistics). I was expecting this but I didn't let myself feel discouraged. However, whenever we had obligatory pair or groups projects, I had to deal with many difficult situations.
Sometimes my partner would code out my part of the task before we met in person to discuss the assignment, and then demand a "favor" back, others acted out aggressive and told me women expect guys to do everything for them. Another time another partner removed my name out of our projects despite me having done my part (+ writing all the comments and tests) so that I had to clear things up with my professor. And inumerous times they tried to turn our meetings for the assignments into dates and/or accused me of leading them on when I rejected their advances. I did have two or three classmates whom I trusted, but our professors demand we switch partners for every assignment.
The reason we have pair and group projects is because our professors know it's difficult to solve the assigments on our own (plus, a big part of software develpment is discussing and exchanging ideas and solutions).
I couldn't deal with the hostile environment so I dropped out despite my interest in programming. I come from a culture where gender is often segregated so I didn't really know how to deal with such advances/comments. Whenever I made my professors aware of the situation I was dismissed and told I just had to be more resilient and be more firm in my opinions.
My questions are: if I do end up retaking CS in a college environment again, how can I best avoid this? Should I go for a non-traditional route instead?

Some discussion has been moved to chat. The discussion can continue there, but comments below this one should request clarifications or suggest improvements to the question only. In particular, please see our guidelines for frame challenges before posting anything regarding this question's premise.

While the behaviour of your fellow students is not something I'd consider ubiquitous, it is sadly common enough to be matter of concern in computer science. My estimate is that you got unlucky in how much of this you encountered, and that would it be reasonable to expect much less of it if you try another university. But it seems difficult to predict well how a particular student cohort at a particular university will behave.
What you can do is to look for instituions where the faculty themselves are keen to have a welcoming environment for women in computer science. For example, in the UK departments can seek accredidation with the Athena Swan framework to demonstrate their strive for gender equality. You can check whether there is a "Women in CS" (or similar) group at a university you consider applying to.
At a well-run CS department, your complaints would have been taken very seriously.
Addendum: You mention that the gender ratio at your previous institution was 98:1. That is an extreme outlier that in itself would make me suspect that something is wrong. For comparison, in the UK about 13% of CS undergraduates are women. So on average, you could expect a gender ratio of around 10:1. Of course, that is still lopsided, but not nearly as bad.

Thanks for your comment! I've been checking out other universities, and I'll make sure to ask them about such groups. I'm hopeful that an environment change is the key.

@maliebina At my university there is an office that exists specifically to deal with harassment like what you suffered. When looking at future options, you might research or ask whether there are any provisions for dealing with such situations.

The ratio at my university 10 years ago was 40:1 ; I wouldn't find 100:1 to be unusual if the program were larger. But this reported behavior does appear extreme, especially if it were truly pervasive.

I guess an indicator of how welcoming will faculty be is the M/F ratio between teachers themselves

So it's worth stating here that you are probably right, the hostile environment is a side effect of sexism. Not necessarily overt "women are stupid" sexism, more like a misconception that they were doing you a favour by doing your work for you, and it was unreasonable of you not to be willing to "give them a chance". This kind of sexism isn't acceptable, and it's actually more challenging to handle because the perpetrators don't think they are being sexist.
My sample size isn't massive (4 institutes), but I will say that in my limited experience, this problem is particularly bad in CS compared to Physics. Also, exactly how bad does vary greatly between institutes. Arno's answer has already given you great advice about finding an institute that is better organised to tackle these problems, and has a better culture.
You also asked for some advice on handling it personally. Though I know all such advice is easier said than done, there are two things that I would advise.
Good boundaries make good friends.
Or at least, when you can't be good friends, good boundaries make good working relationships. The difficult bit is not responding to the guilt you feel when you enforce these boundaries.
When I need to tell someone "no" or "please stop doing X", even when I'm well prepared, I feel bad. I feel like they will like me less, I feel like I'm being antisocial, I feel like people will think I'm mean. And I'm not entirely wrong, people can be judgmental. But not saying "no" is normally worse, because then I will start to feel resentment. I will resent the person that I haven't told "stop" for not reading my mind and stopping anyway. They will sense that resentment and quite correctly decide my behaviour is unreasonable.
On the other hand, if I just say "please stop that" they are only annoyed for a day at most. However, they move on, and they feel more comfortable in the relationship, because they are clear about what is acceptable. The relationship feels more secure, because we understand each other better. They may perhaps realise that I don't want the kind of relationship they want to have, so they back off a bit, but that's ok, you don't need to be everyone's friend. You will still find it easier to work together.
As someone who was socialised as a woman (I am a trans man) saying "no" is one of the few social skills that women are really not taught well. It was something I learnt later in life. Being friends with people socialised as men has really helped me work on this. You may also find this is something you are able to get better at.
Student unions are normally very supportive.
This one is likely a bit UK specific, because while the other places I've worked sometimes have student societies, they don't exist in the same way.
Where you do have a large student union, they are excellent. Normally left leaning, and inclined to activism; yours is exactly the sort of cause they would be championing. They can be a source of sympathy, advocates to help you communicate well with the lecturers, and advice on navigating your universities internal grievance channels if it comes it it.
Perhaps even consider looking at universities that have a large student lead organisation in particular. It could be a really good counterpoint to any issues you encounter in the academic departments.

I am so sorry for your situation. It makes me think that gender diversity is not at all the concern of the university, and the academic environment is full of prejudices towards women. However, I believe your situation is just an extreme outlier that is relevant only to the place you are living/studying.
As suggested in Arno's answer, you should consider institutions having a welcoming environment for women, probably in other countries. I think it is true for most large institutions where such issues are taken seriously. You should take into account gender diversity and culture of the university as well. M/F ratio is a good indication. You can also ask (female) alumnis of the programs you are interested in for their opinions (on LinkedIn).
Yet, even if you choose an environment where women are welcomed to pursue STEM degrees, there is no guarantee that you will not run into a situation like this (e.g. when you do a group project with some male students). Once you are in a better environment, you should ignore them and just do your best. You can do it.
Furthermore, I do not have official statistics, but from what I have observed, CS programs tend to have higher M/F ratio than that of IT programs. IT programs are professional programs. CS programs are more theoretical and mathematically heavy. This is just an oversimplification.

Adding to the already existing excellent answers:
In Germany (and probably in other countries as well) there are some universities that offer CS studies only for women* for the exact reasons that made you drop out of the program (see examples here, here and here, 1 and 2 in German). I am pretty sure that programs like these might exist in othere countries as well.
If you can't find a program like this, it is always good to find allies: the (few) other women* and the (few) men* that do not behave the way you described. If you are sitting in the same boat, you can find strenght in numbers.
Another suggestion is to instead of asking to work alone (as proposed in other answers) is to ask to work with a fixed group of people that you know you can work with without facing unwanted advanced, sexism or other kind of unacceptable behaviour.
Student unions, equal opportunties officers, women*'s represetatives or other support groups exist to help you with such troubles.

Assuming no institutional fixes solve the problem, you can pretty much do 2-person projects by yourself and it will be fine.
For grading I generally expected a 2-person project to be maybe 50% more effort than a solo. Communication and lack there-of is a big drain on "2 people = 2 times the work" idea. But then take two strangers, still learning computer programming, and with no project management training -- I don't have to even tell you, since you've experienced it -- there's so much time wasted on misunderstandings, egos, miscommunication that 1 person could easily do a better job. I'm actually somewhat horrified group projects are being assigned before the Software Engineering course (where they actually teach you how to do group projects).
Ask if you can do solo projects. If the class has an odd number of students, you're helping. And partners drop out of class and so on -- the instructor is already grading a few 1-person projects. If needed, mention why you want this, but don't bother mentioning partners taking your name off, or coding out the part they want in advance. All group "throw them in the water" projects have that sort of nonsense. Stick to how you're tired of being sexually harassed by partners. No instructor wants to deal with the blowback from that. An advisor may be able to help -- maybe even with a finding a more sympathetic instructor.
And then, you're still allowed to study with the students you actually get along with. When you're learning, ummmm, using functions as arguments(?), you can still go over the examples with those students.

This will likely be an unpopular opinion, but - save yourself the money. Find a digital problem in your life, and solve it with the programming language of your choice. You'll learn what to do, but most importantly, what not to do. You will fail often. CS is one of those weird fields where you can learn absolutely anything and everything using free resources, and in my experience self-learners do better because they don't fall into the trap of always expecting to have a manual tell them how things work - they know how to figure things out with little resources.
I dropped out of college after a year because I felt they were teaching things not relevant to my career. 12 years later I'm a DevOps Engineer, and get paid about as much as you can reasonably get paid in this field. I learned programming (JavaScript, C++, few others), I learned Linux system administration (Ubuntu, CentOS), and my education didn't cost me a cent (aside from the wasted first year, of course).

Yours is surely an unpopular advice. Nowadays there are highly technical "IT" jobs that require a research degree and many years of experience. There are also jobs that require no degree and not much work experience. However, for high-level jobs, I do believe preference will always be given to the candidates with a degree.

