text:
What to say to admissions committee to mitigate impact of missing recommendation letters?
I have just finished applying to 8 graduate programs this Fall, all of which had deadlines on Dec. 15th (today is Dec. 23rd). It has been pretty smooth except for one thing I'm concerned about.
I asked three people to write letters of recommendation (LoRs) for me. One of them submitted all letters on time; one completed the set a day late because an email from one of the universities went to spam; the third letter writer, however, has yet to submit the full set letters.
At the start of November, I asked this professor whether they'd be willing to write a positive LoR for me - they said yes. They mentioned they'd require 2 weeks to do so - a comfortable time-frame for me since the deadline was 6 weeks away.
The deadline passed and I sent them a follow-up email mentioning that no letters had been submitted. They responded by mentioning that they'd been very busy and now require an additional 3 weeks. So, they initially mentioned that they require 2 weeks, I gave them 6 and now they required 9. I'm already thinking something has changed and this is their coded way of saying they don't want to write the letter anymore.
Nonetheless, the day after that reminder (Dec. 17th), they surprisingly submitted letters for 6/8 of the programs. I assumed that that they were now working on the final 2; nowadays, some Ph.D. programs require referees to complete questionnaires, create accounts, etc. before uploading the letter. So perhaps these minor tasks were introducing delays. And so rather than send more inbox noise their way, I let them work on the final 2.
Six days have now passed and the remaining letters are yet to be submitted. I've sent the professor an email reminder, only to receive an automated reply mentioning that they're away until the new year.
Now, first, perhaps the professor thinks they've submitted all the required letters, but they didn't even send me an email to verify whether this is indeed the case. Second, they only tell me that they require an additional 3 weeks once the deadline has passed.
Q1: Is this sort of poor communication common in academia? And if so, why?
Strangely enough, this professor of mine initially seemed very keen on supporting my application. I was one of the top 5 students in this professor's class (of 30+ students) and they were my primary master's thesis advisor. On mentioning that I was applying to Ph.D. programs, they even encouraged me to consider their research group.
But now they just disappear for the holidays leaving me in the wind? Knowing full well how critical LoRs are to successful applications? I mean, it's almost Kafkaesque.
I doubt I'll be able to find a back-up writer that could write a strong and detailed letter on such short notice - especially at this time of year when everyone is on holiday.
Q2: In your experience as members of admissions committees, what should I say to Admissions to help mitigate this situation?

Practices and policies differ, but you probably don't need to say anything. If everything in front of them predicts your success then a missing letter is unlikely to harm you. Especially if they already know who should be providing them. It might be different if your application is otherwise weak.

@Karl I'm not sure how common it is among applicants to ask for multiple letters. This was my first time applying for a Ph.D. and I didn't think getting LoRs submitted on time was such a huge risk - especially given the 6-week notice period and the fact that a reasonable letter may be <600 words. Nonetheless, this experience has taught me otherwise.

"I'm already thinking something has changed and this is their coded way of saying they don't want to write the letter anymore." Compared to any other possible explanation, this one is very unlikely. Most likely explanations: (a) busy, (b) disorganized. Or if you want, (c) inconsiderate.
Yes, poor communication is not uncommon in academia. Are you sure that reading other people's speculation about why this is the case is what you actually want to achieve with this question?


text:
Is it worth doing a second master's to get better letters of recommendation?
A few years ago, I graduated with both a master's and bachelor's degree from a globally ranked top-10 university. My overall classification was an average upper-second class (UK) - which is around a 3.4-3.5 GPA for the US-based. For context, an upper-second lies in the range of 60-69 whereas a lower-second lies in the range 50-59.
I applied broadly to PhD programs a few years ago but was rejected by all. My master's thesis advisor and postdoc that I worked with both agreed to write me letters of recommendation but perhaps they were not strong enough - hence, my rejection.
I have spent the past few years as a software engineer in industry detached from academic research, yet after much reflection, I am sure that I would prefer a career of research over my existing trajectory as an SWE.
Despite this, I do not have the "raw material" to put together a competitive PhD application (as outlined by the evidence above), and so am wondering how to get into a good PhD program.
I am considering doing a second master's thesis with the aim of doing more research with new professors, and then using that as a springboard into a PhD program. The aim is to get better recommendations, a better SoP, and maybe a publication. Is this a sensible idea? Will it ultimately make little difference to admissions committees? Or is there a better way to strengthen my application?

In the US, if you have a degree, universities will generally not admit you for a similar degree, under the reasoning that it is a waste of resources (as most universities charge students in tuition less than it costs to educate them, with the difference made up in government funding or endowment funds).  Are things generally different in the UK?

By SWE, do you mean Software Engineer?

Yes, software engineer

I think that you are approaching this exactly right. Most rejected applicants seem to be asking "how can I get over my low credentials without doing any work?", as if there was some secret button one could press and make past mistakes go away. You are recognizing where you did wrong during your masters, and have a plan to do better next time. You seem to be correctly guessing that you didn't get great letters, and that's OK, as not every student can be above average (actually, about half are below average, ha ha). But since you will be correcting the issues, you will probably get better letters next time.
Graduate school admissions are not a test of your worth as a person nor an evaluation of the totality of your life's choices. It's just an attempt from the admissions committee (or department, or PI) to answer the simple question: is this student, as they stand now, ready to produce some research? If the answer is yes, you get admitted.
So yes, as long as you do things differently this time, doing another Master's will increase your chances of admission.
Remember that you don't have to be admitted by all the programs you apply to, but only one.

... I am considering doing a second master's thesis with the aim of doing more research ...
The aim is to get better recommendations, a better SoP, and maybe a publication.
Is this a sensible idea?
Will it ultimately make little difference to admissions committees?

I understand you're speaking in the UK context. In that regard, your action plan (of a second MSc) based on your aim should take you closer to your desired outcome.
In that regard, I'll recommend you give MRes and MPil a shot. If you manage to get into them, you might transition better into PhD.
All the best.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Likelihood of being admitted to a top 10 CS PhD program?
== Deleted ==
Deleted because this question is closed and not relevant to the community-at-large.

I'm currently in a Computer Science PhD program in Canada, and from my point of view you have a few misconceptions.

Getting into a top school is not necessary to be a successful researcher. Your advisor will have far greater impact on your research output than the choice of school. "Top" schools often have famous professors, who will take on many graduate students and have little time for them individually.
Your demographic does not matter, and it may in fact strengthen your application, if schools have equity programs.
If you manage to get into a grad school, your performance in undergrad isn't necessarily a good indicator of your research abilities. Memorization and exams are  big in undergrad, but hold little weight in grad school. Writing ability, communication skills, and the ability to perform self directed research are far more important.

I would find a school that has a few professors you'd be interested in working with and apply. The worst that happens is you don't get in.

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


text:
What are the Pros and Cons of working before doing a PhD (in Machine Learning)?
In terms of success as a PhD-level researcher either in academia or industry, what are the pros and cons of doing a PhD after 2 years or more in industry following undergrad.

A potential major benefit is that you can learn and grow a lot as an engineer while you're working, and thus be more prepared to get a lot out of your PhD.

I worked in industry for 3.5 years before starting my PhD. I believe I've been more successful because of this experience. However, there are advantages and disadvantages.
Pros:

You will be more mature and have a better idea of what you want in life (which may not include a PhD).
Better understanding of the needs of industry which can influence your research choices
Connections and business soft skills (being able to sell your research effectively is very important for example)
Often a better work ethic (ie. used to working regular hours, etc)

Cons:

It can be difficult to go back to being a student after making a real salary
Rusty study/exam writing skills
You will be older than your colleagues
If your goal is to remain in academia you may end up getting on the tenure track later with potential consequences for stability, starting a family, etc.
If your goal is to return to industry, the 5+ years of work experience you will miss out on is often worth more financially/promotion wise than a PhD (but this can be field dependent)
You will need to maintain connections with suitable academic references. As time goes forward they may not remember you very well. Strong references are important for getting accepted to top schools.

Many of these things will depend on what you do while in industry and what you want to get out of doing a PhD.
My biggest piece of advice for time spent in industry: take care of the people part - make connections, work on networking, learn to be effective in meetings, learn to sell ideas/products, how to deliver for clients. Watch and learn from senior people (directors, CEOs, etc). These things will help you be successful in academia and business. Don't just sit at a desk coding.

