text:
Can faculty do research during a labor strike?
At an institution where the faculty are unionized, I imagine that they could, in principle, go on strike. Presumably this would involve a halt to all teaching and service activities.
But what about research?
I see many potential problems here:

Many faculty have obligations to federal or other funding agencies that cannot be lightly set aside.
Some experiments may run for years and even a few days' interruption
could be disastrous.
Grant deadlines could be missed, again potentially causing devastating interruptions in a research program.
How far would a prohibition on research go? Is sitting and reading papers in your living room considered to be crossing the picket lines?

I'm sure others can think of other problems.
Frankly, I don't want anyone telling me when or where I can work and if a faculty union is going to do that, I'd be very reluctant to participate. I would hate to be caught in the untenable position where I must either be a scab, or I must stop thinking about the work that is so central to my life's purpose. I'd be very interested in hearing any insights that those at unionized schools might have.

My impression is that strikes would normally be Teaching Strikes (or lesser: Marking Strikes). because this put greater pressure on the univeristy (/employer) as suddenly tens of thousands of students are being directly inconvenienced. Which draws more media and political attention than researchers inconveniencing themselves and holding back scientific/academic progress.  I imagine that any purely research staff who are part of the striking union would simply let it be known that they support the strike.

If you continue to do research, you might be considered to be participating in a "partial strike", where the employee refuses some but not all of their duties. In some jurisdictions, partial strikes are not eligible for the same legal protections as traditional total strikes.

Can't you opt out of that "union" nonsense?

@CapeCode "union" nonsense  [citation needed]

@CapeCode: Maybe as a first step, you can opt out of the raises in salary and increases in vacation days that the other staff are entitled to as a result of union-led negotiations. (Of course, if the respective unions do not manage to achieve any such successes in your experience, the scare quotes in your comment may be justified.)

@O.R.Mapper What are "vacation days"?

@Corvus: Days when you don't have to do any work and get paid nonetheless. Substitute for whichever benefits exist at varying degrees in your legislation and culture.

@O.R.Mapper I was mostly joking about unhealthy faculty work culture, but it's also true that faculty at my institution don't have a certain number of vacation days the way that e.g. professional staff do. Rather, they simply are expected to fulfill their duties and the way in which they do this is up to them. Being a relatively competitive school (top 20), this means that most do it by working 7 days a week, 50-52 weeks a year. Sadly I count myself among this number.

"an institution where the faculty are unionized"... didn't know this existed. (A little Googling shows that no schools in my state are, so that makes sense.) I'd be paranoid (prepared?) and keep a larger amount of backup supplies.

@O.R.Mapper you can opt out — Actually, no, you can't. At least in my state, members of a bargaining unit cannot opt out of union-negotiated contracts, even if they are not members of the union and even if they could negotiate better contracts individually.

@JeffE: "you can opt out was written in a "how about opting out?" sense, not an "it is possible to opt out" sense. The situation you describe is indeed unfortunate; so far, I wasn't familiar with scenarios in which a significant number of individuals could indeed hope to negotiate a better bargain than what the joint force of a union can achieve. (This impression might of course be biased as I personally am always glad if someone else does the negotiating for me, so I don't have to spend any time on this IMHO highly uninspiring task. Your preferences might easily differ.)

@O.R.Mapper There are a significant number of such individuals in my department.

@JeffE: In that case, the union representing these people seems to be doing something very wrong. Very unfortunate, as I said.

Consider the following FAQ from West Chester University discussing the possibility of a strike:

Will the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education universities, includingWest Chester University close if a strike is called?
  No. The universities will remain open if a faculty strike is called. By law, individual faculty members have the right to decline to participate in a strike called by the union so individual classes could still be held.

and at University of Northern British Columbia:

I am doing research as part of my degree. Will I be able to continue during a strike?
  It depends. Some research may be allowed under the terms negotiated at the start of job action. Also, anyone may cross a picket line during a strike unless the Administration declares a lockout (in which case nobody is allowed in). You should discuss this with your supervisor.
How will a strike impact the delivery of supplies, reagents, enzymes,
  etc.? During the 72 hours prior to the start of job action, the
  parties negotiate “essential services,” that is those things that are
  deemed essential. In general, anything not declared an essential
  service would be impacted, which would probably include most
  deliveries. You should discuss this with your supervisor.

And a report about the University of Puerto Rico (admittedly, this is a student-led strike):

Since the University of Puerto Rico strike began, faculty and students have only had intermittent access to its labs. Even when they are allowed to enter, they are working with dwindling supplies of some chemicals and other research materials. Closed campuses mean new shipments cannot be delivered.

These suggest, in a formal capacity, some research might still be able to take place, either from crossing the picket line, or from negotiations for research that is time sensitive (for example, many biology experiments which must be monitored, changed at certain intervals, etc.) but that they may certainly suffer during long strikes.
Beyond that, one imagines that it's impossible to faculty not to do "research" in the more expansive sense of the word, as occasionally that involves idly musing on a subject, and there's no reason to suspect that faculty would stop thinking about their life's work during a strike. Rather, it's far more likely to impact classes.

That would depend on local conventions. It is always physically possible to work despite a strike, but in Norway a few years ago there was a strike and a number of faculty took the position that that meant that their research activities must stop. Here is one report (search for the statement "I'd be a scab and would suffer consequences...").

This paragraph is devastating: "When striking, professors with research time can't do any research activity. They can't correspond with international colleagues, can't finish long-overdue journal reviews and can't keep working on grant applications. The job of a professor is to think, to read, to write. If I were to fail to turn those things off when the union is paying my salary, I'd be a scab and would suffer consequences." If this is what a union requires, how can unionization be compatible with academic freedom?

@Corvus The paragraph you quoted might make sense in Norway, but it seems quite disconnected from the reality I know in the U.S. "The job of a professor is to think, to read, and to write" --- really? If I decide (without first applying for a sabbatical or other leave) to continue thinking, reading, and writing but to shirk other activities like teaching my classes and showing up for committee meetings, my university will not say that I am doing my job.

@AndreasBlass, I think you're taking the quote out of context. He's not saying that research is the only job of a Norwegian professor, it is just one of their jobs. Since it is part of the job, that means, when you're on strike and if you believe in observing the strike, then you should not do the research aspect of your job either.

Everything depends on the local laws and conventions. In general, research is possible during a strike, but you may suffer the consequences, if you're a union member.
In many countries, employers often respond to a strike with a lockout in order to save money and to increase the pressure on the union. During a lockout, nobody has access to the university and nobody gets paid, regardless of whether they're on strike or not. The use of university-provided resources, such as email account, laptop, or access to articles behind a paywall, is obviously forbidden during a lockout.
Strikes and lockout may cause individual researchers to miss deadlines or make them unable to meet their obligations to third parties. All important contracts should have force majeure clauses for dealing with such situations.
There may also be direct harm to individual researchers or to the university as a result of the strike/lockout, but that's actually the point. If there is no agreement, both parties will lose. That's the most fundamental negotiation tactic there is. A strike just aims to shift the balance so that the employer will lose more than the employees, while a lockout aims for the opposite.

This is an extremely helpful answer -- thank you. I suppose I should be ashamed of my ignorance, but I hadn't properly grasped the strike/lockout distinction.

In Brazil, the other employees of the university go on strike almost every year. Professors, every 10 years or so, but, afaik, only for teaching duties, research goes on (a bit harder actually, since they are not teaching at the period). Some professors still give courses during strike...
Tbh, it happens so often, nobody really cares, and, for most people, it is like a surprise vacation...

I think you cannot avoid taking a side here, because inaction is also a statement.
To me it seems that you see yourself not as part of the university, but merely attached to it -- as long as they provide resources and no better offer comes along, you will continue to work there, but you don't want to get involved any further than that.
This is not a healthy relationship with an employer, though -- it means that there is no communication about working conditions. That others saw the need for a strike is a clear sign that this communication has broken down university-wide.
This strike is going to determine your working environment for years to come, which is going to affect your research far more than a few skipped days.

You're making a lot of unjustified assumptions about me in your answer.
I was trying to avoid providing unnecessary detail, but since it seems to be causing confusion: I work at a university at which the faculty are not even unionized, let alone considering a strike. I simply wanted to understand the ramifications of unionization.

Unionization is usually a response to an environment where communication between workers and management does not work properly, and workers feel a need to address their management collectively. If that is the case, then individual workers are usually better off participating in union activity. Once the initial crisis is over, it becomes harder to justify the need for a union, except that it is easier to leave it active than to re-form it in the next crisis.


text:
List dollar amount of small grants on C.V.?
This is related to this question, but I don't believe a duplicate since the dollar amount there was impressive, whereas mine are not.
I have been awarded several intra-University small grants ($2-4k each), about one a year, during my Ph.D.  These were funds to cover research expenses, rather than to cover my stipend, and I believe I've used them productively.
Should I list the dollar amounts of these on my C.V.?  On the one hand, listing them shows they're not just honorary amounts.  On the other, the amounts are not enormous either, and there are all the usual disadvantages of listing (setting the wrong tone, etc.).  Plus it just makes me a little uneasy.
Background here is: headed into a soft money position eventually, and my stipend is fully covered without conditions, so I've had no need to apply for any of the big extramural grants.