@Roland I think it depends on the company and their cultural focus. Where I work currently, the percentage of woman in technical roles is around 40%, but I'll concede this is first company I've worked at with such a ratio. Previous jobs were indeed under 5%.

@edelweiss I've managed to get 3 different jobs where the education requirements were very heavy. We're talking a list requiring a 4 year degree, ITIL qualifications, RHEL certification, and sometimes even more. I tell them straight up I'm confident in my abilities, and get the job. How that'll hold in future I guess we'll see


text:
academic dismissive undergraduate and research experience
I've got an academic dismissive (LOW GPA) from the department at my 2nd year of my undergraduate study due to money problems, then I got back to the program and raised my GPA from 1.9 to 3.2 (overall GPA).
Step by step, my GPA at the last 60 hours was 3.75> I overcame the problem because I've found a good job from home.
I worked as a research assistant for one year with two of my professors, had a 8 weeks internship in a good institution in London, had a 6 weeks internship in my country, and studied well for the exam so I've got 100 out of 120 in the TOFEL exam and 170 for the Q part, 153 for the V part of the GRE exam.
I want to take a Master of Science in materials engineering or aerospace materials, and then continue to PHD.
Please tell me if the dismissive mistake will effect the master's admission negatively?

Hi, welcome to SE Academia. I understand you're upset about this topic, however we'd need clearer information to provide any useful feedback. Please revisit your post, and focus on a specific questions. You can break it down by posting different questions, if it would make this easier. Right now it reads very confusing.

Please avoid vandalizing your question. It's useless and would only lead to suspension.

The only proper answer will come from the admissions system of a university that you apply to. However, in any system that lets you make a personal statement or (better) includes an interview, you will have a chance to explain the issue. Most people, though not everyone, will understand that people change and grow. They also, normally, understand that the more recent work is a better indication of your future work.
I wouldn't worry too much about it, as long as you have a satisfactory explanation and have made up any learning deficit you may have from the year of poor work.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is there such thing as too many follow-up emails to a professor?
I worked with my professor on a project for two months at the beginning of this year. After a while, I finished writing up the paper and sent it to him to check. He didn't reply. I've sent 5 follow-up emails within the span of 3 months after that with no reply. I am afraid to send another follow up email (the last one was a month ago) because I don't know whether he wants to continue with this project anymore.
Should I just give up? or start sending more follow-ups but at a higher frequency?

Are you sure you have the email address correct? I have had students complain to me that I ignored them and when we checked the email they sent to me, they had mis-typed it... an egg-on-face moment...

Email is obviously not succeeding, so contact him another way.  Phone, postal mail, visit his office, etc.  You may also contact his department chair and ask if they know of any reason why he wouldn't be answering emails.

I don't know whether he wants to continue with this project anymore.

Even if that's the case, you have every right to be told that directly.  Ignoring your emails would not be an appropriate professional way for him to communicate that to you.

Do not contact the chair.  If everybody contacted a chair every time an email went unanswered, the poor chair would be swamped.  The chair probably already knows the professor doesn't answer his emails either.

I'd also avoid postal mail: it can likewise go ignored.

I see two possibilities that haven't yet been mentioned, and can think of several others. But it can all be cleared up with a personal visit.
The first is that your mail is being flagged as junk and relegated to a junk folder. Mailers can be weird about that and one of my regular correspondents always winds up in my junk folder.
But the other possible reason is the nature of your email. You don't say whether you explicitly ask for feedback or just assumed you would get it. If you don't ask, it is possible that the professor is treating your mail as "for your information".
Other possibilities include illness or overwork, etc. But the way to get real feedback is to meet in person. You can ask for "next steps" or "what is still needed".

Check very nicely with the department secretary. The office staff often know what's going on with various professors and might have suggestions about how to get a response.

Yes, you can send too many follow-up emails.  How many is "too many" depends on the importance of the issue.  Publishing a paper is very important, so I would say that you cannot send too many.  However, you could send them too frequently.  Try once a month.  Don't give up.

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


text:
What license to choose for preprint on OSF (Open Science Framework) when the preprint has been published in a journal?
I'd like to put two preprints on OSF to make them available for everyone. One paper is already published, the other is in press. I've checked on SHERPA/RoMEO if the publisher allows preprint to be put on another server and everything seems to be ok. For example for the Journal "Nursing Ethics" it says "author can archive pre-print" and "author can archive post-print".
I then tried to upload the preprint to OSF, but I don't understand the option for licensing. I can either choose
- CCO 1.0 Universal
- No License
- CC-By Attribution 4.0 International

I've read the FAQs on licensing but I don't understand these options well enough and I'm wondering if the right choice depends on the publisher's copyright policy. So which one shall I choose?

CC-BY-SA-4 has a nice explanation. I like it. But the choice is yours, and I am not a lawyer.

Welcome, Sophar! Perhaps you could tell us more about what you want/need in a license and this would be more possible to answer. (Academia SE tries to avoid "What should I do?" questions because they don't generalize well for other people who are later looking for answers.) Good luck!

Thanks. My question is not about what I want, it's about what one has to do in this case. Does my choice of the right license on OSF depend on the publisher's copyright policy? I assume many people now the right answer, because they put their preprint on OSF and make the same choice.

Can you explain what difference you see between one paper being "already published" and the other "in print"?
To anyone interested in publishing, "in print" necessarily means "already published".
More usefully, "ever printed, even if now out of print" necessarily means "already published".
Can you re-phrase what you're hoping to clarify?

@RobbieGoodwin The OP just probably confused in press with in print.

Sure, thanks for the correction.

In most cases, as long as you post your version of the paper (not the typeset version that your publisher agreement is likely owned by the published), then you choose the license that you want for your work.


text:
Is it suitable to store online public datasets in more than one depository?
If one has a publicly available dataset depositored in an online depository such as Zenodo or Figshare, is it suitable for the same data be stored in a separate location such as ResearchGate that can use the same DOI? I am not sure if this would count as dual publication, or if this is even valid for this type of data. This is assuming:

The exact same datasets
The same DOI is used for both sources i.e. no new DOIs
The data is publically available and the depository's license reflects this

This may also be complicated if the dataset is updated in the future, as it may then need to be updated in both locations.

If the data can be considered a creative product (hence copyrightable) and if you hold copyright to it, then you can do with it pretty much as you like, so long as you don't violate any licenses that you have already given. An exclusive license given to one repository would make it improper to give another license to another, but that is unlikely.
I'm assuming that the original DOI attaches to the object itself, and not to its repository, as it should be, so that shouldn't change, though a DOI normally points to a source, which would no longer be unique. The DOI system has provision for that, but you will need to manage it.
You could, alternatively, leave various pointers around in different places to point to the original.
If you've given up copyright (say, to a publisher), then you can only do what any license entitles you to do.
If you modify/update the dataset, you might be better off treating the result as a new set, with a new DOI. Otherwise you will cause problems with citations made by others.
And note that not all datasets can be considered copyrightable.

You can find the answer in the official DOI definitions.

DOI resolution records can include one or more URLs, where the object
can be located

So the different URLs must be recorded in the DOI.
If you want to update the URLs at a later point, please have a look at the right side of this page (right side of the webpage www.doi.org)

Clicking on a DOI link (try this one:
https://doi.org/10.1109/5.771073) takes you to one or more current
URLs or other services related to a single resource. If the URLs or
services change over time, e.g., the resource moves, this same DOI
will continue to resolve to the correct resources or services at their
new locations.

So in principle the same object can be referred via 2 or more URLs.
Please note that a DOI cannot be deleted, so updating URLs must and is contemplated.
For an example of versions management, have a look at the page of SeaDataNet.


text:
Upcoming PhD interview
I applied for some PhD's in differential geometry in the UK, and I was offered an interview this coming Wednesday and they said this in the confirmation email:
"The interview will be conducted by insert prof name and myself and
should last around 30 minutes
In the interview we will ask about relevant courses you have taken, we will
explore your knowledge and understanding of these courses, and we will
discuss your motivation in applying for the insert department name PhD. We will also ask
some technical mathematical questions about topics you have covered."
Any clues what I should expect and how I should prepare? How much can they rip me apart in 30 mins?
It’s also worth noting that I did my undergrad in theoretical physics; would this imply that the technical questions refer to undergraduate questions or to the Masters programme I’m currently enrolled in (which allows me to study both pure and applied maths)?
Furthermore would the relevant courses taken mean the ones I’m attending currently for my Masters programme (given I did submit a list of the courses I attended last term and the ones I’m attending this term) or, again, would it refer to stuff I have independently studied in my undergraduate, which was a point I mentioned in my application?

I can't help with a UK relevant answer, but suggest that you honestly admit that you don't know the answer when you don't.

It's a bit tricky to answer the broader questions without knowing specifics (and of course you probably won't want to go into detail on this site). For what it's worth: given that the context of this question implies you are not currently studying in the UK, I expect that the people reading your PhD application may feel unsure about what is and isn't covered in the courses listed in your transcript. They may also not be familiar with the education system of the country where you're currently studying, if it's not the UK. So they want to find out what diff geom you know

(I say this as someone who has in the past been involved in this kind of interview)

Any clues what I should expect and how I should prepare? How much can
  they rip me apart in 30 mins?