I think that you might be observing selection bias.
The likelihood of someone being a highly successful academic correlates with them liking to do research in that field. This means that there’s a good number of researchers who are not going to industry because research is their passion, and you tend to do well if you have a passion for something (and possess the relevant skill set).
Industry can be really tempting, so once people (talented as they may be) go there they often stay; thus, even if you have the potential to become an outstanding researcher it’s unlikely that you’ll be working at a job that fosters it. Most industry jobs do not reward you for pursuing research; even those who do tend to focus on stuff that’s relevant to the company (or keep results proprietary) which somewhat limits your capacity for a free and outstanding research career.
On a somewhat unrelated note, many researchers in ML/AI are actively (and aggressively) wooed by industry. In some cases academic institutions are unable to compete with the benefits afforded by industry, resulting in outstanding researchers leaving academia for industry.
Two years of relevant experience can be very beneficial. It gives you an eye for what problems are ‘real’, and what models are likelier to be adopted. If it’s only two years (rather than, say, 15) it will be a minor issue in terms of adapting to an academic environment again, though your salary will drop obviously... One of the key difficulties I’ve observed with students who had gone to industry is a certain aversion to theoretical research (which is avoidable if you want to focus on empirical work), and disappointment in the lack of immediate rewards (while you do get stuck while coding at times, it’s less common for you to realize that 3-6 months of work were a complete dead end). If you’re ok with these issues I think you’ll be fine!


text:
Is it standard for US-based universities to consider the ethnicity of an applicant during PhD admissions?
I am considering applying to CS PhD programs at some of the top research universities in the United States.
While I cannot speak for other fields, I know that in my field (artificial intelligence), there has been a major push to increase the diversity of practitioners in the field. Here are a few articles about this diversity initiative:

Article about lack of diversity in the field of AI:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610192/were-in-a-diversity-crisis-black-in-ais-founder-on-whats-poisoning-the-algorithms-in-our
Tweet thread by CS admissions chair at Cornell discussing diversity initiatives: https://twitter.com/davidbindel/status/992165303747461122?lang=en
Tweet thread by PhD candidate at University of Toronto (a top school in AI) clarifying the importance of diversity in the field: https://twitter.com/leeclemnet/status/1040030107887435776

There are many other initiatives such as conferences at NeurIPS (typically regarded as one of the top 3 conferences in AI) that has workshops exclusively for members of underrepresented groups. I'm not sure what exactly the workshops entail, but here are the links to the relevant organizations: Black in AI, Women in Machine Learning, LatinX in AI.
The impression I get is that a lot of the talk around diversity tends to revolve around some key physical identifiers such as ethnicity and sex/gender; although perhaps I have not looked broadly enough at the full scope of diversity initiatives in the field and there may be initiatives that revolve around things like socioeconomic background, geographic background and national origin.
I can understand that when individuals of a particular ethnicity (such as African-Americans) and individuals of particular sex (such as women) are particularly underrepresented in the higher echelons of the field, people begin asking questions as to why that is; since, after all, ethnicity and sex should not be predictors of success in the field yet they clearly are.
Question
I'm a student studying at a university that is ranked in the top-10 globally on both the Times Higher Education and QS rankings, and am planning on submitting some PhD (CS) applications to some of the top unis in the US in the upcoming fall. Given the preoccupation with diversity by practitioners in my field (in both industry and academia), I'd like to know to what extent my ethnicity will factor into the admissions decisions of committees in the US.

So is the question "are you concerned you will be the token gesture" or "will you be treated unfairly ie provided with less during the programme" ?

I suggested to remove the "thanks", since questions should just be asked without polite words. (I guess to keep the site about questions, not about people.)

@UnchartedWaters - this is precisely the problem (i.e., one major problem) with "affirmative action" as it is practiced in the US: it marks all persons who meet one of the affirmative categories as a recipient of the "action" regardless of that person's own wishes about the matter. (And seeking "diversity" is just the more modern terminology for "affirmative action" and applied to more selected groups of people.  One might even think the name change happened in order to cloak the stigma associated with "affirmative action".)

It's important to note that a lot of action around these sort of things have to do with explicitly countering biases, rather than admitting Black people for the sake of admitting Black people. Research has shown that people with less typically Anglo names are passed over sooner in hiring, and that men and women students often underestimate their women colleagues. Part of the goal is that women and minorities get the fair evaluation they deserve, rather than being admitted to fulfill quotas.

At least on the undergrad level, part of the idea is that ethnicity is closely tied to opportunity in the US, and that excelling for someone whose ancestors weren't allowed in universities, were beaten for speaking their native language, or banned from owning homes, might look different than excelling for someone whose ancestors have been wealthy and educated for generations. This is harder to evaluate, of course but just a little background on some thoughts in the US, since you're from overseas.

@davidbak your last sentence describes the problem with euphemisms, which leads to the Euphemism Treadmill: Term[n] is considered bad, so Term[n+1] is coined to replace it and remove the negative connotations.  But soon enough, people realize it means the same thing, so Term[n+1] is considered bad, and Term[n+2] coined to replace it... Lather, rinse, repeat.  Each cycle takes less time, because people have become trained to recognize what's going on.  Example:  "crippled" => "handicapped" => "disabled" => "differently-abled".

Assuming that you aren't a permanent resident or citizen of the US, you'll be listed in statistical reports as a "non-resident alien", regardless of how you self-identify your race/ethnicity.

Does the application actually ask for your (self-identified) ethnicity, or just nationality, or just a binary whether you're US-resident or not? Your question is speculating about what you might be asked about; as such it's not objective. Each university can set its own criteria for admissions; are you applying to public, private, or both? You could list some specific univs. if you like, would make this more objective.

So, everyone on this thread seems to think that if there is bias in the admissions process, it would be in favor of diversity hiring. I'm going to go out on a limb to say that subconscious bias against women and URRM applicants is more common, and only partially mitigated by efforts to diversify.

@davidbak "And seeking "diversity" is just the more modern terminology for "affirmative action" and applied to more selected groups of people." I disagree; I think at least at the undergrad level, one can seek greater class diversity (along various axes such as geographic background, career aspirations, extracurricular interests, etc) without resorting to affirmative action. The problem I think is that sometimes, such subjective evaluations of candidates heavily outweigh more objective criteria such as GPA and test scores, and as such, could lead to a very unfair/biased admissions process.

@davidbak And to continue, when undergrad admissions officers talk about diversity, I think their motivation is to create a more diverse class of students so that students are exposed to people from different backgrounds - the idea then is that students, upon graduation, will be better equipped to interact with individuals from a broad (i.e. diverse) range of backgrounds: Africans, Asians, Europeans, people from low-income/high-income families, etc. The argument then is that a diverse (in terms of background) student body enriches the university experience for all students as it equips them...

...with the skills necessary to understand and interact successfully with people from a broad range of backgrounds. Of course you could argue that undergrad admissions should not depend on the uniqueness of background of an applicant, since to a large extent, children do not choose which country they were born in, whether they grow up rich/poor, etc. Nonetheless, I think reducing the entire debate of diversity to being a euphemism for "affirmative action" is misguided.

Given the argument above, I think there is a case to be made for considering diversity of background for undergrad admissions and JD/MS/MBA degrees, but perhaps not for PhD degrees where class interactions are much less frequent.

@UnchartedWaters - That's certainly what they claim about their quest for "diversity".

If there is one thing that academia is particularly bad at, it is transparency in decision making. Why do some people get admitted and not others? Why are some people hired and not others? Why are some people promoted and not others? From the bottom to the top of academic hierarchy, you'll be hard-pressed to ever get a straight answer, and answers you do get are always suspect because the nature of human decision-making is itself complex and opaque. There are plenty of reasons for this, from self-protection from criticism and gaming of the system, to rapidly changing criteria based on past experience and argument, to the fact that so much of the decision making is based on subjective ratings provided by individuals (often down to individual faculty members deciding if they want to work with a student).
To cut to the heart of your question, while it is not any sort of prescribed standard at the graduate level, you can safely assume race, ethnicity, national origin, and gender will be in some way be "taken into account" by some committees and individual professors. In many states this is actually illegal, explicitly forbidden by law - you can still assume it will sometimes happen anyway. On the other hand, some people will simply ignore demographic factors to the extent they are physically able, regardless of what they are told to do. As Universities have a history of avoiding transparency in admissions, you are extremely unlikely to ever know when it was considered, how much effect it had, whether it was positive or negative, and whether it ended up materially effecting the decision to admit you or not. You cannot know, they will basically never tell you, they will tend to go out of their way to avoid writing it down, and it is common for many people in the process to not even know with any certainty what factors ultimately "mattered".
However, from what I've seen on the inside and the outside of academia and from talking to fellow academics, you can safely assume at the graduate level that other factors matter way, way more. It is simply too high-stakes a decision for most schools to be altruistic, and they tend to steadfastly refuse to intentionally admit people who are utterly unqualified simply because of some demographic fact about them. The vast majority of Universities will only admit you if they think you will do well there, because having a bunch of under-performing students who are radically unqualified to pursue research and teaching is an albatross around the neck that few graduate schools will willingly tolerate. This is even more true at the PhD level, because they aren't cashing in on tuition (which is heavily marked up for international students, because money), so performance is king.
From talking to people working on diversity initiatives, I'll also give you another important insight: the diversity initiatives you hear about are not actually a preoccupation of the majority of faculty and staff, for good or ill. According to people working on actually making these initiatives successful, they report that the vast majority of people mostly want to ignore the issue and focus on other things, and so they work so very hard to make the initiatives public and heavily seen because otherwise they feel they will be unable to make any changes and they will be crushed by the majority weight of indifference mixed in with a heavy dose of active hostility to their efforts. Higher ed can look monolithic from the outside - but on the inside it is highly factious, and what appears as consensus is often a thin facade.
Because of all the above, the only advice I think makes any sense is treat the process as any other student should: apply broadly, see what offers you get, and talk with prospective advisors about what they are interested in. You are welcome to ask them if they were involved in your admission decision and then ask them why they wanted to admit you; I did that, and while it can feel a little awkward at first, a little bit of humor makes it easier and most professors when questioned directly, sincerely, and politely gave very direct answers. Some even said what parts of my profile they thought were a concern, and what other parts they thought would be a strength. Everyone gave wildly different answers, there was no consistency - no two people see the same person the same way.
Once you've got all your offers and finished talking with people, you can make your decision then on what seems like the best opportunity for you.