I would say yes. I have done so from when I received my first grant/stipend. I ceased listing once I received a permanent position (or thereabouts) and started getting multiyer grants from national sources.
As long as you think adding it shows that you are active and competitive (well merited) in terms of receiving the trust to receive money it will be a good thing. You need to constantly evaluate the possible pros and cons of adding informaton to your cv, including funding. I would imagine that being in a soft money situation, listing funding will only be a positive. But, be aware that gaps in your funding stream may become question marks unless they are explicitly explained.

IMHO, yes. It is how professional researchers do, you're early stage and small amounts should not cause you to deviate from that. It helps show you are a researcher.

I'd say it depends on who the CV is going to. In most cases, I would think that listing dollar amounts leaves the wrong impression: first, that your primary thought is of money, and second that you're not very good at it. It is probably more impressive sounding, in general, if you list the award, the donor, the purpose. For example, the "Susan B. Lovemoney award for student creativity" is more impressive sounding than "$1K departmental stipend." Let the reader imagine that you might have received some large amount of money, and if they ask, say that it was a modest amount, enough to enable you to accomplish your research goals.

I disagree. First, getting funding of any amount as a PhD student is impressive. Second, the purpose of the CV is not to mislead people about how impressive something is.

The purpose of a CV is to tell why you are the right person for the job at hand. I was not suggesting misleading but your CV is part of your person story, leaving out information in a CV is part of telling the story well.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Asking professors to advise me during a self study after graduation in exchange for programming work
I plan to study a topic which is at the intersection of several fields. I am not aware of a graduate degree in this topic, so I will self-study it after graduating. I will receive my undergraduate degree in the Spring for math and computer sciences.
My goals for the self-study are to either publish, or to make enough progress that if I joined a team my work could solve problems.
I would like to enter into an advising/consulting relationship with one or more professors in the related fields. In exchange, I would offer programming consulting or work. Is this type of relationship common, and is there a better way to frame it? What else can I offer professors in exchange for research guidance?

Related: How can I get research experience in between degrees?

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


text:
Reviewer recommending citation of certain papers of specific group of authors may be himself
Recently I had a challenge in responding to a reviewer (#2) for revising our work. The reviewer asked us to refer 16 papers in multiple parts of the paper. I decided to refer some of these references about 8 papers due to the not relevancy of the mentioned references from the reviewer to the question raised by the reviewer #2.
Now the reviewers commented on the revised version and three of them are accepted without any further comments and modification. But the reviewer #2 rejected the paper and said that the authors didn't consider my concerns and comments thoroughly and only partially answered to them.
I think that this reviewer objects to our work because of we didn't refer to all of 16 mentioned paper in his comments.
The editor asked from us to answer why we didn't answer the reviewer #2 comments and revise our work to answer them.
I have two scenarios in my mind:

State clearly the unprofessional work of the reviewer #2 to forcing us to mention many papers from a group of specific people with a similar author in all of them and weak relevance of the mentioned works to that comment.
Reanswer the comments of reviewer #2 and mention some of the wanted references

what should I do now?

Keep in mind that the editor, who is making the final decision, knows the identity of the reviewer, and will take into account if he is forcing you to cite his own work.

But the reviewer #2 rejected the paper — No, reviewer #2 recommended rejecting the paper.  Only editors can atually reject papers.

Neither, you should just write an answer (not change the article) in which you mention for each paper why you did not cite it. Keep it objective, calm, and short. If the reviewer is unprofessional then that will become clear enough, and your professionalism will be all the more obvious.

At the same time, you need to have an open mind, perhaps you missed a body of work. I've had to do this as a reviewer more than once (the authors hadn't cited an entire relevant body of work, not my own mind you, but a group which had made major contributions). I gave them a list of citations relevant to their paper which they needed to cite for completeness.

Also, remember intermediate positions are possible. You may find that some of the papers are relevant and should be cited, but that it is not necessary to cite all of them. Consider each paper, and either cite it or explain why you are not citing it.

You should carefully consider citing the papers mentioned by the reviewer. If you did that and still found them irrelevant for your work, then you should not cite the papers.
However, you should point the circumstances out to the editor as objectively as possible. Objectivly in this case is stating why those papers suggested by the editor are not relevant. In this case, I would go one step further, and state why they might seem relevant, but in fact are not. This will certainly make the editor aware that there is a discrepancy between the reviewer's suggenstions and the contents of the paper. If an editor sees that a reviewer is suggesting irrelevant papers to be cited (regardless of authors) it should be clear to him that the reviewer in question does not have the necesary insighst to review the paper and a different reviewer should be selected.

Your situation is a very common case in current scientific publishing. At the moment, pressure on scientists is much higher than it was in the past. Citations are one of the many measures of scientific excellence ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153730 ). Hence, everyone wants to obtain citations for their work.
In the past 5 years, I have encountered very similar situations as you did. Reviewers requested me to cite their papers (2-3 papers max), etc. Usually, some citations were not totally relevant. Nevertheless, I have never complained to an Editor or Reviewer but just cited Papers, and that's all.
However, defining your situation is much more complex than is seen at first sight. It would be good if you could specify if these 16 papers were authored by the same researcher or not. In line with this, it would be good to know if the references belong to the same journal or even journal families.
Anyway, we can outline some possible scenarios why someone would like to see 16 more references (relevant or irrelevant) in your paper.

Personal benefits: Each Reviewer sees reviewing a paper as a chance to put some citations in that paper. In this case, the Reviewer obtains some valuable citations easily (let us propose that 95% of authors cite recommended references in order to avoid any complications and quick
acceptance). Additionally, it is also intended to promote his/her work.
Raising the Impact Factor of the journal: Some years ago, The Scientific World Journal (TSWJ) lost its Impact Factor, since this journal was used as a resource for boosting citations to other journals. If I remember correctly, there were some Editors that were also Editors in other journals and they requested to cite references of other journals in TSWJ papers.
Citation cartels: The last point is citation cartels. Roots of cartels can be found in points 1 and 2, but are more sophisticated and organized. In simple words, a citation cartel is actually a group of "friends” or group of “researchers" that work together for mutual benefit. This benefit is manifested in personal benefits (to raise citations to each other) or to raise Impact Factors of journals. There are many scenarios of cartels: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fphy.2016.00049

What to do in your situation?

Go with the flow: Just cite these irrelevant references and the paper will probably soon be accepted.
Talk to the Editor: You can write a message to the Editor and try to present your situation. A good Editor will understand your situation fully. On the other hand, be aware that the Reviewer and Editor may be also friends (Cartel members) and your email will not the save your situation.
Withdraw your manuscript and try in another venue: If you think that these irrelevant references will decrease the quality of your manuscript, then simply withdraw it. However, you will lose a lot of time and the paper will undergo once again the first round of reviews.

Downvoted for advocating intentional unethical behavior.


text:
Can a professor post a grade online and then change it?
Can a University professor post a grade on web-campus or blackboard and then change the grade the next day? Yesterday I received a B and today I it had been changed to a C... C's do not pass the class in the masters program.

Generally, yes. And most especially if the first grade was posted in error.

@guifa are you saying that there can ever be a case where it would be appropriate to do it when the original grade was not posted in error?

@DanRomik Sure, what if one student requested a regrade which changed the curve for all other students.

@AustinHenley then you should suck it up and accept that grading is not an exact science. I don't think regrading a single student is an acceptable reason to change other students' grades.

@DanRomik from a student's literal perspective (what they see on Blackboard), sure. Calculated columns will change as more assignments that are factored into them are added. But even then that may be considered fixing an error. Consider my statement as merely trying to emphasis the likely corrective —as opposed to something arbitrary— action than anything else.

I don't know what the policies are in your university, however, given that this change of grade means now you do not pass your masters class, I would definitely ask for a word with the professor. If it was a mistake, then too bad for you, because C was your real/original grade. If it was not a mistake and he decided to change it last minute, then I guess you can ask why this change was made and be sure it was justified.

In the US, universities generally have a policy that describes under what conditions a professor can change a grade that has been officially posted to the student's record.
For example, in my university, the official policy is that an instructor may change a final grade that has been officially posted to the student information system if there was an error (e.g. in the calculation of the grade) or if the instructor overlooked some work that the student submitted1. The web interface asks me to supply the reason when I submit the grade change request:

When I submit a grade change request after grades have been posted, it goes through another layer of approval (department head) but barring exceptional circumstances, these changes are routinely approved.
"Intermediate" or "unofficial" grades (e.g. grades that are posted in Blackboard but not in the official student information system, midterm grades, grades on assignments that aren't the final course grade, etc.) typically are not subject to those rules, and can be changed more easily.

1 Although students persist in asking me to change their grades for all kinds of other reasons.

+1 for the answer, but I want to give an extra +1 for that bingo, which I reckon I'll distribute to my colleagues when finals week comes 'round.

@guifa Please allow me to join you for the +1.

My personal policy on grading mistakes is that I never lower the grade to a student: I correct a grading error only if it increases the grade.

@Massimo I have a similar policy, but I could imagine scenarios where it could be tricky; for example if all the rows in the spreadsheet used for grading calculations were shifted by 1 accidentally, so that every student in the class got another student's grade.