My number one tip: don't go into it expecting to be ripped apart, they're academics, not leopards! :)
Seriously, though, every PhD interview I had (UK, cosmology, three years ago) was very friendly and relatively informal. Some were more informal than others, and I think it's no coincidence that I accepted the offer from the place where I had the most relaxed interview experience. Remember that not only are the interviewers looking to see if you're a good fit, you need to find out if the department is a good fit for you. I highly recommend talking to their current PhD students if you get a chance!
Since they say in their email that they will ask about relevant courses, think about which of the courses you've taken are most in line with the PhD project(s) you're applying for. The technical questions I was asked were all closely related to cosmology, even though I'd taken courses on solid state physics, electromagnetic theory, a whole bunch of solar physics courses... you get the picture. At the time I didn't have a strong cosmology background so I didn't know the answers to quite a lot of things, but I used my general physics knowledge to try and reason things through, explained what I was thinking and was honest when I didn't know the answer. They're not expecting you to know everything about your topic of interest already, they're far more interested in seeing how you think and communicate.
However, the majority of all the interviews I had focused on the research I was doing for my Master's dissertation. I talked about my work in detail, as well as the relevant literature. I think my ability to discuss the basic ideas in a very recent paper that was relevant to my project (and also why I didn't completely agree with it) left a good impression with the panel. If you've done any kind of research project or dissertation before, expect to spend a lot of the interview talking about it, so make sure you know it inside out.
In summary:

Look forward to the interview as a chance to discuss your subject with experts, and to look around a new department.
Be prepared to stand at the whiteboard and explain your work and thinking (practice doing this with a friend if you haven't done it before, good communication is key).
Know your subject well and have a good idea of the relevant literature to the projects you're applying for.

Good luck!

I am a first year PhD student in theoretical computer science (formal methods), which is close enough to math that I think my experience my be relevant.  (Also my undergrad is in math.). When I applied to programs I did multiple interviews like this.  In my experience the technical questions pertained to:

literature written by or related to the work of the professor I applied to work with;
potential research topics;
my academic background and coursework.

Other than Oxford in the UK all my interviews were in the US so this may differ country by country but I suspect the following:

any courses you have taken in any previous degree are open for discussion;
any research topics you have studied in the past or worked on professionally are open for discussion;
research topics and literature pertaining to the professor you might work with will almost certainly be discussed.

As such, my best advice is to read papers by the professors you want to work with, and read some of the papers they cite.  If you can  explain a result to the interviewer and show how this relates to your own interests it will go a long way.
My experience was that these were not like job interviews - they were not very intimidating.  However this might be different in the UK.  I felt like my knowledge of academic literature was very useful in these interviews, but my knowledge of specific mathematical or computational facts was not.  For example, I was not asked to define a Buchi automaton or solve a differential equation or do a whiteboard programming exercise, but I was asked to explain some results from various papers and how they related to my interests.


text:
Supervising students in summer (US specific)
I have recently joined a US university on a 9-month tenure-track appointment. As I do not have any grant funding yet, my summer will be unpaid, so I pursued (and managed to get) a visiting researcher position at an industry lab over the summer months.
However, I am only now realizing that certain things will be expected from me over the summer even when I am not officially an employee.

In particular, I have recently hired a PhD student for my lab, and it would be difficult to provide sensible supervision without being physically present in the lab on a weekly basis. (And it wouldn't be very professional of me to simply tell the student that they're on their own for the next 3 months starting May...)
In addition, we are also being assigned as "academic advisors" of around 10 undergraduate students, which appears to be a year-round duty, i.e., they may need to get in touch with me for signing their course forms during summer when I'm not physically around.

How do other faculty deal with such duties over the summer, assuming they are on a 9 month contract?

Is your salary paid out over 9 months or twelve (as is typical). Often (usually) a 9 month contract simply implies no assigned teaching duties over summer but you are still considered an employee. If you teach during summer you get an additional stipend. Or do you really not get paid for 3 months per year?

Another way to say it is that you are paid an annual salary with assigned teaching for only 9 months. So you are actually employed year round.

My (new) advisor spent the first summer at a national lab, but we had been working together during the school year so things were pretty ok. No guidance for a brand new student is tougher. Do you actually have a lab?

@Buffy: Neither of your statements is true for a typical tenure-track position. Faculty are explicitly hired for 9 month appointments (which is what makes grant-based summer salary and summer visiting positions possible), and while it’s possible to have your 9-month salary paid out over 12 months, every institution I’ve been in has that as an option you need to request.

@RLH, hmmm, so you claim that you aren't an employee in the summer, so (a) you could claim unemployment benefits each summer and (b) if you submit a paper in the summer you can't claim affiliation. Sorry, that is ridiculous. Grants and such are a contractural matter that don't depend on being "unemployed" to receive them. Likewise visiting positions. Being employed and having assigned teaching duties are quite different things.

@Buffy, I never said that you’re not an employee of the university over the summer. Contractually, you are an employee year round, but are only paid for the 9-month academic year, and have a zero-hours contract during the summer months. You can’t have a grant pay you for time that you are otherwise employed, so taking on summer salary from a grant is dependent on you having those “empty months” in your main contract.

@RLH: Legally, I am not an employee between May and August. I know this for a fact, because we are on contracts that are extended on a per-year basis (yes even for tenure-track) and these contracts have an explicit duration from August to May.

@CCAcademic. That’s interesting. How do they handle office access, etc., during the summer?

I think the undergraduate advising can be done remotely; you can meet on zoom and sign things electronically

The idea that you'd do anything when you're not an employee at all sounds like a liability nightmare. If you're sure you're not at all an employee, you might want to check in with the university legal on how that's even supposed to work.

This is certainly an awkward part of the way universities employ faculty. You are right that you are paid for only 9 months of work per year (regardless of how specifically the contract is structured and/or how your salary is actually paid out over the year), and in most institutions, everyone is acutely aware that faculty are not expected to do work for the university during the remaining 3 months. So there are no faculty or committee meetings, and no other expectations, though there is often a certain low level of activity that consists of just moving things already in the pipeline along.
The one exception, universally agreed to be problematic, is that students need to be advised during this time. For your undergraduate advisees, this is likely not much of a problem -- half an hour here or there, easily done via Zoom -- but for graduate students, you have to expect 1-2 hours per week. It is clear to everyone that that is ethically difficult: The university doesn't pay you, but the student needs you regardless, and so everyone I know makes sure that their students are advised. This can of course happen remotely via Zoom too (that's all we had during the pandemic, and it worked reasonably well), but it is true that strictly speaking, it is unpaid labor.
I don't know that @Buffy's answer that you definitely won't get tenure if you don't do it is true in this generality. I know of one faculty member who just switched off their email during the summer, saying that since they're not paid they won't work for the university. You'd probably get some sympathy from your colleagues for taking a stance, but your colleagues (and your students!) would likely consider it an ethically hard to defend choice given that you've chosen a line of work in which caring for students is an integral part of the job.
So my recommendation would be to make sure you have time for at least rudimentary support of your graduate students. You don't have to be in the same place for that, and they'll understand that you can only offer a certain amount of time. I suspect that your summer employer will also understand if you had to take an hour or two every week to do university stuff -- the constraints on university faculty are well understood, and they hired you nonetheless.

To add to your comment about @Buffy's answer. I would say they are speaking a harsh but realistic truth. If you don't do a great job as a supervisor and a colleague (ie by not being around) then that provides a counter argument to awarding you tenure. This is especially true if you don't have significant funding, which in this case is the reason for not being around. So you go up for tenure with low funding, and poor supervision. Doesn't look great. Nobody will bat an eyelid at someone who is well-funded with a productive and established research group getting an external research stint.

@R1NaNo Granting tenure is a decision that is based on a holistic view of a case. Of course, if not being around is only one part of the problem, then that gives pause; but if it is the only piece -- say, if someone has grant funding but decides to work from elsewhere during the summer, and is productive in publishing --, then I doubt that just the absenteeism during the summer will sway the scale.

In my university, faculty cannot be mandated to do anything over the summer without them being paid. That said, part of being a member of a faculty is that you, of course, do have to do some work over the summer. This could be a lot of things, but obviously you are doing research, writing grants, writing papers and prepping courses.
For your undergraduates, it sounds like not many and you can arrange with each of them to make sure they register for the right classes for the summer and fall and do whatever they need to do in terms of careeer prep  You can do all that literally by the end of the spring semester.
For your doctoral student, again, I would spend time in the spring planning for the summer and then plan to check in on them on a regular basis. Not knowing more about the research it's hard to say how much supervision is needed, but if that research is supposed to help you get tenure it is definitely worth it for you to make sure that the work gets done, maybe even a 15 minute chat before you leave for your summer commitments every day or at the end of every day.
Even in my college I find that there is a lot of variation department to department.  But one thing you learn is that a lot of important things happen in the summer.