I agree with this answer, and I upvoted it, but I'd add that, although graduate programs won't admit genuinely unqualified students, there is a real question about the influence of demographic factors when the number of qualified applicants exceeds the number that can be admitted.

@AndreasBlass Certainly, and I agree - but it still seems to reduce to "as an applicant you cannot do anything about it and can't know what net effect it had". It seems to me something that is important as a decision-maker, policy-maker, researcher in the area, engaged citizen, etc; for an individual student trying to navigate our byzantine world, it seems immaterial.

+1 I think this is the right answer. I might quarrel with your assertion that academia is particularly bad at transparency. Corporate hiring may be even less so.

@EthanBolker This is true. However, corporate hiring isn't near as clique-ish as academia, and there the bottom line matters way more than the appearances. Being half-scandinavian and half-latino made my life hell when dealing with some people from "top-10" universities, to the point of having to hear from a professor that they couldn't afford time to talk to a "jaja". On the flip side, I never had similar issues on interviews. YMMV.

In addition to underrepresented racial and gender groups, some other diversity goals that many universities often care about are geographic diversity (not everyone coming from NY and CA) and admitting more first-generation college students.
I want to first echo what everyone else said, which is that schools don't admit people who they don't think will succeed, and if you're admitted they think you're a good fit.  Second, the idea that if you put race and gender considerations aside then the default would be some kind of "pure meritocracy" is a fiction.  There's a huge amount of randomness in students life experience and opportunities, in how good your letter writers are in writing letters, in who happened to be in the admissions committee that year and which letter writers they know.  Schools also might want to balance between fields, and so if AI happens to get too many applicants at some school some year it might be harder for you than for someone in a different subfield.  (And at the undergraduate level, there's a huge advantage given to legacies and athletes in obscure sports, both of which skew very rich and white.)  At the graduate level probably the biggest of all, is there's a huge advantage given at state schools to American citizens and permanent residents (whose tuition waivers are significantly cheaper for the department to pay).  If you're not a permanent resident, the disadvantage that causes is going to wildly outweigh any advantages that diversity considerations could possibly give.
Finally, I want to say that there are lots of simple practical reasons that diversity in hiring and admissions is practically important for departments.  One of the most important ways that we are evaluated by the school is in attracting and retaining majors in our degree.  On the whole, students are less likely to pick a major if they don't see any faculty or TFs with similar backgrounds to them.  The African-American faculty I know are inundated with students who want to meet with them so that they can talk to a faculty person who understands their experience.  Departments who don't have enough women faculty or don't have any African-American faculty are unable to do as good of a job of meeting the practical needs of their students.

I agree with BrianH's answer, but wanted to add one thing. Everyone else seems to be assuming that if there is any bias in the admissions process, it would be in favor of underrepresented applicants.
This is the opposite of the conventional wisdom. In fact, it's well-documented in certain settings, e.g. applying to a job in the US, that when people make decisions about who is "qualified" or not, they are likely to be biased against women and underrepresented minorities. (This bias is often shown just based on the applicant's name, or other biographic details -- not a picture.)
I don't know to what extent this subconscious bias applies to academics at top research universities, but from personal experience I am guessing it really does, for some professors. You can safely assume:

Some professors reading your application will show subconscious bias against your application based on your name, country of origin, or other demographic details (disfavoring women and URRM applicants)
Some other professors reading your application may consciously favor your application because they wish to increase diversity in the department, and admit more URRM or women applicants.
Either way, it is unlikely to be the biggest factor in the decision (see BrianH's answer).

I agree that this is an important point to make, but note the comment by the OP: "I suppose mainly the former: "will I be the token admit that is used to improve diversity statistics?"" i.e. that the OP was most concerned with token admission (which should probably have been edited into the original OP) and that's likely why the answers have an under-emphasis on biases against underrepresented applicants. Instead, they are focused on reassuring OP that they will not be admitted merely because they fill a quota.

@BryanKrause But if it's true that there is widespread implicit bias against underrepresented minorities, then the OP's worry is unfounded. Due to the bias, giving some positive weight to ethnicity is merely counteracting the implicit bias, not unfairly admitting someone who is less qualified. The other answers are misleading because they suggest that giving positive weight to ethnicity is a form of unfair assistance, rather than a counteractive measure.

"then the OP's worry is unfounded" - Not necessarily. Both could be true: you could both have bias against minorities which leads to rejection of qualified minority candidates, and have corrective measures put in place to increase diversity that actually just select random (potentially unqualified) members of that minority to fill a quota. OP said they were most concerned with being admitted just to fill a quota, so that's what the other answers addressed.

@BryanKrause Good point. I should have said, "then the OP's worry may be unfounded" (it depends on if the corrective measures are just to weight race a bit, or selecting candidates at random to fill a quota). But I think implicit bias is relevant and it may change the way the OP sees the situation. This is also very standard justification for affirmative action, so I was surprised that no one pointed it out.

I'll answer as far as how I perceived this working in the PhD program I graduated from, which was not in CS/AI.
A) No one was admitted who was unlikely to succeed in the program. No one was admitted who didn't belong here on merit in order to fill some sort of quota. No token admissions.
B) In every applying class, there were more applicants that the program wanted to admit than the program had funding to accommodate. Some of those students could be supported directly by a lab and join even if the program was out of money, but they would not have a year to rotate and test out different labs for a good fit.
C) Some additional funding was available to students from under-represented groups, however, only available to US citizens/permanent residents. Funding sources for international students were more limited, and they typically came either with funding from their home country or joined a lab directly that funded them.

In summary, the main way that ethnicity could matter was by funding for a student to join the program as a fellow/trainee rather than directly funded by a lab, which would give an opportunity to rotate in labs for a year that they might not have had otherwise. This was only even relevant for students who were already desired by the program on merit. As an international student this wouldn't have applied to you. Other programs may have different approaches that apply to international as well as domestic students.

"No one was admitted who was unlikely to succeed in the program." - this alone doesn't mean no discrimination. All who are admitted are qualified, but in a hypothetical case where there are 10 places, with 8 blacks and 100 whites qualifying, and 8 blacks and 2 whites were taken in, you would fulfill the "no unqualified for the sake of a quota" requirement, but would still be unfair (unless all 8 blacks were more qualified than all the others) and would potentially reject some candidates who would otherwise be even more qualified.

@vsz See 6005's answer; your scenario is quite unlikely (simply, it does not happen). But frankly at that point, for PhD admissions, there is no such thing as more or less qualified except some particularly exceptional cases.

I wasn't talking about how likely it is to happen, that's why I exaggerated the numbers in the example a bit. My point was that
"No one was admitted who was unlikely to succeed in the program." does not, by itself, guaranty any fairness.

@vsz But it does account for OPs concern about being a token admission. That does not happen.

It does happen, there are clearly documented cases, and there are successful lawsuits which prove it. Maybe not at your department in your institution. (Please note that I'm in no way inferring that it was the case in the OP's situation, I was only countering the answer's argument of such things never ever happening)

@vsz If you could point me to a documented lawsuit where this happened in PhD admissions I'd be interested in reading about it.