@MassimoOrtolano and ff524, at the risk of sounding patronizing: your policy should be to not make such mistakes. When I enter final grades into the system, I check, then double-check, then double-double-check, triple-check etc., probably spending an hour or two on various forms of error-detection. I can think of few worse things to do to a student than mislead them about their final grades, even temporarily. (With that said, mistakes can still happen so I realize it's a slightly patronizing thing to say, but it's still a good policy to have even as a potentially unsatisfiable ideal.)

@ff524 and +100 for the grade bingo (saved it for future use). Any source for that or did you come up with it yourself?

@DanRomik it's my original work (first posted here in chat)

@DanRomik I agree with you, and in twenty years of teaching I've had to correct grading mistake 3-4 times at most, and they were mostly due to the student's unclear handwriting.

@ff524 cool! (and depressing at the same time; I always had a hard time accepting that someone getting a B could lead to a spiral of negative effects such as losing a scholarship, having to drop out of school, losing a visa and having to leave the country etc. - to me this is a sign that something is very wrong with the system, but I guess I'm going way off-topic here.)

@DanRomik When I have had to correct final grades, it's usually been because students only bother to tell me about an error in the grade of an earlier assessment (not the final exam) when they see that it affects their final grade. So after final grades are posted, they let me know that "I took this quiz a month ago and got a grade, but the grade is recorded as a zero" or "I did a demo of this lab assignment for the TA but it's not recorded" etc. With a large class, TAs participating in grading, and many low-stakes assessments (which I prefer), some errors are inevitable.

@DanRomik, there will always be borderline cases, even catastrophically so. I consider it my duty to give grades that (as far as humanly possible) fairly represent how much the student knows of this class, without reference to external (spurious) factors.

@vonbrand of course, I've also never let such factors affect my decision either... but it's still depressing. And in some other countries where people don't have to mortgage their house to send their kids to college it's much less common for a single grade to have catastrophic consequences, so your statement "there will always be borderline cases, even catastrophically so" is a bit misleading in my opinion.

Your school may also have a policy that, while the grades posted to the student information system are "released," they are not final until the final-exam period (and its grading window) has officially ended; say, the Monday after exam week.  The posting gives students an early glimpse of their assessment should they desire to launch an appeal (formal or otherwise), while also giving the instructor a holding area in which to post the final summation of the students' grades without the clutter of the many components composing it that might have clouded the waters on the learning management system, for example (and thus a chance to double-check them one last time).
There may also be an in-between option: that they are "released but not final" when posted, but become finalized 24 hours after whatever point they are posted (at which point it does become a bit more engraved, and thus a little more difficult to formally downgrade, or even upgrade).  This can then lead to deliberate delays, wherein instructors withhold the "official" grades for days at a time lest they lose their prerogative to change their minds amid student complaints. It's all easier if you just keep your gradebook separately, take your time, make your decision, and stick to it.


text:
Is this ethical: "I like your paper and if you submit it to Journal X, I will be the reviewer"
Is this ethical?
Researcher A asks Researcher B, "Where should I submit my paper?"
Researcher B says, "If you submit it to Journal X, I will almost certainly be the reviewer and I think highly of your paper."
All journals in the field have single-blind review policy. That is, the reviewer knows who the author is, but the author does not know who the reviewer is.
If it is unethical, is it only unethical if researcher B actually submits to Journal X and gets researcher A as a reviewer? Or does the ethical problem disappear if researcher B submits to a different journal, or submits to Journal X but gets a different reviewer?

Quite probably, but it depends on the rules of Journal X.  Some journals have review with no blinding, so B might be stating public information.

Will there be only one reviewer?

If we replace the word "reviewer" with "editor", this would typically be seen as normal behaviour. I.e., editors often have pre-submission discussions with authors about the suitability of a manuscript for their journal.
In the case of editors, it is a standard part of their role to have discussions with authors about submissions and in some cases encourage authors to submit their work to their journal.
In addition to "editor in chief", many journals have associate editors and the like who act as editors for submissions related to particular topics. They also often have some scope, although typically less than the editor in chief, to encourage submissions.
Finally, the person you mention sounds like they might be a very active reviewer for a journal and quite often get asked to review submissions on a topic related to your paper.
I think the ethical issues relate mostly to whether everyone is acting honestly and in good faith, and that conflicts of interest are not perceived.
Editors are allowed to solicit submissions, and they almost always know the identity of the submitting authors. They are meant to be well-regarded members of the academic community and are trusted to make publication decisions based on academic merits and not based on friendship or other bases.
Reviewers are a little different. Reviewers are meant to review in good faith and base their decision based on academic merits. For journals that expect double blind review, I think that encouraging authors to submit to a journal where they are likely to be a reviewer is problematic. For journals that only have single blind review, the issue is more one of honesty. Specifically, the reviewer should generally inform the editor if they encouraged the authors to submit the paper. That way, the editor can integrate that information into the assessment of that reviewer's review and assess it for bias.
More generally, the implications of the reviewers comments are problematic. A more appropriate comment would be "I think your paper is good and it would be a good fit for journal X." or "I know that the editor of journal X would be interested in your paper." By focusing on the idea that they might be a reviewer, it implies that they might give a more favourable review than a random reviewer, which from some perspectives implies a biased review process.
If you are submitting the paper to that journal, you could remove most ethical issues by acknowledging in your cover letter that your colleague and potential reviewer recommended that you submit the manuscript to this journal. This would allow the editor to consider whether they want to let your colleague be a reviewer, and if so, how their review should be treated.

Is it more ethical if Researcher B says only "I think your paper is good and it would be a good fit for journal X" (as you suggest), and does not mention her belief that she is very likely to be the reviewer?
I think it relieves Researcher A of any ethical issue.
Also, Researcher B is less likely to be accused of doing something unethical because some information is being omitted.
However, does it make Researcher B's action more ethical?

I guess it depends on what we were comparing things to. In general, if a colleague just mentions that a journal would be a good fit for your paper, then most of the time, this would not imply anything about whether the colleague was going to be a reviewer. And if the colleague says nothing about being a potential reviewer, then this speaks less to a potential desire to provide an unreasonably favourable review out of either an intrinsic desire to help you or out of some potential other benefit that might come from helping you.

@FujiNEC If person B knows that the article is a good fit for the journal, he should say so. Next, if the article indeed got to be reviewed by B AND B feels that he's biased towards A, an ethical move on B's side would be to ask the editor to find another reviewer, but that is not A's concern.

You can think of it another way:
if somebody discloses to you that they are the reviewer, that doesn't disqualify you from submitting.
Whether they will actually be the reviewer, and whether they will actually review favorably is for you to choose to believe or disbelieve.
And if the ethics are in question, the responsibility falls more on the supposed reviewer than the researcher. Otherwise any hypothetical reviewer would wield the power to in essence "disqualify" a researcher simply by offering that (unsolicited) information.

From an academic standpoint- it is very dangerous. It is better not to do it, and it may backfire in a big unseen way.

Can you elaborate? In what way is it "dangerous"? What exactly is the "big unseen" way in which it may backfire? (Also see: What are we generally looking for in answers?)

People talk. If "one" is, or gets, professionally involved and someone in a position of authority finds out- it can come back to haunt "one". The authority can alert subordinates. It is a danger that should not be completely dismissed.

@LarryKraft Clarifications should be [edit]ed into posts, not left buried in comments.

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


text:
Why do educators use curve to adjust the performance?
It bothers me when I tries to remember how many highschools or universities use curve to adjust the final grade for their student based on the class average.
I know failing the entire class would be unacceptable for the faculty that taught the class but watering down the materials or curving the grades to fit the standard was it necessary? What if there are few outstanding students that are ahead of the curve? wouldn't it be unfair to them if the curve was adjusted to the class average?
Sometimes, I started to question education standard for grading.
What are the standard?
Knowing the materials and able to apply them?
Putting all relevant summary on one test paper?
Giving homework that count towards grade?
Quizzes to remind student how well they do for that subject?
If above are all taken into consideration. Why are instructors still applying the curve to adjust the class average.

I wouldn't call curve-grading a standard without specifying the locale, since it is not generally applied. In some countries it's common, in others it's not.

Related: What does an optimal grading distribution look like?

It is likely a combination of pressure for good evaluations, more so with non-tenured professors, and student pressure. I see curving as unfair to students that are successful in the course. It may not be an issue in small doses, but grade inflation via curving can seriously effect grad schools' abilities when it comes to accepting one student over the other. The inflation can have serious effects in the workplace as well.

Instructors often use some kind of curve to adjust for the varying difficulty of exams from one year to the next.
The general idea is that if (for example) the class average on an exam is lower than it has been for the same course in previous years but the quality of the students' work is the same, then the exam given this year might have been more difficult than the exam in previous years. It would be unfair to students (and also reduces the signaling power of grades) if their grade is strongly dependent on the year in which they happened to take the course. An instructor might choose to adjust the students' grades to account for this.
It's generally unwise to assign grades in a way that is strictly norm-referenced, without taking into account the students' demonstrated mastery of the course material, for reasons described in this answer. For example, if the class average on an exam is lower than it has been in previous years, but the average quality of work submitted by students is also worse than usual, then the average grade of the class should be lower (to preserve "fairness" and also the signaling power of grades.)
Some instructors might use a curve for other reasons, e.g. if their department has a policy about the maximum number of "A" grades an instructor can give out. (Like this example.)