Two things. First, you can almost certainly have your salary paid over 12 months so there is no gap in income.
But, more important, if you tell students that they are "on their own" for three months in the summer you are very (very) unlikely to get tenure. Either the other faculty will vote against you or the chair and dean will veto your tenure. Moreover, if you have hired a PhD student you have a personal and professional responsibility to them that you can't ignore and need to find some way to manage. If that requires on-site presence, then it does.
There are ways to handle any summer duties with the help of staff so that it isn't onerous. But when there are decisions to be made that only you can make, you need to be available to make them. That probably doesn't mean on-site, though, but if you ignore emails people will notice and probably complain. And a lab that needs supervision over summer needs supervision. That may mean you or not. You aren't like an auto-worker whose job is done at the end of the shift. If you think that way you aren't likely to succeed in academia. You are paid to do a job, not to put in clock hours.

If there are dutioes to be performed then surely that needs to be paid for ....

Not sure why this was downvoted. It may not be what people want to hear, but it is true. If I have to vote on tenure for a young faculty who is never around and leaves their students unattended, then they are not meeting their mission of building a research program and training students. Hard to make a strong argument in their favor. Especially since their funding isn't strong, i.e. the reason they couldn't be around in the summer.

@R1NaNo, I'm surprised you are surprised. When I wrote it I was pretty sure it would be downvoted. You may have tagged the reason, though that is usually difficult to say. But "professor" is a profession, not a job.

@deep64blue, so, as a retired professor, if a student wants me to write them a LoR, how much do I charge them? Is $500 about right in your judgement? The university won't pay me as I'm not employed there anymore.

@The Doctor - you downvoted an accurate answer, to a geographically specific question because you don't agree with how things are done in that country? Either way, you can choose disbursement over 12 months. Your healthcare does not stop, nor do any employment benefits over those three months. If you get funding, that's just extra money on top of what is already a highly competitive salary. My starting 9 month salary in the US as an assistant prof many years ago was already higher than a full professor in the UK and on par with associate profs in equivalent cost of living areas in Canada.

As noted, this is a particularly frustrating part of the US academic system. It's especially difficult when you start out, before the funding comes in. This is why I always advocate for faculty that are starting out to either negotiate for, or budget some summer salary as part of their start-up funds.
Unfortunately, from the perspective of running a successful research group, and going for tenure (I say this from a large public R1 perspective, but that's not the only one and all departments/colleges/universities have their own requirements), it is critical to be there in person, interacting with students, your colleagues, and building research capacity and internal reputation. Being away early on is not the right way to do that. While it will provide personal money, and can be a reasonable line-item on your CV, this is not your current task.
What all faculty should be doing when they start is building a solid foundation in their group. Establish a self-sustaining research program so that you can leave for extended periods with minimal (zoom and email) oversight. That means interacting with graduate students a lot in the early days so they are well-prepared and confident. Bringing in postdocs is also great (but not always feasible depending on funding). Allowing these well-trained students to then take on more responsibility (I'm not talking about pawning off your work to students, I mean allowing them to be more independent and take leadership roles with your group) benefits both you and them.
This takes time.


text:
Is it a good idea to get involved with journals as an associate editor prior to getting tenure?
Is it a good idea to get involved with a relatively good journal (yes subjective -lets assume an impact factor +2 and good editors) as an associate editor prior to getting tenure?
Does it have a net positive effect on one's trajectory given the time lost due to extra work (administrative and else)? Or should one stick to minimum administrative work in faculty and outside and not think about these luxuries prior to getting the tenure. I have been given broad advise as to minimise my luxurious endeavours prior to tenure. I also remember reading similar advice in regards to writing books in technical fields (only do it after tenure, just stick to good publications before and try to minimise administrative work).

@Peter Jansson The topic is my main research focus and I am absolutely and categorically passionate about it. I take that as a given and I am mainly concerned with the other things aside from one's interest in the topic.

What do you mean by other things? What you get out of being an editor is highly personal and it will therefore possibly boost you in indirect ways. for me it is a positive "distraction" when I am buried with admin and other less appealing aspects of academia.

@Peter Jansson, I am referring to everything else that is not in relation to one's love for the topic. Time commitment, relative merits of such work in view of the faculty, personal experience and how you perceive this would have affected you if you started prior to tenure, being an associate editor and not the editor, whether you would give the same advice as its a luxury for now and follow this passion after the tenure. That sort of a thing... Also things that I don't know are things to think about and worry about. A rookies known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

Tried to add something along these lines in my answer. The problem I have with being specific is that there is always going to be a big portion of personal aspects involved.

@PeterJansson your insights are highly appreciated.

I think my first recommendation would be, do not see editorship primarily as a career move/booster (if it ever is). Become an editor if you enjoy that side of the publishing and you think you have something to contribute. I had some opportunities with editing conference proceedings and thematic issues which gave me the insight that I really enjoyed working on that side of publishing (along with my research, admin, students etc,).
Signing up to be an editor is a longer term commitment. You need to check with the journal if they have a "from now on" or fixed periods for editors. You should probably expect to be involved for, say, three years under most circumstances. You should also check the expected work load in terms of, say, papers per year (but expect the workload to vary significantly over shorter time periods).
Being an editor can be very fruitful since it may give you new impulses on scientific writing and thinking and other similar aspects that can help your own development. As an editor, you will perhaps also gain some reputation, your name will be seen in amongst hopefully respectable peers (the other editors). Not that this may be of direct importance in terms of tenure or so but it may develop your network of contacts. There are many positives that follow from serving as editor, in my opinion, and it will be up to you to take the opportunity to serve as a fair and sound editor. There are no doubt tricky issues concerning ethics that will pass your desk but solving such issues together with other editors is a good and useful learning experience.
So in the end, become an editor because you want to, the chore will take time from your other duties and you need to be prepared to provide that time on top of everything else over a longer period. As you become seasoned, the time you need to spend on each paper diminishes somewhat so initially, you may find the time consumption larger than expected.
EDIT: I guess my point is that the editorial work takes time and effort but is also rewarding on a personal level (how, is personal). How this spills over into your situation in terms of meriting is for you to assess. Does your workplace appreciate such efforts? If you really want to do it, will the opportunity arise again any time soon? Are you willing you sacrifice some spare time if need be, and over some longer term? Clearly it should not reduce your other activities that are meriting for your career (research, publishing, teaching supervising etc.) so you need to balance between your own interest and what you need to do. That is why assessing how much time will be required(on average) is a good starting point.
My personal view throughout my early career was to jump at opportunities that I felt strongly about and where I could see something good coming out at the other end. By good I mean both for myself or for my career. I figured, the only thing I had to invest was my time and I needed to invest it wisely to help me get a permanent position but also to do things I really liked. So on the whole, quite egotistical, but then I have not been much for spending much effort on stuff I did not like or saw a point in. Of course one cannot jump at everything without the risk of hitting the wall. So, in the end, I think it is your interest and time keeping that decides. What you engage in can be either directly rewarding or indirectly so, and as long as it provides a positive, I think it is worth considering.

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


text:
How specialised should research prior to tenure be?
When establishing yourself as a researcher, the importance of independence from your PhD supervisor and focusing on a niche area (to establish popularity in a particular sub-field) are fairly well-established. For longevity of research career the polar opposite criteria of collaboration and breadth have been suggested.
Defining the terms field and subfield etc. is important, so taking the following hypothetical example:

Subfield - PhD research uses a common computational method applied to a number of closely related problems.
Related Subfield - Other PhD students in the group apply the same method to different problems.
Field - Computational methods related to PhD yet distinct applied to any problem in the super field
Superfield - Broad area of research encompassing theoretical, computational and experimental work, eg superconductors, photonics, etc.

After PhD and prior to tenure, how specialised should one aim to be and how closely related to the PhD should the specialty be?
If given the choice, is it best to focus exclusively on a related subfield topic (generally project based research typical of most post doc positions), or take on another topic in the field, or to develop breadth by researching multiple related sub field topics in collaboration with other groups?

This answer warns against being too narrow; see aeismail's answer for reasons not to be too broad.
The precise answer is going to depend on your institution and your field.  But as a first order approximation, you must establish yourself as an independent intellectual leader in a broad enough research area to attract good tenure letters.  An obscure subsubfield beloved by only ten researchers probably isn't going to be enough, because not all of those people will be credible references — well-known, active, full professors (preferably with named positions and Academy memberships) at top-ranked US departments (assuming you're at a US institution) who are not your advisor (and preferably are not your coauthors or from your PhD department either).
So your question becomes:

How large a field do you need to consider to include a sufficient number of viable tenure writers?
How you establish a world-class reputation within that field?

As a general rule in my field, you should move as far away from your PhD thesis as possible while still being visible and productive.  But other fields may have different expectations.

This suggestion of moving as far as humanly possible from your PhD topic also puzzles me a little, since presumably you did a PhD in a topic you were interested in? I also don't see why if the subfield is large enough why continuing to work in the same area as your thesis area is so bad, at least given the definitions in the question.