Most (not all) US universities are in favor of diversity in the student body. However, this view is highly controversial in some circles and is actively attacked in the courts.
However, the purpose of the US notion of Affirmative Action was to try to ameliorate the effects of poor schools provided to minority and poor students along with active discrimination faced by such students as well as that faced by women in many fields. As such the rules are intended to benefit those who have grown up in the US but have been disadvantaged in many ways along their path to higher education.
The dilemma is that we have a belief in this country that everyone should be treated equally and haven't really found universally accepted ways to account for the fact that it isn't a reality.
But if you are a citizen of an African country rather than an American of (partial) African descent, then the rules, such as they still exist, won't really apply to you. The effect at the doctoral level is small in any case. The desire for a diverse student body is balanced by the desire to choose the "best" (most prepared) candidates. So, don't expect any strong bias in your favor. Hopefully you won't find any against you.
My advice is to assume that there will be no effect at all and to stress your qualification in any applications. Why can you be expected to be a success in your future studies? What is it in your knowledge and work ethic that makes you an excellent candidate? Every student needs to make that case of course. I think you are safest to assume it is the same for yourself.
I'll note that diversity of students based on their country of citizenship is also valuable to a university, as it often represents a diversity of viewpoint based on history and different educational systems. Universities do tend to value that when all else is equal (even if approximately). This can be especially valuable when questions of ethics (and similar) arise, even in a STEM field.
So, a big part of the desire for diversity in US colleges and universities is a desire for diversity of viewpoint, not just an ethnic (or gender) diversity. It might be hard to untangle the two in practice, of course.


text:
How to ask for a recommendation letter if no professor knows me in person?
I suffer from the following mental disorders, obsessive compulsive disorder, avoidant personality disorder and body dysmorphic disorder and at times I had depression and because of that I was unable to communicate and a lot of times attend the lectures so no professor knows me and they don't even answer my emails. I am very interested in having a master in mathematics and I need recommendation letters to apply, what should I do to get those?
I somehow consider it rude to ask for it, especially when the professors don't know me, but I attempted to communicate with them through emails because I had no other choise, and never got an answer. If it was up to me, I would never ask for anything, but it is necessary.

Is it true that some professors know your work even if they don't know you personally? You passed their courses, I assume. Probably did well in some of them.

Yes, actually some are aware of my work but they won't answer me anyway.

Asking for a recommendation letter from a person who does not know you makes sense neither for you nor for a potential referee. The purpose of a reference letter is to let others know about your work habits, your motivation, your skills etc. A person who does not know you can not judge any of these things, thus even if you can convince a professor to write a letter about you it might not necessarily have a benefit for an application when it simply states that you have attended some courses.
You could try to contact a professor in a field you feel motivation for and whose work you are interested in and ask about potential student projects, irrespective of courses or credits. This can:

Help get to know a professor personally
Help you figure out if you enjoy working in an academic environment
Get you a personal recommendation letter


text:
Is it suspicious for a conference abstract submission to be subordinated to registration?
My PhD advisor and I wish to participate to a specific international conference in our field.
The program seems legitimate and part of the scientific committee are respected researchers of my field, with whom we have already worked in the past. Therefore I am not questioning the academic relevancy of the conference.
On the other hand, the organization is operated by a company, and I am not at ease with their methods. Mainly, the registration fee (500€) must be paid before submitting any abstract and it is not possible to know whether the abstract has been accepted before committing.
Beside the frustration (a conference is a big investment in our budget), I find this unusual, if not fishy. This is the first time my advisor is confronted with the situation, and they are conflicted about this too.
As a side point, their privacy policy includes an agreement to transmit my academic information to "marketing partners", which I am not at ease either.
Should I be worried?
EDIT after investigating a bit more. The organizer is not exactly a company, but a "non-profit private organisation".
UPDATE after contacting the organizers. The website actually gives the option to pay later, as long as the registration is placed. Ultimately, the admission decision will be issued before the payment deadline, although that was not apparent unless you create an account and place the order first.

Have you asked the members of the scientific committee about the conference? Perhaps they can explain the reasoning behind the registration fee (and confirm whether or not the conference is legit).

I would be worried.

I would not call it suspicious, just different. Possibly is a hybrid between a conference and a sort of fair/exhibition in which industry is present for business and not only research? We were in one of this type and we were there for kind of "political" reasons.

@Emma good suggestion, I will ask my advisor to do that since he knows them better.

Maybe it's a predatory conference! https://www.exordo.com/blog/9-signs-this-is-a-fake-conference/

A list of questionable conferences : https://libguides.caltech.edu/c.php?g=512665&p=3503029 . Check the conference title here!

@Eilia neither the conference nor the organizer are listed there. Yet the event has taken place a number of times over the years.

Things like the IEEE and APS (American Physical Society) are also private incorporated organizations and hold completely legitimate conferences. If the conference has been ongoing for some time, and is known in the field, and attracts people you know year after year, then it is likely just fine. Why do you want to go to this conference in particular?

@JonCuster the topic and speakers are highly relevant to my research, and we are seeking to convince others to adopt a methodology I developped

OK, so do you know those speakers? Have they attended the conference in the past? If so, ask them about the conference and how it all works.

€500 is within the normal range for an international conference, but the mandatory subscription before getting the notification of acceptance is indeed a bit suspicious.
However there are some conferences which work in the following way: pretty much any abstract submitted is accepted (except if out of scope, I guess) and is supposed to be presented at the conference. The selection process happens when a subset of the abstracts are accepted for publication as a full paper in a journal issue. I'm not very familiar with this setting myself, but I assume that it might make sense for such a conference to make sure that the authors attend and present their work even if it's not selected for the journal issue.

Interesting. I should say at this point that the conference's website does not mention any such selection process.

@Alexis I'd say it's worth sending an email to the organizers about this peculiar setting, simply asking them the reason why registration is mandatory this early in the process and whether they would reimburse the fee in case your abstract is rejected.


text:
How (il)legal and common is it for a university to make one work BEFORE signing a contract?
Many years ago (when I was young and naive), I accepted a job offer (rejecting two other offers, with some acrimony from one of them) and moved to a new country (Chile) in order to take the job, only to realize after arriving there that I did not have a work contract, just an invitation, and that I needed to enter a 4-6 month process in order to (pay to) validate my  PhD diploma with a local university and get official ID papers in the new country, before the administration of the university would even consider hiring me. I was paid in the meantime (albeit the administration explained to me that my salary would be decided retroactively after being hired, and that the remaining money would be considered an advance on my research expenses, something which was quite uncomfortable to me) and eventually got hired, but the surprise and the whole process was quite uncomfortable. I did not inquire about the legality of the process at the time, assuming that since this is a state university, it had to be an example of probity and follow the law to the letter.
This was not the first time that I had found myself in such a situation. Before this job, I had received (and refused) an offer in another country (France). After announcing to me in July that I had been selected for the job, the chair of the department explained to me that I was expected to move in in August (resigning from my current position with very little anticipation, breaking up my teaching engagements for September), in order to teach in September, even though the contract was only starting in October ("for administrative reasons"). As this was a permanent position, I did not immediately refuse the offer, but asked for the contract, to which I was answered that I would normally get it after I had moved there and started to work. I did not take the job.
I now applied for another position, in another university (still Chile), and was selected. When I asked for the contract (in particular before buying a house close to the new university and moving in), I was answered that the administration was trying to make things go faster for me, but that they usually were writing and signing the contract within the three first months of employment, i.e. after I arrived and started to work (but assuring me that I would get paid for my work anyway). When I signaled that I was uncomfortable with such timing (the administration of my current university wished me to resign without delay so that they can hire someone to replace me, which I was reluctant to do without a new contract), I was asked to "trust" the university, that in their whole history they had never failed to contract someone after selecting them for a job. I was given a letter promising that I would be hired on a given date, but mentioning neither the salary nor the rank that I was offered informally by email. Two months before my starting date, I still have nothing more than an email, this letter, and some whatsapp messages to confirm that I was selected for the job. We are setting up a "vacation without salary" with my current university to allow me to start the new job while keeping the possibility to go back if anything goes wrong with the hiring process.
I trust that I will be hired and I have no reason to suspect any "evil" intentions of any person involved in such interactions. But it seems to me that such "arrangements" are in total contradiction with the very spirit and motivation behind the writing and signing of a formal contract, which would be to forfeit the need of any "trust" between two parties. Instead, I feel that those institutions view the contracts as a mere senseless administrative formality imposed on them "from above" which they have to "go around" in order to "get things done". I am (only) half thinking about telling the new university that I will NOT move to the new place until I have a contract (and teach remotely if needed while waiting for the contract). [For practical reasons, I can't rent a place and buy later.]
Hence my question (sorry for the long description of the background): How (il)legal and common is it for a university to make one move in and work BEFORE signing a contract?

Did you have work visa (permit) before you started to work? You were a foreigner there, right?

@NobodyYes, the letter of invitation was the prerequisite to obtain a work visa to Chile. For the offer in France, I did not need one because I have the French nationality.

You have some leverage on your side: without a working contract, you cannot apply for a visa. Keep on pestering the administration with a request of a formal letter confirming you will be hired and in which role.
Sure, the university can assure you they never failed somebody: tell them there is always a first time.