However, instructor does not curve down the exam.....only the scale is upward.

Almost all classes (in the US) are "curved" in the sense that, at some point, a numerical score on tests and homeworks has to be converted into a letter grade.
The distinction is between classes that are curved a priori—in which the function mapping numbers to letters is fixed in advance—and those which are curved a posteriori—where the function is picked after looking at the numbers.
ff524's answer explains why many professors prefer an a posteriori curve.  Many professors guarantee a certain minimum in advance: say, f(90) is guaranteed to be at least an A-.  This is mostly customary, and students seem to like it.  Furthermore, in many (maybe most) cases this promise is meaningless, because the metrics are written to guarantee that this would happen anyway.  (Indeed, one advantage is that it reminds the professor that grades shouldn't "clump" too tightly: it's a bad thing if f(90) is a C+ and f(92) is a B.)


text:
How conceivable is it to research independently while working in a non-research role in industry, to improve my profile for graduate admissions?
I'm toying with the idea of finishing my undergraduate degree and then entering industry for a short while. If I spent three years and earned enough, my thought is that I'd soften the burden on my parents of financing the sinewy road -- filled with costs and time -- I'm willing to take in earning a PhD. If I earned enough after three years, then I'd feel uninhibited, for example, in getting two masters, waiting another year to apply for a PhD if I were rejected the previous year from one, taking a year off to research and so forth.
Spending a few years to earn money seems good, except that during these years, it's dubious whether I can work towards making myself a stronger graduate school applicant (most importantly, by doing more research). Also, any research done as an undergraduate would, I fear, go to waste. If I returned for a masters at my undergraduate institution directly after finishing my undergraduate, by contrast, I could continue whatever I was working on as an undergraduate.
A possible remedy is to research on my own (or under a willing professor's supervision) while I work in industry? Have others tried out such plans? Are they generally advisable?

Please Note: My question is different from the suggested duplicate, because I ask about the possibility for a student (and not a PhD) to perform research on the side (after working hours) while working in a non-research role. The duplicate question resolves whether someone employed in some company's research division can also research themselves independently.

In theory, you can work for few years then go back to school. In practice, chances get slimmer with time (and you making more money, since more money usually equals more responsibilities). But, I wish all the best!

research on my own This depends on the field. If it's math, you can. If the research requires lab, you can't or it would be very difficult..

"I'd soften the burden on my parents of financing the sinewy road -- filled with costs and time -- I'm willing to take in earning a PhD."  It depends a bit on the field, but PhD students are generally financially self-sufficient.  Certainly, you shouldn't let it deter you from applying.

Possible duplicate of Can someone who works in tech industry still publish research unrelated to their main job function?

I'll say this more strongly than Ben Webster: Do not join a PhD program that does not give you full funding. If the PhD program wants you, they will pay for you.  You parents should not need to pay a single dime toward your graduate education.

I think it is more often people tend to make new and potentially publishable discoveries while in industry, but whether the discovery can be rigorously explained through fundamental theory depends on how much free time the person have on his hands and obvious scientific aptitude and previous training and sometimes peer support (IBM scientists for example) Einstein is the obvious example.

What field are you in?

Applied and Industrial Mathematics. In Operations Research, I intend.

I would strongly recommend talking about your grad school plans with one of your professors.  Right now, it sounds like you are making plans based on unrealistic scenarios, which is counterproductive.  Getting two master's degrees is unnecessary and not even helpful, you don't need to worry about funding at all (it's completely standard in your field; if you are one of the few people offered admission without funding, you should interpret it as rejection and not even consider taking the offer), and if you don't get in then I doubt spending a year doing self-funded research will help much.

It is hard to do both research and industry work especially something that is not related to your main research topic. I work as a database administrator and software developer. After I finished my undergraduate degree, I started working in industry in 2003. Fast forward to 2016. I used 3 years to finish a master and used about 9 years for a PhD. I am about to finish my PHD, but it was hard to do so.
I offer following advices. Note that these points are mostly useful for PhD. You can and most people do finish your master degree while working.

Try to find a company which do R&D, and try to align your thesis subject in your company's vision. This way even when you work for your company related work at least you learn something about your research.
Try to find a company which allows about academy work leave in its employee guide. Even you talk about your academy leave when you interview about your job, another manager may not allow it. But if company has a clearly defined policy about this, they have to allow it.
Be prepared to spend more time than others. Think about it. A normal PhD student in my country spend 4-6 years for PHD. In some countries, PHD does not require course work and qualification exam; thus it may took only 3 years. But this is their only job. If they spend 20 hours (reasonable for 45 hours) every week for their PHD. This means that they spend 3120( 3 years), 4160(4 years) , 5200 (5 years), 6240 (6 Years) to finish their PHD. You will not able to put 45 work hours + 20 PHD hours. You may be able to put 10 hours at best. This means that if you do not put extra effort in holidays and your leaves, you will need two times more time to finish PHD.
If your institution require Qualification Examination, be prepared to take leave from your job. It will be near impossible to be successful in this exam with full time work. I changed my job to part time (2 days) for 6 months for this examination.
Be prepared to fail. If you need industry work for your livelihood, sometimes you have to put your work ahead of your PhD. This is especially hard for normal academia people to understand.
Similar to above point, try to find an advisor who understands your situation that sometimes you need to put your job ahead of your PhD. My advisor is similar to me that he changed his career from industry to academy. But I saw very different attitude from others in my university. And this is from a university where I pay tuition with my own money. I had an argument with department head about this subject. He told me that I need to put my PhD first, I told him that if I could afford that I would already have done that.  I know that I would have host of other difficulties with other universities. Some universities in my country does not accept working PhD student.
Be prepared to give up a lot of your social time for your PhD.


text:
Letter of recommendation for relative who has done relevant work for me
My nephew, a recent graduate, is applying for a fellowship at CERN, and he is providing the usual letters of reference. He has in the past done some work for me (I work in the same field he is studying), and I know him quite well, professionally speaking.
If, in addition to the other letters of reference, were I to write one for him as well (explicitly noting our relationship, being relatives), would that most likely hurt or help?

See Why can't friends or family members write recommendation letters for graduate admissions? and Protocol for writing a recommendation letter for someone you only know on a personal basis (not exactly the same because you also know him professionally)

@ff524 I am not saying I would be one of the letters of recommendation, mine would be in ADDITION (he already has three). I think this question is slightly different from that one, dealing with the case of someone who cannot find enough people outside his family.

I strongly advise you against writing it.
In this answer by ff524 you can read a few reasons on why your letter may be considered strongly biased. But let me add one more point, a cultural one (you never know the background of the selection committee members).
Even though you can be objective and honest in assessing your nephew's skills, and even though your letter would be just an additional one, you have to think that in some countries (e.g. Italy and Spain, but I'm sure these are not the only ones) the academic world has faced for a long time accusations of nepotism and corruption. Therefore, by many people who have grown up in such kind of culture, your letter would be probably considered as yet another case of potential nepotism.
I might be overly pessimistic, but do you really want to risk this?
Let me add a remark in view of HEITZ's comment below: When applying for a position, follow the instructions. That is, if the call requires, say, 3 letters of recommendation, your nephew should send 3 letters, not 2, not 4. Why? Because anything that is not compliant with the instructions will likely annoy a selection committee who has to assess many applicants, because they will have to decide how to handle unwanted special cases.

Provided the candidate has the necessary confidential/unbiased letters already, is there really harm in adding one more, especially if the conflict of interest is explicitly stated?

Yes there is. The person doing the first pass of selection might read your letter first, and immediately reject the application on the grounds of nepotism. Note, the first selection pass can sometimes have extreme time pressure, if there are a large number of applicants - i.e. only one or two minutes available to scan each application. That may shock you, but welcome to the real world! If you are going to select 10 people from 1,000 applicants, you will reject a very large number of good applicants whatever process you follow - don't make it too easy for you to be one of them.

Thank you, the explanation of the process helped, you may want to add it in the body of the answer

@HEITZ Let me put it the other way around. Provided the candidate has the necessary confidential/unbiased letters already, is there really benefit in adding one more? If they have enough already, why do you think an extra one (from anybody at all) would be useful?

@HEITZ See also my edit.

For bonus marks, the etymology of "nepotism" is from the Italian for "nephew".

@DavidRicherby Actually, in Italy, the image of a politician or a professor calling a friend of theirs to "recommend" their nephew or niece for a position is one of the most used memes when discussing nepotism in Italian academia (and politics, too). I reckon, also, that this is probably the reason for which recommendation letters are usually not required when applying to a position in Italy.

Writing the letter yourself is indeed problematic as others suggest - or may be perceived as such.
What I believe you should do is have your nephew contact a relevant third party and ask that s/he write a recommendation based on his/her assessment of your nephew's work.
If there is job such relevant third party, and nobody can tell what your nephew has contributed other than you two,  then it's even more suspicious for you to make the recommendation.