Obviously, you have to work on what you're good at, but if your next four papers look like they could have been the next four chapters of your thesis, that's too close.  You have to shake the annoying hypothesis that all the really good ideas in your research came from your advisor.

The advice that I've received from my own PhD advisors, as well as from my interim review, was not to broaden one's activities too much before tenure. There needs to be a convincing thread to the work efforts that you're doing.
The danger of spreading your efforts too thinly is that nobody knows which "box" to put you in. This is a problem, as JeffE suggests, because you need to be able to get good letters of recommendation in your tenure case. However, spread out over too broad a region, you won't have nearly enough papers in any one area to make a significant dent.
So, having many subfields is probably a bad idea. If, however, you can find and exploit a common theme to these different subfields, you can probably make a much more convincing case (perhaps because you will be addressing a problem that they all have in overlap?).

So just to clarify, the answers so far suggest a topic not heavily related to your PhD, but to generally stick to one theme. Actually I made a few missteps immediately following my PhD, and not having a 'box' is something I am trying to fix. So, within the confines of project based post docs, how does one usually go about making a hypothetical box with which one can be categorised? For example, most projects specify 100% of time to be spent on it, so the ability to publish separate papers is often limited.

If you're a postdoc working on a single project, your work defines your current box. As a pre-tenured researcher, you would expand on this somewhat, or move to a related box and expand from there. You don't need to do this at the postdoc stage, however.

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


text:
If I got 1.0 for Master thesis in Germany, can it be summa cum laude in my CV?
I graduated and got an M.Sc. degree from a German university.
I got a grade of 1.0 after my master-thesis defense.
In this case, can I use "summa cum laude" on my CV?

I wouldn't say anything which was not explicitly given without at least putting "equivalent to .... in x system" first.

It is probably different for each university, but at the TU Munich we have the following system: 1.0-1.2 "passed with high distinction", 1.3-1.5 "passed with distinction", 1.6-2.5 "passed with merit", 2.6-3.5 "satisfactorily passed", 3.6-4.0 "passed".

I'm not sure about M.Sc., but for a Dr. (PhD) from a German university, 1.0 would typically be "magna cum laude", whereas "summa cum laude" would translate to "1.0 with distinction", a thing that doesn't exist for a Masters degree AFAIK...

@Sabine Interesting, where is that? I was not aware of numeric grades being given for a doctoral thesis at German universities.

@KonradRudolph Math in Heidelberg has numerical grades for Promotionen. But in general, there is no "German system" - there are as many systems as there are Promotionsordnungen in Germany (should be thousands....).

I don't know about the UK, but in the US/Canada attaching "summa cum laude" to a Master's result doesn't make any sense. Latin honors in the US are (in my experience) almost always associated with bachelor's degrees (and often with a high GPA as a prereq, not a sufficient condition- at my undergrad there were honors variants of the classes). I'd definitely say put a 4.0

I would think that would be a dangerous move. List what you have the way it was formally granted. If you think it necessary provide a reference to an official definition so that those who don't understand its significance can learn to do so.
But it isn't really the same thing. Summa Cum Laude is usually (often at least) in the US based on grades for coursework.
If you are suspected of trying to mislead, it will be bad for you. Tell it like it is.

"If you think it necessary" - It probably is necessary, if the OP is creating a resume for a U.S. audience (which it kind of sounds like is the case).  The German system is basically the opposite of the US system (low numbers are good, high are bad), so without an explanation a casual U.S. reader might easily (albeit wrongly) conclude "wow, you just barely scraped by there; that's the worst possible result short of a fail".

@aroth the correct comment is "1.0 (highest possible grade)" or "1.0 (on 1.0-5.0, 1.0 being best", if one wants to put it in light for US audience, not creating certificates that don't exist. cum laude etc. have very specific meanings in the  German environment. In any case, US audiences know about German grading scheme, no comment should be warranted to begin with.

@FooBar - "US audiences know about German grading scheme" - I wouldn't rely on that if it was my resume going to a U.S. audience.  Source:  I've screened my share of resumes, and had no idea what the German system was until I saw this question.  I wouldn't gamble a possible job on the assumption that other U.S. interviewers do possess that knowledge.

@aroth, I agree. Some will know but not all, maybe not even many outside the admissions people themselves. Best to provide the background to be safe.

No. (Unless your Prüfungsordnung says that so explicitly.)
The longer answer: The grading scheme in a German Masters Program is usually handled by the Prüfungsordnungen (could be more than one - an general one and a specific one...). Of course, there is a scheme that is used by most universities in Germany (1 - very good, 2 - good ... and so on) but actually, every Prüfungsordnung handles this issue. It may be that your Prüfungsordnung has a paragraph where it says that there a "mit Auszeichnung" (which should be translated as "with distinction") but if there is no such thing, than you should not list anything. The term "summa cum laude" is, as far as I know, only used for the doctoral thesis in Germany. Where I am, the Masterurkunde comes with a Diploma Supplement in English which explains the grading system (and, for that matter, also the German system of education), so if you have a similar thing, you could also look there for a proper translation of your grade.

When I applied to jobs outside of Germany, I listed all grades as given and included a footnote explaining the German grading system:

Grades in Germany are usually awarded on a scale from 1 (best) to 6 (worst).

with a link to the Wikipedia article Academic Grading in Germany. Any implicit conversion could be considered dishonest or would at least be confusing to those familiar with the respective grading system.
A particular problem with listing summa cum laude or similar is this: Some degrees in Germany can be awarded with an additional honours attribute. For example, for one of my degrees, when you got a grade of 1.0 for all modules (coursework and thesis), your thesis would be graded by an external examiner. If this examiner also awarded a grade of 1.0, your degree was equipped with the attribute mit Auszeichnung (with honours). Otherwise, it would usually still be a 1.0. Thus stating your degree as summa cum laude or similar could be understood that you got this kind of a degree – even if your department does not have the corresponding process.

Actually, then, summa cum laude probably means less than the German "equivalent". Most US universities have a scale from 0.0 to 4.0, with 4.0 the highest. Summa Cum Laude is often awarded on the diploma for an average grade of, say, 3.7 (varies). It doesn't usually require a "perfect 4.0".

@Buffy: Note that the example I gave is only an example. Other programmes may have different rules. Also, in that example case, the honours attribute was not called summa cum laude.

@Buffy at my University in Germany you had to get 1.3 average in the modules and 1.0 in the thesis for “mit Auszeichnung“

Taking the latin, "cum laude" means "with distinction", "magna cum laude" = "with high distinction", "summa cum laude" is stronger than "maxima cum laude" and means "with utmost distinction". Do you think "with utmost distinction" would be honest?

Do they give 6’s at the Hochschule level anywhere in Germany?

@gnasher729: I don’t see how that attribute would be better or worse. My answer applies as it stands: Never do any implicit conversions. In this case, it may be perceived as a specific attribute that is awarded on top of 1.0 (or another high grade).

@aeismail: Not that I am aware of, but then academia varies more than we think it does. Either way, applications may include degrees from school, which have the full grading spectrum (of course, you would probably not list a 6, given how bad it is, but that applies to any failing grade).

Wouldn't it be better to make clear that only 1-4 are passing grades? (Which probably is why 6 is not given in the university system?)

@user151413: It’s not that easy. In some context a 4− is a failing grade. You cannot explain all nuances of the German grading system in a footnote anyway.

@Wrzlprmft I thought the typical regulation is that there is no 4- (i.e. grades go from 1.0 to 4.0, though some places have a 0.7), and then there is one failing grade (whose numerical value does not really matter).  In any case, I think all universities I know write x.3, not x-, so specifying that the passing grade range is 1.0-4.0 (or whatever else) is probably a fair assessment.  Otherwise, saying the range is 1-6 makes a 3.7 sound like a reasonable grade.)

@user151413: At least schools do award 4−, which is relevant if you want one footnote for all. Sure, you may consider mentioning only the passing range more fair, but then it still does not capture degree inflation, etc. The important thing for this footnote is that the direction of the system is other than one might expect and that it (usually) starts at 1 (as opposed to 0). Anything you can fit in a footnote is incomplete. (And that’s not even mentioning the strange case of my alma mater who awards PhD with grades 0 (best) to 3 (worst passing), but here I can just mention the Latin grade.)

No. Schools award honors.  One does not give honors to oneself.  If the school has not informed you of honors, you can't claim them.  You can include your good score on your CV if you want.

If you did not receive mit Auszeichnung recognition for your thesis and general coursework then there is absolutely no validity to a claim of summa cum laude. A 1,0 grade is necessary but not sufficient.
Moreover, you’d need to have some guidance from the university about how the degree can be described. Most likely, the regulations will say that if you did receive such recognition, you would declare it in English as being “with honors,” which is a legitimate translation.

Perhaps they would even permit "with high honors" or "highest honors". But a translation to the Latin will be misleading.  I'm reminded that while traveling north through Germany, a German colleague informed me we were now passing out of the Roman Empire.