@EarlGrey I have now permanent residentship in Chile and do not need a visa. Plus, it seems that an "invitation letter" (which does not mention nor the salary nor the rank, as the one I received) is enough to apply for such a visa. I am wondering how common such practice is (e.g. in Western countries) and if my understanding that this is a mockery of the very concept of a contract is on the point or a misunderstanding on my behalf of what a contract is supposed to be.

Unless you had a work visa stamped on your passport, I don't think invitation letter is good enough to work legally. I think this is true in most places. But, I am not a lawyer, I don't know. And the law varies.

I think you should consider that in Chilean labor law, even a verbal contract is binding, so having a letter with some basic information might be legally considered a contract already. It is not nice, but its perfectly legal in Chile.

I can't speak for Chili, but over here the fact that you got paid would be pretty much instant proof of a labor agreement, even if nothing else exists. It would still be rare and frowned upon, but the employer would bear the consequences, not the employee. For details about the law in Chili it might be better to ask this on https://law.stackexchange.com

In the jurisdictions I know, there is no requirement for an employment contract to have any specific form. All that is needed is two matching declarations of intent, none of which have to be in written form, or even involve words at all. I can enter into a purchase contract at a deli merely by pointing and swiping my credit card without ever saying a word, let alone signing a written contract. The same goes for employment contracts. As long as you and your employer agree that you work there, you have an employment contract.

There is no general rule and the answer depends on the country.
I worked in 3 different countries which are not my home country and in 2 of them I received the actual work contract after I started working there.
But in both cases they gave me a 1-page pre-contract that stated the important parts of the contract (position, salary, ...). Often they cannot give you the real work contract (even if they really want to) because country specific laws require for example to have your country specific national identification number (or health insurance number or similar ...) on the contract which applicants from other countries simply do not have before they have physically moved to the country.

Which countries or at least continent?

European countries (also non EU)

Definitely the case in Sweden. That said, you are not really supposed to start working before you have your contract, and it most definitely shouldn't be a matter of months before you receive your contract (rather days, or day singular).

For Germany, this seems very uncommon! It is not permitted to use department-specific software / engage in research activities here in Germany without a signed contract. In rare cases, one has to sign the contract on the very first workday. Nothing is possible before this has not been done.

If we ignore that this happens at a university: The normal case is obviously that you have a contract with a salary, you work the agreed hours, and you get paid the agreed salary. But working without a signed contract will in many countries create an implicit contract: If you arrive ready to work, they allow you or even ask you to work and then you work, then an implicit contract is created due to these facts, and you are employed and need to get paid. It’s legal for you as far as working etc. is concerned.

In the UK the law says that if you work for an employer, then you have an implicit, implied contract with them, whether you have signed a piece of paper or not. At any point an employee has the legal right to demand a written statement of the conditions of employment, as the employer understands them.
It's in everyone's interest that a written contract or document of terms is provided in appointment of an employee, as it saves lots of legal headaches down the line of the employer and employee have different understandings of the terms and a judge has to be brought in to decide who is right.


text:
how is statement of pupose structured?
How is my statement of purpose?
Please take a look and give me your feedback, Please help me:
I'm applying at Concordia University in Actuarial Science program. There are two important reasons for that.
The first reason is that without seeing what liabilities may lay ahead, it is difficult to propose a plan of action that is safe and optimal. I love the fact that mathematics is not just a mere subject but can accurately describe physical phenomena in the universe to let us invent such thing as electronic devices.  I'm very interested in using a mathematical model such as multivariate statistical analysis to recognize and control risks. I have been studying topics in mathematical modelling since a project where I used a neural network and became fascinated by the principle behind it.  I learn SAS on my own in my free time and participate in hackathons on the topics of learning and classifying. I believe my undergraduate knowledge is best used to lean or to make a breakthrough in the field.
The second reason that I choose this program is for the top-ranked jobs with a high salary that I can choose from after graduation. I understand that this is a challenging program and studying this will set me on a journey to develop and polish my creative and critical thinking. Therefore, it is a fulfilling activity as I will be delighted with myself when I complete a task or assignment! After my degree, I will try to get a job in the variety of job opportunities that I can choose from such as financial analyst, business analyst or risk analyst and many more not directly related but required the skills of an actuary.
Given that I have a broad knowledge of mathematics, my choice is not limited to only the actuarial science program. I could try other fields in mathematics such as combinatorics or group theory. I wrote these two fields because  I'm interested in them or I have done readings or participated in research in the post-undergraduate curriculum in those fields.
Indeed, In term of research experience, in Summer 2018, I was extremely fortunate to be guided by, professor Dani Wise, in writing a program, with a team of 4, in python to model CW-complexes given their group presentation. Our team would go on and compute properties of the fundamental groups and the features of the complexes,  such as Nielsen reducibility, trivial-second homology no positive sectional curvature(Although not finish implemented)  and many potentially helpful properties. We then made a database of those examples using SQLite.  We were studying a property called no positive immersion, and we wanted to see which set of features of the fundamental group of those complexes best characterize no positive immersion. I lack foundations for proving theorems or to come up with ideas, but I still got many opportunities to participate and asked questions about the subject. I got to see how my teammates reason about the possible relations between the properties of mathematical objects. Also, how they try to develop tools to prove their conjectures including given definitions to characterize new concepts.  Although the program that I'm applying to is a course based program and I don't have to be involved with professional research because of this.  I'm still much more prepared now than before to do better research.
I was again very fortunate to take a guided independent study course on orderable groups with professor Mikael Pichot as a follow-up from the research experience that I had during the summer, to learn more about groups. Here, my primary reference is the Book entitled "Ordered group and Topology" by Adam Clay and Dale Rolfsen. I also looked at several papers about orderable groups, one of which I'm still trying to understand: "On the dynamics of the orderable group, by Andres Navas." There, he talks about techniques to prove the space of orderings of a free group is a Cantor set, and that the space of ordering of a left orderable group is either finite or uncountable. Moreover, applying those techniques to study braid groups.  I learned about various tools that were developed by mathematicians to study orderable groups like the Conradian ordering, Archimedean ordering, convex subgroups, Holder 's theorem, the structure and properties of the space of ordering of orderable groups as topology and many more intriguing relations between groups and topology. I also learned about some unsolved problems in the topic like the zero divisor conjecture. I saw some specific examples of orderable groups such as the knot groups. It'd be good to have a deep understanding of those topics and applied those concepts to a particular class of groups to find new results. Indeed, if I would end up in the Group theory branch instead,  this could also be an outcome of completing my master degree
I hope, with the graduate program that I choose, that I will become first, an even more mature mathematician and be able to apply and relate concepts in different fields to effectively analyze and solve a real-life problem and second, a person of solid judgement and organizational skills.   Concordia University has a popular actuarial program in Quebec and possibly worldwide. It is well known for its co-op programs that help student better transition to work. It has a lot of academic/business connections worldwide, and by joining it, I will be able to enlarge my job opportunities to an international scope.
I can see that it took me a while to finish my undergraduate and you'd be curious to know why? Part of the reason for that is because I was working 7-8 hours per day for a couple of years as a cashier while I was studying in the early stage of a college/undergraduate student. Moreover, as the first stage of life of a university student in pure science is the period where many times should be devoted to building a solid foundation to transition into mathematical and computer science maturity properly. For this reason, I could say I matured slower than the other. My grades were not good, but they are not bad overall. My extracurricular works should be taking just as crucial as my grades as I gained tremendous study experience and team working experience because of them.   For examples, my tutoring experiences gave me the opportunity to see how people relate and solve a problem using different techniques. I learned from them many tricks that I would never be able to come up by myself, and they helped me to recognize patterns and similarities between fields that I never knew even when I use them. Indeed, I have become more mature mathematically and as a student from those experiences.
Finally, Having been an accomplished martial artist for years, the reward for dedication is not a mystery to me. Even though Maths can be incredibly frustrating and at times  impossible, I wish to give it my utmost commitment; it is an ever-expanding subject in which my enjoyment will never cease to diminish

We don't really do writing help, but from a brief glance: CONCISION! Fewer words, more facts! (meaning density, not necessarily length) Good luck.

Be much more concise.
Put the "so what" at the very front.  A mini-outline of the paras to follow.  So we can scan/skim and know where we are going versus reading a narrative.
Several of your paragraphs are too long and should be cut into 2-3 paras.