I already said my letter is an extra one, in addition to others already being written

@user: But are the other letters about the same work that was done for you?


text:
E-Mailing supervisor during Masters Thesis - How often and how much?
I am in a terminal masters program in the Humanities. I will have to write my masters thesis at some point and have been told that I will have 3 meetings with my professor.
I have never worked on a thesis or with a professor as closely as this (I did not write a thesis as an undergradute), so I am a bit worried about the whole process.
What am I expected to do exactly? Am I allowed to email my professor with emails? Is it even expected? And if so, how often and much is appropriate between the meetings, and what can I expect to get out of the emails (as opposed to the meetings).
Sorry if this seems basic to some of you - it surely is. But it would be great to know if there are certain academic standards or rules I might not be aware of.

There is no standards about contacting your professor.
I think the proper answer to this is : ask your supervisor about it. Only he can tell you what he expects of you and how available he is. If you keep your email or contact with him civil and polite, their is nothing more to do.
Depending on how many student he has to supervised and his working habits, he might tell you whether he prefers emails or meeting, or if he is able to make extra meetings with you should the need arise.

thanks. but: would having extra meetings not be unfair towards other students?

I don't know. It depends if this is a strictly defined exercise or not. But usually teachers are there to help their students (or should be) so it is not that improbable. Also, if others can have extra meetings too, it's not unfair. Anyway, it's free to ask him, then you'll be fixed.

I largely concur with M'vy's answer (and upvoted it), but I think it might also help to think of this in terms of a supervisor-supervisee relationship; you aren't precisely employed by your thesis advisor, but the power relationships are not entirely dissimilar.
There are a few different kinds of emails you might send (and want to discuss with your thesis advisor at the outset):

The simple project-management-style update. "This week/fortnight/month I was planning to accomplish X, Y, and Z; X and Y are done, but Z fell a bit behind, so during the next week/fortnight/month I will finish Z and..." The key questions for your thesis advisor are whether and how often you should send these emails.
The non-urgent question, the thing you leave a note to yourself about in your writing, and (probably) address en masse with your thesis advisor at intervals. The agreement will likely turn out to be that this is the kind of question that you deal with at scheduled meetings, but again, ask your thesis advisor about how these should best be handled.
The showstopper question that stops your work dead in its tracks until it is answered. Your thesis advisor will want clear boundaries around these (some students are prone to unnecessary levels of panic) and a clear understanding of how quickly it is reasonable to expect a response (some students... yeah).

I suspect that understanding this taxonomy of questions from the get-go will mean a much more cordial and useful relationship with your thesis advisor. Good luck!


text:
Why are there some really young professors and other much older lecturers without professor status?
I was just wondering how this is possible, there are some 50+ year old people who are 'Dr. X Y', and others who are maybe "only" 40 years old , but they are 'Professor Dr. X Y'.

Because these job titles are awarded based on a person's career choices and accomplishments, not based on the year of their birth.

... because being a professor is not just a function of age ???

@NateEldredge: "Because these job titles are awarded based on a person's career choices and accomplishments, not based on the year of their birth." Well, to be honest also a lot on the base of the luck to be at the right time in the right place with the right topic.

Academia, like any other organized human profession, has a system of ranks and advancement on which those particularly talented or ambitious tend to rise quickly, while others may rise much more slowly or eventually stop.

how does this work then? And is it advisable then to avoid some 50 year old Dr. X Y as one's supervisor if he or she is not a professor yet?

What country's system are you discussing?  The meaning of "professor" varies.

UK. But I have also seen these things in other countries like the US.

@Chris: "Professor" means something different in the UK than it does in the US (and many other countries).  In the UK there are three different classes of permanent faculty who fully contribute to the department, including supervising PhD students: lecturer, reader and professor.  In the US we have assistant professor, associate professor and professor, but in the US system seniority automatically makes you an associate professor (or out of a job) within 7 years, and at many places if you're one step above adequacy you'll get promoted to professor sooner or later.....

....However in the UK all three classes are what we would call "tenured professors" in the US, and one does not automatically rise from one to another.  In the UK, "professor" is being singled out for distinction among other permanent faculty.  (Whereas in my department in the US, at any time more than half the permanent faculty are "professors.")  In the US we have "named professors" and/or "endowed chairs" which is generally 5-20% of the permanent faculty.  This is probably the closest US analogue to a UK professor.

@ChrisDoyle no, assuming it is research supervision, look at their research output (especially their last 5-10 years) and look at the outcomes of their other recent supervisions (or ask their current students).

In a colloquial sense, may simply refer to a group of educators/teachers at a university/colleges. However, in more strict sense, the formal designation of Professor is generally obtained by rising through the ranks. You can find lots of details regarding how this system works out, and even some technicalities, in this link. (N.B. US-specific, but generalizable to some extent.) Quoting verbatim from the article:

Educators who hold a formal title of "Professor" (referred to as tenured/tenure-track faculty) typically begin their careers as assistant professors, (or "lecturers" and "senior lecturers") with subsequent promotions to the ranks of associate professor and finally professor. The titles are historical traditions; for example, it is not implied that an assistant professor "assists" more senior faculty. There is often a strict timeline for application for promotion from assistant to associate professor, most often 5 or 6 years following the initial appointment. Applicants are evaluated based on their contributions to research, teaching, and administration. The relative weightings of these contributions differ by institution, with PhD-granting universities usually placing more emphasis on research and liberal arts colleges placing more emphasis on teaching.

Now, until one has risen through the ranks to formally hold this title of professor, technically that guy can't/shouldn't use the title "Prof." in front of his/her name. But, if he/she holds a Ph.D. (i.e. Doctor of Philosophy) degree, "Dr." can be used as a prefix before the name. Later in the career, when this person becomes a formal Professor, he is free to replace that "Dr." by "Prof." (or rarely, even use both at once.)
Also, while there may be correlations between age and rank, there is absolutely no reason why a more aged person can not be academically junior to a younger person who might have made it further in the hierarchy. It all depends on satisfying the requisite criterion (see linked article). This explains you observation:

there are some 50+ year old people who are 'Dr. X Y', and others who are maybe "only" 40 years old , but they are 'Professor Dr. X Y'

Hope that helps :)

It is possible that some older Drs may not want to be profs.  As an academic rises through the ranks, their duties tend to migrate from active teaching and research into more of a managerial role, which doesn't suit everybody (and the activities that merit your promotion do not necessarily imply you have the abilities required to flourish in the role into which you find yourself promoted).


text:
What does it mean when a department has 'retired professors' as part of their faculty? Can I still work with them?
What exactly does this mean? Could I do work with them? If not, why are they listed there? I am confused!

See What academic functions does a Professor Emeritus usually serve?

Retired (or emeritus) faculty are generally not available as research advisors for graduate students, although depending on the university's and department's policies, a retired faculty member may be able to hire postdocs and other technical staff ("soft-money" positions that can be eliminated if the funding isn't there).
As for why they're listed: in many cases, retired faculty still retain some active affiliation and involvements with their departments. For instance, they may be involved advising undergraduate students, teaching classes, or continuing to do their own research, but absent a group to work with. (As an undergraduate, there was one chemistry emeritus professor who was still working in the laboratory—at age 80!)

A retired faculty member ("professor emeritus") is, most importantly, retired.  That means that they are no longer drawing a regular salary, and conversely, they do not have the regular obligations (teaching, research, working with students, serving on committees, etc.) that are part of a faculty job.  However, they still have access to some departmental resources, and they typically choose to continue to do some kind of work.  Some retired faculty still teach; this can mean effectively working as an adjunct in their former department.  Others continue to do research, although how easy this is depends a lot on what kind of research they do.  In the experimental sciences, it is usually too much labor to maintain an entire lab and oversee students working in it after retirement.  On the other hand, people whose research does not involve large numbers of students and extensive facilities often continue to do research (albeit often at a reduced pace).  When I was a graduate student, one of my research papers was done under the supervision of a recently retired professor.
The upshot is that it is impossible to know whether a retired faculty member will be willing to supervise a graduate student.  If you are interested in laboratory research, it's unlikely that an emeritus is going to have a fully functioning lab.  Even if you are interested in more theoretical research, you should be aware that emeritus professors typically tail off their involvement with the department over time.  Somebody who might still be on campus most days two weeks after official retirement might be a ghost a couple years later.

I knew several emeritus math faculty whose research sped up once they moved over to emeritus status because the other obligations went away. So that is very field and health dependent.

@BSteinhurst probably also sped up because he/she spent years accumulating knowledge and finally everything clicks.

@VitaminE the specific people I was talking about were very clear that it was the time issue not a new, clearer understanding. But that’s just those specific people.

@BSteinhurst Yup, I can agree with that.  You might have a few theorems in your head waiting to be written up.


text:
Can a project be "too good" for a Master's?
Pretty straight forward. I am starting to apply to grad school and I was discussing possible projects with some (grad student) friends of mine. When I mentioned something in particular one of them said "that might even be too good for a Master's, sounds more like a PhD..." Then he also went on to say that I could use part of a project like that for a Master's and then use the rest to finish it off with a PhD. For some time I thought about this, then I decided to ask it here.
So is there such a thing as a project that is too good for a Master's? And if so, should my future advisor generally know where this "boiling point" is?
Note: if you need more info about my major of study or the specific sub-field, leave a comment and I can make an edit.