IIRC my 1.0 "mit Auszeichnung" Diplom was translated in the supplement as "with distinction" (TU Dresden, as @Marvin says, this may vary between universities and possibly also with faculty as it is usually the faculty who decide the Prüfungsordnung).


text:
Why do degrees take so long, when textbooks can be read so quickly?
A bachelor's degree takes you three years to complete, and say it consists of about thiry courses, and say each course is based on a book of about four hundred pages (fairly standard for fields like mathematics, physics, computational science, etc).
This could be learned in a month: 30 courses in a month is 1 course a day, or 400 pages a day. If you read for 12 hours a day, you’d need to read 33 pages per hour. Most certainly doable.
Why exactly are degrees several years long when I could self-study it all in a month?
Now I have often heard arguments like this:

A day per topic is not enough to get an in-depth understanding or do exercises or master the topic or be able to pass an exam or complete any decent assignment.

However, a person who obtained their degree quickly forgets most of that anyway. For example, I've had a course in linear algebra. But a person who picks up a linear-algebra book and studies it for twelve hours most definitely will know more about linear algebra by the end of the day than I do currently. Simply because it will be fresh in the memory, while for me, it’s been three years since I had my course in linear algebra.
My point is: Yes, twelve hours a day per course won’t give you a deep understanding, but you’d still know more and be more knowledgable about the topic than a person who actually obtained the degree!

If you don't use certain things you learnt in your degree, that's a better argument for "why did I have this course". If it is important to know, your argument of "I will forget most of it, so I might as well remember even less and forget it much faster" is very backwards. 400 pages a day is probably realistic for a story book, not so much for a highly technical book where you strive to gain an in-depth understanding of the material.

I'm a little surprised that this question is neither perceived as a rant nor off-topic, given that it deals with undergraduate studies. The topic of how much one can study/absord is well addressed as a cursory Google search would show. One more. There doesn't seem to be any effort by OP in reading up before asking. On account of all this, voting to close.

Reading 33 pages an hour is insanely fast. When I did copyediting full-time, I'd be happy with ~50 pages a day, and reading for comprehension is way way harder than mere copyediting.

@user153812 I am even more surprised that this question earned 4 upvotes so far. I think it is worse than off-topic or rant. It's troll. Anyone studying STEM topics would know reading 33 pages of STEM books an hour is not possible.

@user153812: There is a question here that can be reasonably answered by us. Undergraduate studies are not off-topic here. Lack of prior research is a reason to downvote, not to close – we want to be the first thing that Google finds. Finally, the rant can be just removed.

@Wrzlprmft - Thanks for clarifying. Undergraduate studies do fit 'university level pedagogy' more than 'undergraduate life/culture', I take that back. What I'm not so sure about is the line between rant and question. IMO this question does not help anyone, despite the admirable job done to edit it.

I really hope that everything you said is in fact true, so that I can read my category theory textbook now and actually know everything about category theory...

There may be one person out of thousands (or millions) who can learn a lot in such a short time. However, you are not taking account of how the brain actually works. I order to really learn something you have to physically change the brain - establish synapse connections between neurons. That doesn't happen instantly, but takes time - and for everyone else, it takes repetition.
Education is not just about facts. All the facts are online, say wikipedia. You don't need an education for facts. But you have to learn how to actually think: to put the facts together in a useful way so that you can operationalize what you learn. This takes time (and repetition).
I you don't want an overly narrow education, it also takes learning different kinds of things that you can integrate into a whole.
If you "learn" thirty courses worth of material in thirty days, then in another thirty days you will only have disjoint "facts" that don't really do much for you beyond filling out crossword puzzles and irritating people with your "smarty pants" comments.
Moreover, each field of study has a special way of thinking about problems. This can only be learned through practice. A lot of practice. You won't actually have enough time to complete the process in those three years most likely, but if you are always hammering in more facts you won't learn it at all.
However, that isn't to say that the process couldn't be shortened at all. Whether we have an optimal system is open to debate, of course. However, efficiency is not the first goal of education systems.
Doctoral programs especially seem to have been extended in time beyond all reasonableness. Four years should be plenty (past a baccalaureate), but few achieve that anymore.
On a final note, if you try to do thirty courses in thirty days (or even three in thirty days) there will be no time for pizza. A big loss. Actually that is more important than you think. With pizza comes socialization and bouncing ideas off of other people, which contributes to the "integration of ideas" that you need to be educated.

Find a copy of James E. Zull's, The Art of Changing the Brain, for what is known of cognitive science and how the brain actually works.

@kartop_man, see ch 6-7 in Zull. Neuronal networks encode our knowledge. To learn we need to reconfigure the networks.

But you'd still know more and be more knowledgable about the topic than a person who actually obtained the mothereffing degree!

And two or three years from now, unless the rapid reader has an eidetic memory, she will certainly remember even less of it than someone who's been exposed to the subject multiple times a week during the course of a semester and then used it later on.
Look at learning a foreign language. I can spend all day reading a book, and I'll remember something, but I don't think four days of reading a set of textbooks will give me the skill to actually speak the language or write in it or apply it.
Degrees take time because the material is difficult and cannot normally be picked up "by osmosis" just from reading it.

At many universities, units will list an expected time commitment (i.e., in class and out of class activities).
To take a hypothetical but plausible example, the time commitment might be 10 hours per week per unit with 4 units (i.e., 40 hours per week of class, study, and assignment preparation). If you want to do your best, you might put in more time than this. Including the teaching period and exam study period, this might amount to around 16 weeks (plus or minus a few). So that's 32 of 52 weeks.
There's a reason why a full-time work week is around 35-50 hours. At a certain point, people stop being productive, and the marginal return on effort will be minimal. Sleep is essential for learning and memory consolidation. So you can't skip that either.
So in general, how a university conceptualizes a full-time load is not arbitrary. And if you feel like you have more time, then you can invest that in learning the material better and doing better on assignments.
At some universities, if you have good grades, you may be able to overload your enrolment (do an extra unit above a full-time load). But in general, this will have consequences for the amount of time you allocate to each unit.
In other cases, you can get credit for prior learning.
Thus, the main slack-time where you could potentially accelerate your degree are the holiday periods. Universities vary in the degree to which they run units over break periods (typically the summer break). In most universities, it will be a shorter period where you might be able to fit in one or two intensive units. In others, as in my university, the year is structured to enable students to potentially do a full-load over summer (i.e., do typical 3 year degree in 2 years).
In the end, fundamental transformations of your knowledge and skills take time. Degrees are structured in a way to enable this transformation. If you are highly intelligent and learn fast, then many students will just master the material better than others, rather than dedicate less time to their degree.

A degree is far more than just reading material. For example, you left out the time used to practice what you learned. (There are plenty of resources out there that will describe the benefits of going to university that you haven't mentioned: exposure to many topics, social skills, work ethic, networking, etc.)
I don't think anyone is claiming that getting a degree is the fastest way to learn something. It certainly isn't!

@Stefan Jobs require them, exposure to many topics, social skills, worth ethic, networking, etc.

@Stefan the majority of people don’t work for those companies. In my experience with Google recruiters, they obsessed over GPA and grades.

Reading is critical to learning but it is terrible for retention of knowledge. In order to learn a student should consider moving back and forth between theory and application. This allows the concepts to become not just in the head but apart of the person.
To move that fast through content would nevet allow a student to develop expertise in their discipline. I know of universities that offer intensive courses in graduate school. You cover the material in one week of lecture and then have the semester for assignments. Often those students learn nothing because the content is cover in 40 hours in a week rather than over a semester. The rationale is that the students can't quit their jobs to study which should man that they don't have time to learn.

To my knowledge, universities don't state "a degree takes 3 or 4 years to complete". They say "to be awarded a degree, you need to have completed ____ requirements". It is those requirements that take 3-4 years to complete.
There's commonly a standard timetable which students adhere to. For example students might typically take 5 courses a semester. However, there's nothing stopping a student from overloading. In principle therefore a student can take 6, 7, maybe even more courses a semester. He can even work through summer. But here's the catch: can the student do that and still pass all those courses? Remember it's usually not just reading. There could be labs, homework assignments, essays, exams.
Furthermore, often you cannot take a course without having completed the prerequisites. For example you cannot take Quantum Mechanics II without having completed Quantum Mechanics I, for good reason, since you need the material in the first course to understand the second.
That's not saying it can't be done. I completed two years' worth of courses in 1.5 years. Maybe an even more motivated student can go even faster. But to squeeze three years of coursework into one month- I don't believe it's doable even if the university bent over backwards to let you try.


text:
Getting assistance for publishing a paper without experience
I have a master’s degree in computer science. I wanted to publish my thesis as paper because I got a good grade, and I because I want to  get accepted for a PhD degree by a top-200 university or to get work as a TA at a university.
I used existing resources and applied them on a different data set, but the results were not clear and need optimization – which will need more time (I'll do it if I have a chance to get a PhD or getting a job in this matter).
I wrote the paper according to my naive knowledge in publishing and the whole field. My goal was not acceptance, but rather getting feedback and a taste of how things work. I sent my paper to a conference; of course it was refused. I sent it to a journal, who refused. The feedback was that my paper is a draft, has language mistakes, and most of references were old. Of course I asked my supervisor for assistance,  but things didn’t went well for many reasons. One of these reasons is that we have no clear results although the method was very good and promising on the long run.
I was wondering if I can get assistance from other parties like doctors from other universities, but it didn't work for me. Maybe this is because I asked doctors from high-ranked universities so they may already have a heavy load.
What should I do?