[This is basic writing advice for any memorandum, in any context.  Not just academic statements of purpose.]


text:
Grade conversion for PhD application: Masters in France -> Phd in the US (Math)
I am Masters student in France and I am considering pursuing PhD in the US.
 Grading in France seems to be less uniform then in other countries, which results (from my experience) in that getting 90% of max grade is hard. US universities have GPA requirements, some pretty harsh such as 3.5/4.0 GPA.
A broad question is: what should I do, except from trying to get as high grades as possible,  to be admitted to a high rank institution in the US despite being on the verge of a GPA cut-off? A more specific one is: how are GPAs handled when the direct conversion of grades is difficult.
I am looking for answers from people who have first-hand experience. There are a lot of answers in the internet, related to grade conversion for undergraduate school applications (that is, about conversion of high school grades), and there are conversion tables posted by some US universities. However, these answers does not answer my question well: I am interested in how thing are done in math/cs departments on the graduate level.

I’m not sure you can do anything beyond doing as well as you can, applying with the record you have, and trusting that your target departments know how to interpret French grades.

Is it worse writing a separate letter explaining the grading system? Can class ranking help?

Not sure what is the general practice but some universities ask for the average GPA for the courses you are following in addition to your GPA.

I do not tick any of the boxes in your requirements, but as no one seems to, I will try and help. I am a graduate student in the US in a different field than yours, but have had a similar question regarding conversion.
Admission committees acknowledge that different countries have different grading schemes, some schools are stringent and some have grade inflation. First of all, do not try to 'game' your GPA to reflect what you think would be the comparison. That would come back and bite you in the... back. Often the schools will ask for the original grades in your native scheme, and sometimes to translate it to a GPA using their own calculator - which you should use. I wouldn't write an explanation about it for two main reasons - (a) it doesn't look good, and mainly (b) you are not a source of authority and they have no reason to trust you on this. Even if they did it does not mean that you can give a proper conversion.
OK. What should you do? The best possible thing will be to get your class rank from your department and mention that in your CV/Resume. Unless your grades are abnormally low, it is my understanding that the CV will be looked at - especially if you have a decent GRE, recommenders that are semi-known, or decent experience. Rank beats GPA.
If that is not available, just assume that foreign students are given somewhat more leeway in the GPA department and your profile will gain a fleeting look if it is not all borderline.
Good luck!


text:
International Collaborative Research - How to coordinate grants and principal investigators?
I am coordinating a cross country, cross-university research project on social mobile learning. The research touches on a new learning style that early adopters are trying out. I am the tech partner and support these early adopters (users / lecturers / profs) are sitting all over Asia. To document the 'journey', we are putting the output into academic journals.
A bit more of details:

To maximize the amount of grant support, it makes sense to apply to both region level (for me its Asia). As well as school level.
I have participants from different countries (eg. Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, China, Hong Kong) and different universities
In the best case scenario, in my opinion (and my original thought) - i have 1 paper that puts all together as a form of comparison and everyone are co-authors.

But then realistically, each grant requires its own requirement in its principal investigator. And not everyone in other countries may see the benefit to be a part of it.
In hindsight, and this is my current plan -

It is probably not possible to go one big bang anyway. The resulting research will be too big too early. The results will not be able to be developed well enough.
It would make sense to break things up into smaller chunks that are manageable to build up the research model, theory and experiments. Probably start with some qualitative. In these attempts, i can group lecturers on the same stage, and topic and do them together.

Please help share your experience (and or examples) if you have coordinated international research projects before especially if you only had 1 paper output (for eg to meet a scopus Q1-2 journal)

The best thing would be that of raising a regional grant for the whole consortium if there is such an opportunity. For instance, if most of the project's members are in Europe, apply to a European call. Maybe there are similar opportunities for other regions.

Yes, if you apply for multiple grants you need to tailor the applications.  Otherwise, it is unclear what sort of answer you are looking for.


text:
History behind reproducible research tools and literate programming
Reproducibility was talked about by Robert Boyle in 17th century. Literate Programming was invented in 1984 by Donald Knuth. Reproducible Research tools like R markdown were invented recently. My query is : After the invention of Literate Programming, how did the trend of making reproducible reports start? How did tools from R Markdown evolve AFTER the invention of tools like WEB and noweb.

[This answer was written for the original question, which has since been substantially edited.]
The question is backwards: if anything, it's literate programming which would have been inspired by reproducible research.
The concept of reproducibility is closely related to the criterion of falsifiability. This concept and its significance in science obviously predates literate programming (and anything related to computer science). More generally, the scientific method has been a pillar of scientific research for a long time. In particular the importance of reproducibility in research is definitely not limited to computer science.
It happens that literate programming can be useful to address the specific problems of reproducibility in modern computer science research, especially in experiments involving machine learning and massive amounts of data (related example). But as far as I know it was not designed in this specific goal, even if it shares some of the principles of the scientific method (transparency, interpretability).

Perhaps I was not clear. Reproducibility was talked about by Robert Boyle in 17th century. Literate Programming was invented in 1984 by Donald Knuth. Reproducible Research tools like R markdown were invented recently. My query is : After the invention of Literate Programming, how did the trend of making reproducible reports start. ?

You seem to think of this as a discrete process made of inventions which change the way people work, but the reality is much smoother. People were writing papers  describing reproducible research long before tools such as R markdown. It's true that these tools are useful in the perspective of reproducible experimental research, but  github or before that CSV and SVN were useful tools too. The "trend" of making reproducible reports is just the continuation of this process.

Is an R Markdown file an example of BOTH Literate Programming and Reproducible Reseach? [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literate_programming says : Similar to Jupyter Notebooks, R Notebooks are a method of literate programming that allows for direct interaction with R (support for Python, SQL, and Bash are also explicitly named) while producing a reproducible document with publication-quality output. ] I think there is a difference between LP and RR. We may have one without the other. LP = document your code beautifully for a person to read while RR = share code and data.

@user2338823 of course there is a difference between LP and RR! you insist on putting these two concepts on the same level to compare them: it's true that they overlap, but they are very different concepts in scope and in depth. Sure some R markdown documents (not all) can be considered as examples of reproducible research, but so can thousands of papers published every year as well, and not only in CS. In CS many github repositories are examples of RR as well. You are essentially comparing what is mostly a technology (R markdown or Python Jupyter) against a scientific principle (RR).

I was reading the history behind these 2 (LP and RR) recently. It's not documented as to whether R Markdown is implementing LP or RR. There are references to BOTH in R Markdown literature. It was not clear to me whether R Markdown is an implentation of LP or RR while reading the docs. Hence my query. Seems like R Markdown implements both LP and RR.

LP is a a programming paradigm, so it can be implemented (and R markdown certainly implements a good part of it, if not all). But RR is a scientific principle, so there's no such thing as "implementing" RR in general. You are using a definition of RR restricted to programming, i.e. losing 99% of what RR covers.

Now that you put it in those words, I think I understand it better. Thank you.

RR ( = Reproducible Research ) I think can be fully done by R Markdown. The Replicable Research paradigm is not implementable by R Markdown/ or any other programming language because it is not related to programming. Do I understand correctly?

Yes that's what I mean. RR is much more general than programming, it's used in any kind of experimental research, e.g. medicine.


text:
Patent Agreement in Order to Graduate
I am about to finish my masters in stats and in order to graduate I was told that I need to sign a document stating that any patents that I filed while enrolled at the university, belonged to the university. My first question is, is this normal? My second question is, I did file a patent during my enrollment, however, it was with my employer and had nothing to do with my school work, will this cause some sort of conflict of interest?
EDIT: I am in the US. Also, the patent was filed by my employer with me as the inventor.

Who told you this?

Did you personally file the patent, or did your employer file it with your name as the inventor, pay the filing fees, and pay the patent agent who helped to draft, etc? The second option would be the commonest one for a patent relating to your employer's business activities, and in that case you personally have nothing to declare.

Why didn't they ask you to sign this at the the beginning of your enrollment like every other university? This is effectively contract renegotiation.

Considering you filed a patent during your enrolment while with an employer, you should definitely consult their legal team as well. Don't sign away what isn't yours.

Yes, it is normal. Universities often require this - especially of faculty, but also, often enough of students.
You have an issue that  you can probably work out with the university. If the patent wasn't related to your work in the educational program, then the university probably has no real claim. But the lawyers for your employer and for your university should probably both be informed of the situation and have a chance to discuss it.
But given your statement that it has nothing to do with the university, I would expect you to get a waiver. Or perhaps just a modified document exempting that one project or (better) making it clearer that it only applies to patents that were, in some way, supported by the university.
But I wouldn't make assumptions and I wouldn't sign the document without advice of a lawyer.

Would you think it best to inform my employer's lawyers and let them settle it?

That's where I'd start. Point them to the office that handles IP for the university. But provide pointers in the opposite direction also.

What precisely do you consider is normal? (I think I'm claiming the opposite: https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/140212/22768)

@user2768, such requirements are common, but, yes, notice is given. However, that notice might just be the stated policies of a university that the student is "assumed" to agree to when enrolling. Faculty normally "agree" to such things, but without a formal signature of a specific document. But, your very presence is taken to imply that you agree to abide by those policies. Whether this is appropriate or not is open to debate, but it is common and therefore "normal" in that sense.