The most important criteria for a project for you, both PhD and Masters is that you complete it and can graduate. A too good project is likely something that has a low probability of completing within a Masters which is shorter than a PhD.

"Too good" is euphemistically for unrealistically ambitious, a pipedream in plain English; and yes, such projects exist.

From my reading of the conversation between the two of you, he meant 'too good' in one of two ways:

"Too Good" as in the topic will yield many high-quality results, potentially many publications, and opportunities for continued/extended research.
"Too Good" as in requiring too much time to complete in the typical Master's degree time period, and actually should be understood as "Too advanced" or "Too in-depth".

In answer to your second question 'will future advisor know the boiling point?' Yes. That is what they are there for, to help guide the scope of your project to a Master's level.

I don't see a problem here.
If the project is too good, then
(a) you will not be able to finish it in the timeframe of a Masters, in which case you can continue working on it for your PhD, OR
(b) you will finish it for your Masters, in which case you have a great Masters thesis, and then you can tackle something else for your PhD.
You should not kill yourself to achieve case (b).  If you find that the problem is too difficult, just do case (a).
Finally, be aware that other graduate students may not be able to gauge the difficulty very well.  Only you will know once you have begun working on it.

(a) can be very, very bad if it's not a project for which one can report meaningful intermediate results. On what basis would the masters degree be awarded?

@ff524 that is always a possibility with a research project.  You can't know ahead of time if you will have any success, even with a problem that seems easy on the surface.  But even if no substantial progress is made, you can demonstrate a good knowledge of the background material, previous work in the area, and describe your own (failed) attempts.  This can produce a passable thesis.

Yes, we don't know everything ahead of time, and we can do some damage control if we turn out to have misjudged a problem; but we use our experience and judgement to identify problems that have a high probability of having something meaningful to show for the work after N years. I would definitely discourage the OP from taking on a thesis project if he knows a priori that there is a very small chance he will get meaningful results in the time given. There's a difference between "we can deal with this outcome if it happens" and "I don't see a problem, no need to try to avoid this outcome".

In my experience many master students propose projects that would take two or three PhD project to complete. It is the job of the advisor to help students come up with more realistic plans, and they can do so as they have the experience the master students lack. So it is a huge problem which can and should be prevented.


text:
Is it common to seek outside letters for the third-year renewal of an assistant professor?
I often write promotion letters for faculty going up for tenure or promotion to full professor. For those who are unaware, this involves reviewing a candidate's entire portfolio including research statement, publications, teaching, funding, etc., and cannot really be done properly without reading several of the candidate's papers.
Recently I received a request of a new sort: I was asked to go through the entire process associated with a tenure letter, simply for a third-year review of a tenure track assistant professor at another institution. (If it matters, the request is from a good R1 school, but not a super-elite ivy or equivalent.)
To me this seems a terrible practice. It is already a ridiculous waste of time that some schools ask for 15 or more promotion letters. Figure that letter each takes a minimum of one day for a well-established senior professor to write.  Could the marginal information provided by the 15th or even the 10th letter possibly be worth that much of the community's time? We are already suffocating under our peer review obligations; adding the huge additional burden of writing promotion letters for routine reappointments strikes me as ridiculous. Yet I'm loathe to refuse, lest I hurt the candidate.
Is this a practice that others are seeing in their fields, or is this some dean's stupid idea that is being forced upon a single unfortunate college?
Edit: If this is uncommon, we should nip in the bud. Bureaucracy, like entropy, is monotone increasing in this particular universe. Thoughts on what I should do would also be appreciated, though I suppose that's technically a separate question.

Not seeing it in mathematics.

At the University of Michigan, the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (which includes my department, mathematics) not only doesn't require outside letters for third-year reviews but explicitly prohibits asking for them.

The counterargument is that since these letter writers are a subset of the people who will be asked for tenure letters in a couple years, it shouldn't be a huge increase in total time spent as the time spent writing now will save time then.

@NoahSnyder, I think it's a weak argument to say that "oh, this substantial increase is not as large as it might have been". It also seems-to-me to occur at a big transition point for people, so that to be judged how silly one is/was at 17 is not so helpful in gauging what one should be doing just a few years later, say at 19, in making choices.

A separate point from the specifics: I'd claim that advice to tenure-track faculty should certainly come from local mentors or collaborators, not only from outside. The day-to-day of local contact (nevermind the internet) is hard to match. Yes, I agree that "mentoring" often fails grossly... but in those cases, the candidate is already at risk. Making people at other institutions responsible [sic] for mentoring is grossly irresponsible.

Penn -does- collect such letters for 3rd year review, at least in the computer science department.

+1 for " Bureaucracy, like entropy, is monotone increasing in this particular universe." A sad truth!

As in my comment, I've not heard of any such thing in mathematics, ... but hadn't really been worrying about it.
It appears a gross inflation of things, yes, and wasteful, and so on, as in other comments.
Yes, I fear a refusal could be used against the candidate, by anyone interested in pushing against them, despite the problems with this general direction.
It occurs to me that this grossly inflated situation could be occurring due to some political infighting at that other institution, so that some faction hostile to the candidate is "playing chicken" with the supporters of the candidate, and/or with the candidate themself. This is already a bad thing. So, yes, anyone's refusal to write a letter could be aggressively interpreted against the candidate (despite the usual convention that it is possible, in principle, to refuse to write a letter, due to other commitments... which could in an adversarial situation be aggressively re-interpreted...)
Is it possible to get some side-channel information from the other institution and department, without compromising yourself or the candidate? If so, a "what the heck is going on?" is irresistible to me. If you have no side channel available, I think you might have been "succesfully" extorted into writing a letter.
Sufficiently long after the letter, some systematic push-back should be harmless to the candidate, but would be informative, ...

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing as in your last paragraph. Write an appropriately positive letter now, and then in a few months, after the review is complete, send another letter to the chair / dean expressing your displeasure with their system.

@NateEldredge, yes, and one could make the point that it will antagonize or alienate outside letter writers if they're asked over-and-over, pre-tenure, pre-tenure-again, and then tenure. Doubling or tripling the total mass of letter-writing?

Seeking more information is a good idea. I think I'll either call or email the chair (I don't know him personally, unfortunately) over the next couple of days and try to find out what is going on. I'll probably end up writing the letter, but this gives me a chance to express my displeasure with the process while doing everything possible to help the (very deserving) candidate. Depending on how the conversation goes, I may also write the dean of that college to complain, but will wait until after the decision has been made.

There is one math department I've heard of that's done this (a Top 20 school).  This department has some issues which has caused people to leave (both voluntarily and not).  @Corvus, yes you should write a very good, careful letter.  I believe some people in this department try to use these things to either count against tenure cases or stop people from even going up for tenure.

I don't know whether it is common, but a version of it, a 4th-year review, exists (determined by department pattern of administration) at Ohio State, and it's actually useful. It gives the candidate a good feel for what the actual tenure review will be like the next year, and alerts them to problems that can be remedied. Letter writers are usually asked to update their letter for the real review (though not if they wrote a crappy letter for the 4th year review). Similar letter-inflation exists in Alaska, Vanderbilt.
I take the point that this is a form of bureaucracy- and service-inflation, but it actually gives reviewers a longer time to read the papers, in case they are not familiar with the candidate's work. The problem-detecting function is quite valuable, I would say.

We had it such letters for a while in math at Indiana, but don't have it anymore.

You make an interesting point. This gives the chair -- and possibly the candidate -- the opportunity to screen potential letter writers for the all-important tenure case. Unfortunately, the chair could use this for good or for evil, so to speak -- cherry-picking positive or negative reviewers depending on what outcome is desired in the tenure decision.

It does, though there may be independent protections (e.g. if the chair does not get to pick the reviewers). My experience was that it was always used for good, but I could imagine a heinous department.

@Corvus There are always ways for an evil chair to skew the process.

If this is a request from outside your university, tell them no, and tell them why. If this is from inside your university, get with your department chair and go to the dean in question. You don't want to seem uncollegial, and you don't want to be seen as refusing to write a letter for this specific person, but I think you're right to want to cut this off now.

Thanks -- I've clarified in the main text that this is at an outside institution. If it here, I'd go to the chair of the department in question first, and to the dean if that failed.

Would you be concerned that refusing to write a letter would have a negative effect on the candidate's career? Or if so, do you consider that is acceptable collateral damage?

@NateEldredge, that is a concern. There's also the concern that OP could damage their own career in some way by being seen as uncollegial. But I can't think of another way to fight the one-way ratchet of bureaucracy. What's next, going through a full tenure case every year on every junior faculty member?

@NateEldredge I'm not concerned in the least about my own career. But a negative effect on the candidate is absolutely not acceptable as collateral damage. And there is a perception that declining to write a tenure letter is a negative thing. At least at our institution you have to list everyone you requested a letter from whether they provide it or not. That's why I feel so stuck here.

@Corvus, did the request come from the professor under review or from their department chair or dean?

@BillBarth The request came from the department chair, or rather, his secretary.

I think it would be usual that the request would formally come from (the secretary of) the department chair, regardless of the push to do it, so this may not mean much.