I fail to make sense of why getting help from your supervisor didn’t work. Why does a lack of clear results keep your supervisor from helping you? It’s not what your paper was rejected for.

this is my point of view, may be because it will need time, and it is not obligetary for him. and the fact that I travelled as soon as I finished my master degree, made the communication harder

"My goal was not acceptance, but rather getting feedback and a taste of how things work". You seem to have achieved your goal already, so it's not clear to me what your new goal is.

"We have no clear results" — you don't have to look any farther for the reasons your paper was rejected. It seems like, instead of rewriting the paper, the most productive thing to do is to work on getting clear results.

who will guid me? my supervisor is no longer intereted, since I finish my master degree. I dont' want to use my time with no fruitful results


text:
Are there universities with policies that default intellectual property decisions to faculty?
For context, at a US-based institute there is a typical business-like policy stating intellectual property developed by faculty is owned by the institute. Likewise, faculty are required to submit disclosures of their work before public release as to not interfere with the ability to patent such novel ideas.  This can clearly create some backlog and difficulty in publishing work, but is also a concern for academics that do not want to commercialize their ideas but instead allow them to be free for the 'public good'.
Are there examples where universities have created specific policies that allow faculty to make the decision on, for example, making an algorithm and code open source without disclosure?
Another way to consider the question if this is more common than I can find; what are the most open policies for faculty decision making in the ability to put ideas in the public domain without first disclosing to the university?

I was never bound by such IP constraints, actually. I owned what I built.

@Buffy I understand the anonymity aspect of answering this now, but one example is UofM https://techtransfer.umich.edu/for-inventors/policies/technology-transfer-policy/  "Intellectual Property made (e.g., conceived or first reduced to practice) by any person, regardless of employment status, with the direct or indirect support of funds administered by the University (regardless of the source of such funds) shall be the property of the University".
MIT has same language https://tlo.mit.edu/learn-about-intellectual-property/mit-ip-policies

Yes, I know it happens, but it isn't universal.

OT: Why should an employer not have the right to own IP created by an employee performing their expected duties?

@user2768 I'm not necessarily arguing they shouldn't, just asking for examples where they don't (and as you can see from Buffy comment this does happen), but some reasons could be; universities receive public funding to benefit the public where corporations may not have this obligation, faculty (employee) job requirements (KPI) involve publications in which the requirement of disclosures could directly conflict

The University of Illinois (where I am a faculty member) classifies most written faculty work as "traditional academic copyrightable works", and by explicit policy all such works are owned by their authors.  If their creation requires university resources "over and above those usually and customarily provided", then by default the university gets a royalty-free non-exclusive license, but even that requirement is routinely waived.
My university also supports faculty releasing their software under open-source licenses.  In principle, any code developed with the support of a research grant requires university approval before it can be released, but in practice, faculty routinely publish their research code without prior approval (or censure) from the university.  I can see the possibility of a dispute arising if a piece of code were patentable, but the last time I remember the university wielding that particular hammer with any force, the NCSA Mosaic authors left (middle fingers high in the air) to found Netscape.
I have never felt any pressure to ask anyone's permission to publish an algorithm or source code.  (My first-order research area is algorithms.)

I think it would be nice to name in the answer the institution you're talking about?

@DanielR.Collins Done!

In Sweden, faculty and researchers at universities personally own the copyright to the research and teaching materials they produce. This rule (called lärarundantaget, the "teachers' exception" to the automatic transfer of copyright to the employer that is the rule in other industries) is stipulated by law, not by the policies of individual universities.

Hurray for Sweden. Three (at least) cheers.


text:
Is it acceptable to report private incident of a PhD candidate to the university
A PhD candidate has damaged possessions of a flatmate in non-university housing  by purposely dropping their laptop and keying their car.
Is it acceptable to report such behavior to the university of the PhD candidate?
Clarification:
This has obviously been already reported to the police. The question was whether this should be reported additionally to the university. The given US university has a lengthy "off-campus student conduct code". However, a contact is only specified for a title IX coordinator. The guideline does not specify how or if non-sexual misconduct as defined by the "off-campus student conduct code" should be reported.
Clarification 2:
All of us from the same university, but no overlap at all in terms of departments.
Clarification 3:
The remaining flatmates and me decided not to take any university-related action. Nevertheless, the thought that the given person will soon graduate as a PhD and get hired by someone expecting a "qualified" postdoc that will "mentor" students is irritating to some degree to me.

In the US, universities do consider themselves to have an interest in policing/disciplining certain kinds of student misconduct off-campus. Here’s a relevant link, and another. It seems like this is somewhat controversial and raises some legal issues. But if your conscience tells you to report it, I think that’s a reasonable thing to do. The school may or may not do anything, though.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. Please read this FAQ before posting another comment.

No, it would be inappropriate to report misconduct to a university if the misconduct has no relation to the university, except that the perpetrator was a student.
If the misconduct occurred on campus, involved university equipment/resources, or involved an official supervisory relationship, then it might be reported.

There might be cases where Title IX gets a university involved in off-campus misconduct.  I am unsure.  That would be USA-specific.

However, here's something which is confusing me. Universities sometimes ask for a background check at the start of a PhD program. Accordingly, some universities  appear to be interested in this type of information. Or does this type of argument not apply in this context?

@William that is a different question.

I've never heard of a background check for a PhD position.  Maybe for a teaching/outreach position.

@AnonymousPhysicist some US universities ask for background checks for postdoc (or even non-PhD, research assistant) positions with no teaching or outreach. I am not sure about PhD students, but it would not be surprising, especially if the candidate is also a TA/RA.

@AnonymousPhysicist My understanding is that Title IX does not get (directly) involved for domestic issues.

@William Is that perhaps because their research involves human subjects? Or as part of a TA requirement? That's why mine was done, not sure it was a generic any-PhD-student background check.

@AnonymousPhysicist This is slightly incorrect. If the case involves two students from the same university, then it is seen as bullying and will be investigated by the university, at least in some universities, as I know this was the case with me.

@AnonymousPhysicist I think it'd also be relevant to report it to the university if their off-campus misconduct involved their research somehow, like a psychology student selling survey data to marketing firms.

Does destroying a private laptop used by a student (presumably for classes or research) not qualify as having a connection with the university?  What if student A burns the class notes of student B in private and off-premises?

I don't know how it works in all countries, but in all cases, the university does not have the jurisdiction to investigate in such a situation. You accuse the PhD candidate of misbehaviour off-campus but this needs a process to be confirmed and only the police can start such a process.
In Germany, such behaviour affects the PhD candidate when he wants to submit his/her thesis, some faculties ask for a newly issued certificate of conduct. The idea is that a PhD should have good behaviour reflected in society. However, this is judged by only the competent authority, which is obviously not the university.

Can you point towards a "Promotionsordnung" or similar document explaining what you wrote in your last paragraph? I've worked at 5 different German universities in the past, and haven't heard of such a thing. The only thing I am aware of is that when hiring a PhD student as a scientific employee (which is the most common funding way in Germany), a certificate of conduct needs to be provided. It should list only major violations of the law, though, certainly nothing of the type mentioned by the OP.

@DCTLib see here, page 13, item 8. Looks like, if you are not hired as a scientific employee, you do have to provide a certificate of conduct when you submit your thesis.

@DCTLib all German universities asked for it. Some of them make the process easier and neglect it if the candidate is an employee at the university or if he/she is working in public service (the assumption is that he/she already submitted it when he was employed and the public employer will be notified of any new record that coincides with the functions of the employee).

@DCTLib " It should list only major violations of the law, though, certainly nothing of the type mentioned by the OP." It is not subject to our assessment, but only to the court to judge what is major and what is not. If it is listed in the certificate of conduct, the "Promotionsausschuss" decides whether it prevents accepting the submission. I don't think the OP asked whether this behaviour is major or not but wants to whom to report the behaviour.

What is a "case law" in Germany?  The meaning in the common law system makes no sense here.

@Younes Interesting. But note that all your previous universites may have asked for it, this is still by no means universal. For example, the University of Bremen Faculty 1 doesn't have such a requirement: https://www.uni-bremen.de/fileadmin/user_upload/sites/referate/referat06/8.6.6.PromO_Dr_rer_nat___FB_1___09.02.15.pdf - Ruhr-Uni Bochum also doesn't know such a requirement in maths http://www.uv.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/dezernat1/amtliche/ab1205.pdf - and I just didn't check the other faculties.

@DCTLib you are right but it is strange as other faculties in the same university ask for it (see https://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/archaelogie/mam/content/promotionsordnung_2006__ab_655_.pdf)

From what I've heard (but this is really only hearsay) the reasoning for requiring a criminal record certificate for the PhD procedure is to check for professionally relevant convictions. I'm chemist, the textbook example for us was a chemist convicted of synthethising illegal drugs who'd be banned from getting their PhD until the conviction is deleted (but small convictions are anyways not listed).