Thanks for the clarification. For patent rights, I suspect that no rights can be obtained without a formal signature of a specific document, but I'm no expert.

@BenCrowell, downvote as you please, but note that I didn't give legal advice. The advice was to seek legal advice. Odd if you disagree.

It may be normal, but it happens at enrollment, not 2 weeks from graduation. I had to sign one of these at the start of grad school. My undergrad explicitly stated they did not have this practice.

My first question is, is [being told to retrospectively assign patent rights] normal?

No: Assigning any patent rights in advance is normal, doing so retrospectively is not.

My second question is, I did file a patent during my enrollment, however, it was with my employer and had nothing to do with my school work, will this cause some sort of conflict of interest?

No: The school seemingly have no rights, presumably your employer does. Note that  retrospectively assigning rights to your school will create a problem, moreover, you could be personally liable (e.g., if you assigned rights to two parties).

Assigning rights to more than one party is quite possible in general: e.g. by non-exclusive license.

@cbeleitessupportsMonica An employer is surely unlikely to share rights in general.

I agree with you that here, probably everyone wants an exclusive license. But  non-exclusive licenses may be worth trying.

The retroactivity of the copyright assignment is really not the issue here. Every university I know of has rules and regulations that state that just by virtue of being an employee or student, the patent belongs to the university. In reality, there is no need for a paper to be signed -- the paper is the work contract. The fact that the university would like to have a signed paper just for patents is an insurance, but not a copyright assignment -- the assignment has happened long ago (implicitly).

AFAIK the answer can be different for different states (at least in a normal workplace; not sure if academia is any different) in the United States.

@BenCrowell: Yes, my mistake -- I did mean "patent assignment", not "copyright assignment". I agree that the law is complicated, but I think the answer you linked to is also not applicable because it talks about teaching materials and not inventions. That answer claims that university policies that claim ownership are simply invalid, but I wouldn't bank on this. Here is, for example, Texas A&M's policy: http://policies.tamus.edu/17-01-01.pdf Section 2.2 discusses ownership. 2.1.3 specifically excludes written works.

If OP was an employee of the university and the assignment was outstanding from the time of offer...   Such assignments are generally not retrospective and in an employment relationship one is normally asked to declare prior works and publications so they may be explicitly excluded.

If you filed a patent having nothing to do with the university, and then sign a paper saying that the university is the assignee for any patents you filed with the university during your time there, OF COURSE there is a possibility that one impacts the other.  You may be ceding exclusive ownership on behalf of your employer -- and there have been cases where such things have been upheld in court (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University_v._Roche_Molecular_Systems,_Inc.)
If it's valuable and important, you need to be careful, and being careful means hiring a lawyer.  You should certainly not sign anything that every other student has not been asked to sign.

I doubt that Stanford v. Roche is applicable here: it sounds like the OP has already assigned the patent, and so can't assign it to the university.

This very much depends on your local legislation.
As @Buffy says, in some countries this is considered normal. In other countries, it is not normal and any such agreements may even be void.
To give an example:
The latter would be the case e.g. here in Germany, IP of a non-employed student stays with the student and requiring them to sign over their rights as prerequisite for graduation would be considered duress and make the contract void (plus possibly making the professor liable to corruption charge due to abuse of power).
OTOH, it is usual here to negotiate signing over IP rights later on: once the student is finished with their graduation, they are in a position to freely negotiate e.g. patent licenses.
Last but not least, an employer (unlike a univeristy as a school) by default has certain rights (e.g. has a right to know of the invention and then possibly to decide whether they want to patent it and compensate you or whether they leave it up to you).


text:
I was caught cheating on my university GE exam
I got caught cheating on my university GE exam, and I am afraid suspension, I know I was wrong, should I just email prof to said I sorry and you can give me 0 in this exam or other advance to me that can help me avoid suspension?
Note: this is my first time, but I still afraid suspension, and my school is california state university.

Duplicate? https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/30539/i-was-caught-cheating-on-an-exam-how-can-i-minimize-the-damage

What is a GE exam?

@Buffy I’m guessing it’s an exam for a “General Education” course?

First things first, what is GE? General Education (whatever that may be)? Second, do realize that this is more than just "wrong"; it is downright unethical. Copying in the workplace can get you into serious trouble and result in possible loss of your future work experiences/reputation. Also, don't tell the professor what to do. Don't even suggest the zero, let them handle it how they will. It was your fault, now it is up to them to make the decision.
On the lesser side of things, depending on the severity of cheating, you will definitely not be suspended. You may take an instant F in the class and have to re-take, but this is all should be outlined in their syllabus.
And finally, remove both your name and school from this posting. If a future employer sees this, they will not hire you, guaranteed.

Every university has a set of rules, which defer from one to another. In Germany, where I finished my Bachelor and Master (without cheating ;)), it's the so called PO (Prüfungsordnung, in English known as exam regulations. In there you can find a clear description of the penalty that awaits you including if you have been caught multiple times, which you say you haven't been.
In the future avoid this sort of thing because it is unethical and is unfair to all your colleagues not to mention it puts you in a position where you can screw up your future.


text:
Excluded from a research project
I am a new Ph.D. student. The professor has announced a new idea for a quick paper project and invited us to discuss about it. At the end of the discussion, he asked who's interested and I asked explicitly to join the project. I found out later that the professor is meeting with some of his students (excluding me) and they have done a progress. I asked him via email if I can join future discussion and if he can share the progress with me. He did share a documentation of the progress but he's still meeting with few of his students without me. What annoys me the most is that I am the only student who worked on related topics during my master's and still doing so. Involving me would have been very beneficial in every aspect.
I can't help it but taking it personally! Is this normal in research groups? What actions should I take now?

I vote to close. This is clearly an interpersonal conflict. I can't see what we can usefully provide as an answer other than "you need to have an in-person conversation with your boss about this".

It is possible he thinks you have more important things to work on. There might be some positive reasons for his actions. It may even be that some of the other students need a boost by working on something "simple". Or, since you are new, that the others need something to fill out their CVs before graduation.
You might try asking him why he thinks this is more appropriate for others than for yourself.


text:
Do I even like doing research?
Currently, I am a part-time research assistant in the field of physics. My supervisor is brilliant and very nice. He always encourages me and says that I have done a great job so far. I don't know why I feel like I did not do a good job and I am very bad at research. I got stuck on something for almost three months with no progress at all, which made me start to dislike doing research.
I was dreaming about doing an MSc. and a Ph.D., and because of those feelings, I am having doubts if I enjoy doing research. Is it that I did not learn well how to do research, or that it is not meant for me? Is it possible to like doing it again with time? I want help in answering these questions to know if a Ph.D. is the right path for me...

3 months is nothing. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2219/how-should-i-deal-with-discouragement-as-a-graduate-student

Possible duplicate of How should I deal with discouragement as a graduate student?

Two ideas that might help.
The first is that you are new at this. Like any skill it is likely to improve with practice and time. As you progress you get insights that lead to further insights. But those insights don't come at regular intervals, can't be scheduled, and are harder for beginners. Frustration is common.
Second is that if you are really doing research then you are exploring the unknown and it is, well, unknown. Three months on a problem without success is not very long really. It is hard to predict how hard any given problem is. It might take years to crack any given nut. But it is also true that it isn't helpful to become so obsessive about a given problem that you ignore the possibility of progress on other, related, problems. That other work can lead to the insight you need on the harder problem.
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” ~~Albert Einstein

Yeah, there's some unrealistic expectations at play here :) Even as a mere software developer, I've spent years untangling particularly complex unknowns and fleshing out designs. Just because the result is simple doesn't mean it's easy to get there - really, finding a simple solution is usually the hard part.

That other work can also lead you to more significant solvable problems, be useful to publish on its own and help others better understand the domain and solve problems they're working on.

Did Einstein really say that?

@NotThatGuy, well, I didn't actually hear him say it, but it is probably accurate. It is a pretty good summary of research. It is widely attributed to him anyway. Do a search for the phrase.

You should and have to find out yourself if you want to do this lifelong. Being a researcher is very different from many other jobs:

you have to show high integrity and autonomy your whole work life, breaking your integrity (e.g. academic misconduct) can break your tenured position and the possibility to be ever hired again as researcher (see cases jan hendrik schön, marc hauser).
investigating if for example some predicted particle really exists can take your whole life time or you may just work on a small sub-problem to verify the hypothesis and will be retired/dead when there is finally outcome (this pushed me away from astrophysics)
You might have great ideas and impetus for a distinct question//problem, but your topic is simply not trendy/important enough to get much funding and can be come very repetitive to get money writing and submitting proposals on and on.
Same issue with publications, I had colleagues who had to submit articles to over 10 peer reviewed journals to get it published finally. This are extreme cases, nonetheless repetitive work is happening in academia, especially because reproduction and reproducibility of results is one of the most important corner stones of research, especially in academic and fundamental sciences.