@Corvus, I can't tell how put off by this you are, but depending on how bad it is, you might draw a few lines in the sand. Send the chair a strongly (but politely) worded note declining on principle. Write a letter to your society mag (e.g. SIAM Review, etc) and leave out the university name. Send the letter with the name! Etc. If you think this is bad for the field, and your stature is high enough, you might be able to rally some folks to stop it. Otherwise, you've probably been extorted into doing it (as noted below). Even if you do write the letter, you might raise the issue publicly too.

I like the idea of a public letter of dismay. Instead of a field-specific magazine, I might send it to the Chronicle of Higher Ed or a similar general publication: more likely to be seen by the high-level administrators who make such decisions.

@NateEldredge A letter of dismay is a good idea. It would allow me to also hit on my pet peeve of departments that request more than 10 promotion letters because they like to think of themselves as highly selective, without considering the marginal information value of each successive letter. When I am being solicited for a letter, I've always wanted to ask how many other letters they've requested and make my decision based on that. But again, there's the fear of harming the candidate by doing so.

I have heard about this in math, and in fact believe that my department does it too (though only a small number of letters, if I do recall correctly).
Now, here's my (probably unpopular) opinion on letters in general. In applied mathematics, it is not usually very difficult to judge whether a candidate is good or bad just by looking at the basics: publications (where, how many, how often they have been cited), grant funding, impact in general. Realistically, I cannot name a case where letters were really necessary to make the case for or against a candidate. Certainly not within a department, but probably also not with the higher ups -- they, too, will be able to identify the strong and weak candidates just from their CV.
On the other hand, candidates in pure math oftentimes have relatively few publications and fewer external funds. Publications are also often not very well cited. All of this may come with the turf -- or maybe it doesn't and it really speaks to the candidates, I don't know. In any case, in such cases it sure helps to bring letters from Fields Medalists or similar luminaries to the table, in order to push a candidate beyond the finish line. Within the department such letters are hard to argue against. For the higher ups, they may sound reassuring.
The thing I find annoying that in pure math the letters are almost uniformly positive and do, in fact, not really help distinguish between candidates -- I could not name a case where the letters really helped me identify who really is very good and who is just ok (which, I will admit, is often good enough in my view to get tenure). All of these letters praise the impact of the work (which isn't backed up by citation counts), the fact that they have proved some deep conjecture (of which of course there are many), and that the mathematics is beautiful. The candidate is also invariably among the best -- at least among those between 35 and 45 working on cohomologies over fiber bundles of the projective space F_2/Z endowed with a nonstandard topology (i.e., the subfield is so small that there are likely only a handful of people in this age group anyway). These are all things I can't judge as an outsider to the field -- I simply have to believe it, and trust my colleagues who understand the issues better. In the end, however, I find that many of these letters are slightly dishonest in that they never really reveal how good a candidate really is because they are so uniformly outstanding (a sentiment I know many of my more applied colleagues share).
So the purpose of these letters in math, and their number, seems to me to be more as additional ammunition to prop up cases that by themselves (i.e., by just looking at the CV) do not look all that impressive. This propping up will likely help both within the department and upstairs: bring enough letters that all sound very good without really making a distinction, and the candidate's file looks pretty positive.
So there certainly is room for improving the process in our discipline. (And no, I'm not up for having this fight.)

While letters might be useful for a tenure decision, subject to all the caveats you mention, there is zero reason why you should need letters for a third-year renewal at a midrange R1 institution. For a third year renewal, the following checklist should suffice: [ ] did the person show up to the majority of his or her classes? [ ] does the person at least pretend to have a research program? [ ] Has the person avoided felony convictions since hiring? [ ] Has the person avoided causing lawsuits against the university? 4 ticks should guarantee renewal; fewer would require a careful look.

More and more I think that departments seek outside letters for the same reason that tweens post photos to instagram: for the rush of getting "likes". It's a mirror, mirror, on the wall sort of thing; every department loves to be told (and show the college that it is being told) by the top people in the field that it's hiring was brilliant and that its faculty are the best in the world. The only time we write that sort of effusive praise in academia is when we write promotion letters. Hence the obsession with asking for an excessive number of them.

This practice sounds more like testing who is the most well networked inside their hyper-specialized community and good buddy with the big dogs. Or if there is a Fields medalist in your research field.

@Corvus: The main purpose of a third-review is not simply "Should we rehire them?" As you suggest, that question can usually be answered by checking for a pulse.  The main purpose or a third-year review is "Are they on a likely path to tenure?"  And one of the primary gauges for the quality of an assistant professor's research program is their reputation among external experts.

@JeffE: Maybe, but you don't need letters for that. You can go by conference talks, workshop organization, citations, etc. You don't need to inconvenience colleagues for that by asking them to write formal letters of evaluation.

@WolfgangBangerth Then why ask for tenure letters? Or any letters ever? Because those secondary reputation/impact indicators aren't considered enough. If you're overwhelmed, just say you're overwhelmed and decline.

@JeffE: Yes, I have at times asked myself that question (why ask for letters) as well :-) I can't think of a case where they would have illuminated the situation in any way that made me think differently about a candidate.

@WolfgangBangerth I have seen several hiring, tenure, and promotion cases where external letters have significantly changed people's opinions about the candidate.

@JeffE: For the better or for the worse?

@WolfgangBangerth Both.


text:
Pushback on unorganized professors, for older adult student
I'm hoping you can help.  My background is that I became a parent at an early age, and chose at the time to prioritized raising and feeding my child over going to college.  Doing both really wasn't an option.  I've done well, and I've been doing community college courses part-time since my youngest is pretty independent and is finishing high school.  I work full-time, standard US office hours.
I have a professor who's causing me a bit of tension.  I have to be highly organized with my time, for obvious reasons.  This very knowledgeable gentleman has poor time management skills, and I think it's far less of an issue for my young classmates who don't have the same level of other responsibilities in life.  He's an adjunct.  He rambles for long periods of time, takes water breaks (gets up, leaves, and comes back) while on camera, and actually spends about half the class time preparing the materials he wants to present to us.  Early on, I spent three days trying to get an add-code to register because he doesn't read his email -- finding his home phone number via a Google search was the only way to reach him.
He has shown up on camera wrapped in a blanket (We live in sunny southern California, not Iceland!), or wearing clothing that he'd probably be counseled about if he showed up wearing it on campus.  He's late starting class (online) about 75% of the time, across two classes that I have with him four mornings a week.
The nature of the homework is very detailed (it's a music theory class).  I'm finding that the written instructions don't convey the outcome he's expecting (some other instructor in the department created the worksheets).  I also find that I'm the only one who's asking for such clarification.  With the haphazard way he communicates expectations, it gives us the least amount of time before it's due (usually three days), and it's a lot of work!
This class got moved online very suddenly at the start of the semester, and I don't see anything in our learning management system where he offers "office hours".  He's mentioned using two virtual tutors that are available to us, but this approach feels really counterintuitive to me, and is obviously more time consuming.  The lack of in-person opportunities makes the communication really challenging.
Do you have any tips for managing around such a messy situation?

It does sound messy. There needs to be some way to communicate with him. Are professors supposed to have "office hours"? Could you phone him at home when the homework instructions are unclear? I know that is not normal, but it is hard to think of good ideas.

I felt really really uptight about having to dig for his personal phone number.  I'd been touch with others in his department for other resolutions, but everyone (including the department chair) responded with "hope he contacts you!'  I finally made up my mind to be as polite as possible. and he seemed a little perturbed when I called but helped me out.  I don't think he's a bad guy, but quite oblivious.

Why is taking a water break on camera making your list? Taking a break for water is a pretty normal thing for someone who has been speaking to do.

@BryanKrause Echoing this comment---I intentionally take water breaks in class, typically just after I ask a question.  This is a trick I learned for ensuring that I am providing my students with enough "wait time" before demanding answers.

@BryanKrause Reasonable water break = grab a bottle or glass that's sitting within reach, take a swig, and carry on.  Unreasonable water break = get out of one's seat, stand up, go off camera, walk to one's kitchen, and talk to students from afar for several minutes while opening the refrigerator.

@XavierJ Got it; I think that seems to me like a personal opinion about video etiquette, which I think is something still fairly new to people and where the rules about what one does and doesn't do is still in flux and is different for different audiences. That sounds like a more casual approach than I'm used to, but I'm not sure it should be grouped with the other complaints.

@BryanKrause Agreed - I would even say there are two larger groups of complaints here: etiquette issues (something being perceived as unprofessional but some leeway may be given with things like clothing or water breaks) and things that are inexcusable - such as overall sloppiness, lack of preparation, constantly being late...

"He has shown up on camera wrapped in a blanket"  this is none of your business, why should this be a problem? Maybe he was having a flu, a cold, or whatever, and he was trying being comfortable.

I agree with @EarlGrey.  The instructor is paid to deliver course content, organized as he sees fit.  Not for what he wears or how he comes across.