@Younes Weird - the document that you liked seems to only require the certificate of conduct in case the exmatriculation of the PhD student was more than 3 months ago when handing in the thesis. It would be interesting to know the reasoning behind this.

I like this approach. It says that you can't be awarded such a degree if you're a huge jerk, but it's really not university's job to assess these matters, especially outside of the university premises, and on unrelated aspects.

In my experience, such a report would only hurt your own reputation.
If Bob the PhD candidate, damaged possessions of Alice, his flatmate, and keyed her car in non-university housing, and you report it to the university, it is highly possible to have the response "please report the incident to the police" in return.
There are always many bilateral relations going on in a workplace, and the administrators, if they are professional enough, will try not to involve in vendettas. Thus, if you yourself get involved in such a situation, not only you will gain anything, but the results will possibly be:

You superiors will have a bias about you, and you will be remembered as a person who is involved in some irrelevant plot.
Bob will definitely hold a grudge against you and probably will seek for your mistake to report it to your superiors.
Alice will probably say "thank you" and be grateful, but ultimately, she will not return the favor in case you face above two consequences.

I don't know what is the positive side of reporting such an incident, but I am almost certain that there will be negative consequences in the future.

Is it acceptable to report such behavior to the university of the PhD
  candidate?

It sure is. You can report literally anything -- even what you had for lunch -- to the university. However, what you report tells a lot about you. Therefore, if I were you, I'd stay away and try not to involve in such an incident, unless my name comes up.

Thank you for framing it this way. From a pragmatic point of view, this makes certainly sense!

Not every Alice even wants her "car damage" annoyance to spread to irrelevant contexts needlessly.

I think whether to report this incident to the university, and how, depends crucially on the relationship of the flatmate to the PhD candidate and the university.
If, for example, the two are both PhD students with the same supervisor or working in the same lab, this could be considered a workplace harassment issue. The flatmate should report it to their lab and/or PhD supervisor and say that they feel threatened being around this person.
If both are students at the university, whether and how to report this probably depends on details of their relationship. "Reporting" may not be quite right, but perhaps there is an office for conflict resolution (an Ombudsman or Dean of Students should know) that could help the two deescalate this conflict.
If the flatmate has no relationship to the university, I can't see much point in trying to involve the university. Dealing with it through the courts is probably the best way to go. In addition to involving the police, as OP indicates has been done, the flatmate should pursue civil claims, and possibly consult a housing lawyer to discuss either evicting the PhD student from the flat or breaking lease and leaving the PhD student to find another roommate.

I know a univerity library that checks books upon return, because in the past students have copied relevant pages for themselves and then blacked out the information so that they could learn and have good grades but deny others of learning and getting good grades.
So if the PhD candidate did this to sabotage the flatmate who is also a student at the same university, for example because both are running for the same job offer, this may be of interest to the university. Otherwise, I don't think it's any of their business to deal with it.

very good and not so obvious point. Generally, it's not the university's business, but there might be some very particular cases when it is the university's business.

When the police investigation is done, and the person has receives a sentence, it might be appropriate to inform the university, but that is a job for the police, if the law in your country says so. In no way is it right to tell anyone else than the police about something like this. If you do, the university might want to do some investigations themselves, and that's not their job. That's how Kangaroo courts started. Let the police do their job and let if be with that.

Adding this datapoint, which I interpret as saying the answer is yes, with caveats.
Press release by the Dean of Students of the National University of Singapore

When such offences are committed, the NUS Board of Discipline, which comprises
  student and faculty representatives, will also conduct its own disciplinary proceedings.
It will consider factors such as the severity of the offence, the need for justice for the victim, the rehabilitative needs of the student offender, the safety of the NUS
  community, and also the decisions and penalties imposed by the authorities.

I'm not familiar with the facts of the case but from what I have seen, one NUS student committed voyeurism against another NUS student. The police investigated and issued a "12-month conditional warning", and NUS has (?) imposed their own penalties.
Caveats are that 1) police were involved already 2) the media at large also got involved 3) the crime was committed on campus 4) voyeurism is likely more serious than keying cars.


text:
Should I include a course in which I was strikingly successful in a statement of purpose?
I'm writing a statement of purpose nowadays for my intended linguistics MA program. The first draft is about to end, which I will edit harshly later.
What I'm curious about is this. When I was a sophomore student, there was a must course that I was much more successful than the the rest of the class. When the results of the first midterm were announced, a good number of people in the class withdrew from this course, while I got the highest grade. Mine was 27 out of 30 and the class average was around 15. Moreover, many people who didn't withdraw failed afterwards. In this way, I was the only student the course instructor calls by name during lectures. This professor now happens to be one of my recommendation letter writers and I reminded him about that when requesting the letter.
Should I mention this "achievement" in my statement of purpose or would it be irrelevant as the admissions expects us more than grades and being successful?

Actually, I suggest that you find somewhere else to mention this, and make the SoP entirely forward looking. The CV and such give your history. The introductory letter can give something of motivation.
But the SoP should be used for just that, what is your purpose going forward. It isn't about what you have accomplished in the past. What do you want to study? Why do you want to do that? What are your long term plans after you earn the next degree? That is what people need to hear in the SoP. Don't assume people will correctly extrapolate your future from your past. Spell it out. Don't waste the limited space on other things best said elsewhere.

Thank you for the quick response! Regarding the past, I mentioned an article of mine that was accepted to an undergrad journal, for example. I thought about whether to mention that course as well but I guess it is not appropriate as you said.


text:
I don't feel confident about my place in research. I am objectively less equipped for this career. How to move forward after a PhD?
I got my PhD earlier this year. I have been productive during my PhD, published 4 papers during my 5.5 years duration in decent journals. My advisor was not an expert in my area of research, so my research ideas, methodology and analysis were completely isolated endeavour. This helped me become independent researcher but it also made me seriously unconfident in my technical know-how and research abilities.
My PhD was on a different field than my Masters and Undergrad degree. I took some courses to come up to speed, but I did not do many of the necessary courses because I thought I could self study them. I did self-study, but since I did not give exams or diligently solved many exercises in the book, I have a gap in the understanding of the core fundamentals of my field.
For example, one of the course I had to self study was numerical methods. I read the theory, made notes, did some exercises. But only retained a part of the subject because I had to add Newton-Rapson method in my code, so I just remember that.
Similarly, another course was Finite element method. I read the theory, made notes, did some exercises. But only retained a part of the subject because I did not have to develop FEA codes in my research. I used an opensource solver and focused on getting results for my research.
All these half-baked fundamentals made me realized that I am not equipped well for a career in research. I get overwhelmed when I start to revisit the fundamentals now. I feel I missed my chance when I should have studied more seriously and asked for help for the topics I was facing difficulties.
I had so much time in PhD to improve my knowledge and technical knowhow. After PhD and during postdoc, I am finding it harder to concentrate as I have to produce results at a much faster pace than my PhD and I cannot dedicate time to study and develop fundamentals. How to address this knowledge gap after a PhD?
Please don't say its imposter syndrome. I am just asking on how to improve technical/fundamental knowledge outside a university environment? Because, I feel it is not possible to gain deep understanding about a subject without the university/classroom setting.
I am really troubled and am worried about my career prospects. I have been looking for jobs in industry and at the moment I am not getting responses. So the postdoc position I am in currently will support me for the next year. However, I have to find something till then. If I don't have confidence in my abilities, none of this would matter. I would not be able to get a job.

I have no doubt someone will point out to you "Welcome to the Bigs!"

While I'm not convinced it isn't just imposter syndrome, I'll also assume that you know something about it already.
However, you sound as if you know how to get the job done in research, focusing on what is needed to perform well. It isn't necessary, of course, to know everything before you start a project. Little would get done if that were true.
However, note that the situation has changed. In grad school and maybe in the post doc you were surrounded by a support system of people that you could bounce ideas off of and get feedback. The more independent you become the less automatic that is. So, I suggest that you try to reproduce that environment virtually by forming (or joining) a circle of collaboration.
A lot of very productive people maintain relationships with their former advisors and become part of that person's network. They invite others to come and speak or they go elsewhere to speak (and meet and collaborate).
It is very difficult for most people to do serious research in a vacuum. A few can manage it, but the collaborative network is a much richer environment for the generation and testing of ideas.
It doesn't have to be a classroom. You can take a much more active role.

It seems you've focused on speed, both in research and in your education, passing by the formative knowledge building which simply takes time, concentration, depth, discipline. Maybe to get moving focus on things that don't involve too many of your gaps, and, over time, take the time to fill in a few. I have no doubt there are plenty of interesting corners of your field you can dive into.
One trick that's worked for me is cobbling together lecture notes for a course I'll never give. You end up teaching yourself, developing a deeper understanding. What I suspect though is that you see all the things you don't know, but somehow everyone else on the planet does, and you feel a bit overwhelmed. Let it pass, just dig in.