This all can become very frustrating. There are of course also very positive things, but I will not list them as you should find them on your own to judge yourself. If you don't find or see them...don't work in academia if you don't love the job and working more than 40 hours/week

I would point out that many of the (very good) points you make apply equally well in non-academic, industry careers. They are clearly different, and yet integrity, autonomy, creativity, red tape, dealing with failure, or seeing year's worth of work burn in front of your eyes... yes, they all matter/happen outside academia!

@Bennet but sometimes on a much higher scale: patience to testify a hypothesis can take decades and your integrity/profile is public in academia in comparison to a work testimony in industry.

all true. My point is merely, if your list is a deal-breaker for working in academia, as it stands, it is also a bit of a deal-breaker for worthwhile non-academic jobs. My intention is to convey to the OP that the alternative to a challenging academic job isn't an easy, instant-gratification, short-hours, yet somehow rewarding industry job. Levels of adversity and competition vary, but pushing through a career outside of academia has all the same hallmarks. YMMV.

Is it that I did not learn...how to do research or that it is not meant for me??

No it isn't: It sounds like you're experiencing imposter syndrome,
[a] psychological pattern in which an individual doubts their accomplishments
and has a persistent internalized fear of being exposed as a "fraud",*

which needn't prevent good research.

* Source: Wikipedia.

Undertaking scholarly research almost invariably involves periods where you do a lot of work and then hit a dead end, where what you have done is not publishable.  This means that it is not uncommon to "waste" several months pursuing leads that don't pan out.  It is also common for a research assistant to struggle to make rapid progress through research tasks assigned by a much more experienced (and in your words, brilliant) researcher.  Neither of those things sounds to me like strong evidence of any defect in your capacity to develop into a capable researcher.  Moreover, the fact that your supervisor feels that you are doing a good job constitutes pretty good evidence that you are at the level where you are expected to be right now.
Since your post says you have dreamed about doing an MSc or PhD, I am assuming that you only have an undergraduate degree (or perhaps are still an undergraduate student).  At that level, probably every research assistant is "very bad at research".  Becoming competent in scholarly research takes immense amounts of learning, time, and practice, which is the whole reason we have PhD programs.  Most academic researchers do not get to the point of being "good at research" until several years post PhD.
In short, you are probably correct that you are "bad at research" (almost all undergraduate-level research assistants are), but it is also likely that you are no worse at it than you are expected to be at your academic level.  The feedback of your supervisor shows that you are meeting expectations at your current level, which suggests that there would be no inherent impediment to developing into a capable researcher.  However, there is one giant red flag in your post, which is that you are not enjoying your research even under conditions that sound extremely desirable (nice supervisor who treats you well and gives you positive feedback).  If you decide to pursue a career in research then you will not always work under such desirable conditions, and so you should make sure that you find the work sufficiently interesting and fulfilling to endure periods where you have to struggle through bad times.

Do you like doing research? You'll know better than anyone because you must be the best-positioned on the planet to tell what you like and what you don't.
That said:

I got stuck on something for almost three months, so there is no progress at all ...

This happens quite often in research. You've encountered it now, and if you stay in research, will likely encounter it again in the future. It's virtually inevitable that there'll be points where you don't know what to make of your results and/or what to do next. If this discourages you, you might not want to stay.
As another example, here's something that happened to me during my Masters. We were working on duplicating another group's measurement of [effect]. After one year we succeeded. Now we were going to use that method on a new dataset, and then we find out that the original group had used a definition that was nonstandard (e.g., they used N=6 when N=4 is the "industry standard"). This throws their entire measurement of [effect] into doubt.
Faced with this situation, do you think "Oh boy, we're going to discover something new!", or "Damnit, I've wasted one year of my time"? If the former, you might want to stay; if the latter, you might want to do something else as a career.

My own story:
I'm a software developer not a researcher because while I like solving problems (I've programmed for fun starting when I was 12 and continuing for the last 26 years because it's fun to me), I don't feel a strong enough drive for my solution to be novel. It's something I fought with for a long time, especially since I left a PhD unfinished and thought about trying it again years later. I mean I like the idea of coming up with something new and groundbreaking, but when it comes down to it I don't care enough about that novelty to do the research to find out what others have done, the things they've tried, what worked, what didn't, and where the gaps in the research are. So while I'm perfectly happy to think up "brilliant" ideas, I'm not motivated to do the actual research. And so I've learned research isn't for me.
Do you like learning everything there is to know about a problem?
So one big question is: do you like reading paper after paper and learning everything there is to learn about a problem so you can make a (in the grand scheme of things) small (while still valuable) novel contribution to it? Is it something you'd do for fun? Actually is it something you do for fun now, even if in a limited capacity (e.g. reading books and working on new approaches after soaking in everything you can from those who went before you)? If so, research may be for you. If not (and remember novel ideas are almost worthless because most turn out not to work; viable solutions are what is valuable, and that requires hard work), then research may not be for you. But you'll have to make that call. And it's okay either way. It's not for everyone (it wasn't for me), but I'm glad some people follow that path. But if it's not for you, I wouldn't push yourself down that path. It's a demanding career with long hours and relatively low pay (when you compare hours worked to total salary)--not something to do if you don't love it; you can make more money with less stress doing something else if your heart isn't in it.


text:
Grant application writing strategies
I am an early career researcher (field: Civil Engineering). Recently, I got rejection letter for my first grant application and it was heart-breaking. I believe that there is room for improvement in my approach in writing grant applications.
I seek help with insights on effective grant application writing. I am particularly interested in understanding the strategies and key elements that make a grant application stand out.
Are there any specific resources, books or websites that you would recommend?

Don't be so hard on yourself. The success rate for most significant research grants/fellowships is very small, you should expect to be rejected for most grants you apply for, it's just the nature of the game unfortunately.
You don't mention what country you are working in and what granting bodies you are applying to. Each has it's own criteria and approach. There are many books and other resources which attempt to teach grant writing. Most universities offer some kind of grant writing workshops/support. The ones I have read/workshops I have attended I didn't find particularly useful.
The following are some suggestions which I think are important (in no particular order):

Get feedback on your application. Both from people who have been successful writing grants as well as from people outside your field. Keep in mind the committee is unlikely to have specialists working in your exact area of research - your case must be compelling to a broad range of researchers. You need to find people who will be brutally honest with you not people who will be encouraging.
Include some preliminary results to strengthen your proposal.
Try to get feedback from the grant bodies if they provide it.
You need to convincingly explain what makes you/your project special, why are you the best/only person that can do it? Why is your university the best/only place you can do this work?
Get to know the people who are on the committees for deciding grants (ie. senior academics). From my experience you need someone on the committee to champion your application - the more friends in high places you have the better. Avoid making enemies - even a single reviewer can kill your chances.
Get some experience reviewing grants/proposals (even small internal ones) this will really help you to write grants considering the committee's perspective.
Read the call very carefully and address every aspect clearly.

From my experience reviewing grants many are far too light on specific details. Eg. exactly what methods will you use (how many test specimens, what loading, what are the interesting parameter ranges, etc)? Why will your approach work and what is the risk mitigation strategy? Etc
Ultimately the more you write the better you will get at it.


text:
Journal sent review request to my supervisor but the email was addressed to me
My PhD supervisor received an email from a journal asking for review of an article. However, the email was addressed as "Dear {my name}". Even the journal office created an account in my name on Editorial Manager to access the manuscript (as mentioned in the email).
My supervisor is not interested in accepting the review request since the email was not addressed to him. Now I am not sure how to proceed from here.
UPDATE: Per @wimi 's answer, I contacted the editor asking if I was the intended email recipient and expressing my willingness to review. The editor clarified that there was indeed an email mess-up and I have been invited to review the manuscript!

There's a good chance this happened because the journal got your email through an already-published paper. That paper would have the list of authors, their affiliations, and contacts, and the journal messed up which email belongs to which author.

Is it possible it's some sort of (phishing) scam? Is this a reputable journal? Do you or your supervisor  have a prior association to them ? Could it be a clerical error?

@lan W The journal is indeed reputed (indexed in Scopus and Science Citation Index). We do not have a prior association though. It seems a clerical error.

Your supervisor does not want to accept this review request. Your course of action depends on whether you want to review the manuscript:

if you do want to review the manuscript, contact the editor letting them know about the mistake, asking whether you were the intended recipient, and expressing your willingness to accept the review. If the editor confirms that you were the intended reviewer, or that your review would be welcome, proceed with the review.

if you do not want to review the manuscript, just reject the request. It might be worth contacting the editor anyway and letting them know about the mistake, in order to make sure that future review requests arrive at the intended recipient.