This sounds like a complaint to the head would be appropriate. And dropping the course at this time if that is feasible and the head can't find a solution.
Given the COVID disruption you probably need to expect some issues to arise, but this seems like an ill-prepared and sloppy instructor. And, it is just possible that an unprepared instructor was the last gasp option of the department faced with illness or resignation or ...
Some people can handle such situations studying on their own, but that isn't, and shouldn't be the expectation.
Of course, you need to play this off against how important it is to take this course at this time and what blowback might occur from a complaint, but it seems warranted.
And, if you can manage it, a complaint from a group of students, rather than an individual is more likely to be taken seriously.

Firstly, I'm very glad you prioritised feeding your child; that is a good priority to have.  ; )
As to dealing with your problem, I think this is a case where student feedback needs to occur.  All/most of the problems you list are things that reflect bad teaching practice and detract substantially from course quality.  In particular, the lack of punctuality and proper preparation for classes sounds like it is wasting a lot of time.  Universities typically have a mechanism for formal student feedback on courses at the end of each course, but in addition to this, students can give feedback on course quality or problems at any time during their courses.  You can give named feedback directly to your lecturer if you wish (e.g., via email) or you can give anonymous feedback by putting a note in their office pigeon-hole.  (Note that in your present circumstance the anonymity might fail; your lecturer might be able to guess who the feedback is from.)  In extreme cases where you feel it is warranted, you can also give feedback directly to the university (e.g., to the undergraduate coordinator, Head of School, etc.).  This sounds to me like a situation where the problems are bad enough to warrant that.
One thing to bear in mind in present circumstances is that universities are giving some latitude to lecturers due to the difficulties of transferring courses online due to COVID-19.  Expectations may be dropping a little bit, but the problems you have raised are still well below the expected standard of teaching even in a difficult circumstance.

Excellent job prioritizing; I dare say that the "real-life experience" you got has helped you significantly, and you should be commended for that. It's my guess that you are one of the students who is a joy to teach.
All of your concerns are valid. My first suggestion is if you can drop the course, do it, and do it now. Take whatever penalty (if there is one) that comes with it - dropping this will be better for you in the long run.
If dropping the course isn't an option, then you have a decision to make. If the professor is a decent person (your call), then you could try to make an appointment with them. This would normally be during their office hours, but from what it sounds like, they've given up on that. Therefore, I would counsel you to take option B: contact the department chair. If you are periodically on campus, make an appointment to meet with him/her; in-person meetings are always better for things like this. If you are never on campus (for whatever reason) or the chair isn't, then a clear, polite, and succinct email is 100% appropriate. Make sure you keep a copy of the email (don't copy yourself though; just make sure you either have a copy in your "sent" mailbox or you printed a copy or something).
Hope and pray that the chair does something. Remember, however, that hope and prayer do not constitute a strategy. Be prepared to go to the dean if need be (which is why you always, ALWAYS keep copies of ALL emails).
Yes, COVID. Yes, circumstances. That doesn't mean that you get to show up in boxer shorts (or whatever) - you still have to do your job well like a professional. There are (or at least there should be) limits to the "latitude" people are given. I'm 100% sure they wouldn't appreciate it if the situation were reversed.
Best of luck to you. I used to tell my students that they should remember and use the good things from every teacher they have, implementing them however they can. Similarly, they should also remember all of the bad examples they saw and make sure they don't repeat any of those. Here's an excellent "negative example" for you to keep in your hip pocket.

I agree with you, but "He has shown up on camera wrapped in a blanket (We live in sunny southern California, not Iceland!), or wearing clothing [...] He's late starting class (online) about 75% of the time, across two classes that I have with him four mornings a week."
I recommend OP to drop the first things about appearances and focus on schedule (really a serious thing, if the delays are repeated and >1 minute). Because OP is suggesting that boxer would be ok, since they are in sunny California, "latitude" is highly debatable (shaving beard is an offense to some people, for example ... )

I think we agree; however, regardless of the weather (or COVID), people should dress "professionally." After all, they represent the department, the college, and the university, not to mention the people who study that field. I would not want a student to walk away saying, "Do all mathematicians (or whomever) dress like THAT?!?"
That said, I agree that the other issues are far more serious than "just" appearance.

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


text:
How do I get into a Computer Science Masters without an undergrad in CS?
I have discovered that I enjoy computer science immensely and I would like to pursue a masters degree in computer Science.
My undergrad was Neuroscience (biology) with a minor in Bioinformatics. I have a 3.2 gpa, and an 77 percentile GRE, which I understand is not amazing but ok.
But, I've gotten all A's in any computer science class I have taken, (data structures, algorithms etc.)
I would like to get into the best possible program, for example MIT, I understand this may be unrealistic with my grades and would like to ask what are my options and what should I do to get ready?
Ideas:

Retake the GRE get better score
Take a Comp Science GRE subject test
get real life experience
put code online, open source
Get work experience
Screw the masters get a job

I'd love to hear what you think is the best choice for setting up a successful career in computer science. Thanks!

Update: I've been accepted into a masters program at NJIT in computer science. I had elected to take enough math and computer science in my undergraduate program to be accepted into the masters program.

Many schools will require you to take remediation courses if they do not feel you meet the course requirements for the graduate program. They will be fairly upfront about what they think you would need, but it will mean taking more Bachelors level classes at cost before being accepted to the program.
In general I would show any additional work you have done to improve your programming skills, including code you have written.
A lot of qualified people do not apply to top schools (I.E. MIT) because they do not believe they would get in. But I would not recommend focusing on any one school and instead find a few programs you like and apply to all of them.
Some schools will allow you to take classes as a non-degree seeking student, which would provide both a way to prove yourself and also gauge the program and its suitability to you. I would check with the program to see how many credits they accept through this method though.
As an aside, I am in the same boat. I majored in Mathematics with a minor in Physics but have been working as a programmer for the last three years. I am now looking into online masters programs in Computer Engineering or Computer Science.

Thanks for the tips. Good luck getting into a masters program!

Thank you, as an update I will be starting a Master's degree program in Systems Engineering next week.

@kleineg, Hello! I just stumbled on this answer and would be pursuing MS in Computer Sciences in a few months. Do you like to share your experience of the completed semester(s). In particular, will I benefit from being aware of anything in particular, when it comes to pursuing Systems courses from non-CS background?

@envy_intelligence Thank you for your interest, I actually changed course slightly since answering this question. I decided to go for a Master's in Systems Engineering. It is a field that has a lot of bearing on software development, and a lot of the people are software architects or the like, but aside from statistical computation and optimization algorithms they do not cover programming... It is more for project managers or data analysts (I fall more in the latter category).

Many departments do not require you have a Bachelor's in CS to pursue graduate studies. They might have a stipulation of a minor in CS, though. You'd have to check with the individual departments. Bioinformatics is similar to CS in some schools, so they may waive that minimum requirement. The main reason for their requiring a minor is to ensure you've had a sufficient foundation to build upon. Taking more courses in a local school first would fill any gaps you have.
In the end, it comes down to what the department says. Contact some of the ones you like and see what they say. They may want you to take more math, for instance, over anything else.
Edit: Removed statement about GRE subject test in CS.

Thanks for the tips Jonathan, seems like going case by case is best.

The GRE Subject test in CS has been discontinued.

@ChrisGregg I did not know that, thank you. ETS's explanation: Why was the Computer Science Test discontinued?

"Many schools will require you to take remediation courses if they do not feel you meet the course requirements for the graduate program. Some schools will allow you to take classes as a non-degree seeking student, which would provide both a way to prove yourself and also gauge the program and its suitability to you. I would check with the program to see how many credits they accept through this method though."
Correct. Also, many programs would let an individual in as a provisional student.  You would take undergraduate courses in areas of perceived deficiency, however, they would not count towards your degree program of course so your degree would cost a little more than folks that took the necessary classes as part of an undergraduate CS program. Typically its no more than 3 to 5 classes from what I have seen on average. If you are good enough, you can also test out of prerequisites which is another way to demonstrate mastery.
Admissions tend to focus on both math (most will not let you in without at least 3 undergraduate credits of Calculus and 3 credits of Statistics) and computer science classes -due to the fact that many programs are aligned/attached with their respective engineering programs. Each school is a little different. A few that I found worthy of perusing: Arizona State University, University of Chicago -Urbana/Champaign, DePaul University.
Also since you mentioned MIT here is a snippet of their offerings and policies:
http://tppserver.mit.edu/53/54.htm
Current programs include:
Biomedical Engineering
Computation for Design and Optimization (CDO)
Computational and Systems Biology (CSB)
Medical Engineering and Medical Physics
Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience
Program in Polymer Science and Technology
The following interdepartmental programs are affiliated with the Engineering Systems Division (ESD):
eaders for Global Operations
Supply Chain Management (Center for Transportation and Logistics)
System Design and Management
Technology and Policy Program
Technology, Management, and Policy
Academic excellence is demonstrated by university grades, as calibrated by the Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) that establish a rough comparison between schools. The grades are examined in detail, giving preference to recent performance and subjects relevant to Technology and Policy.
For North American candidates, a minimum average of B plus is expected. This threshold may be different for other countries where the grading system is harder. For example, a B minus or C plus level from the major French Grandes Ecoles appears comparable. The faculty evaluates the record subjectively, recognizing the diversity of grading practices and personal experience.
Strong candidates for the program typically score in the top 10 percent of all three GRE areas (verbal, quantitative, and analytic writing).