text:
To what extent can I use the concept of "God" in a meteorology lecture without offending anyone?
In about a week I'll be introducing the Coriolis effect to a group of about 50 undergrads.  This means I'm going to have to at least touch on fictitious forces and frames of reference.
These aren't physicists and I can't guarantee that they've taken (or paid attention during) elementary physics, so I can't just put the equations up on the board and get comprehension; I'm going to have to be a bit more visceral.
My strongest example refers, from time to time, to the inertial frame as the "God's eye view".  This means that while working through it, I would be using the word "God" a few dozen times during lecture.
I don't personally find this term offensive but I don't want the presentation to turn my students away from the content.
So my question has two parts:

Is using "God" in the way that I've detailed acceptable, or should I search for a different example?
If it is acceptable, should I have a heads-up at the beginning of lecture?

Extra information:

I'm an adjunct at a large public university in the United States.
This is an introduction to applied meteorology course.
I've been teaching for six years but this is only my second time teaching this course.

I think a heads up at the beginning of the lecture would just draw unnecessary attention to it. It doesn't mean anything if you say God, you're just trying to get the idea of an inertial frame across. If you're really worried, name it something vague like 'universal overseer.'

You could talk about the gods (such as the Greek ones), perhaps in a tongue-in-cheek fashion. No one would be offended then.

Is there a reason a "bird's eye view" is not an acceptable alternative? Or a "geosynchronous satellite's view'?

@DaveClarke are the Greek gods generally believed to be in space/the sky?

Gods eye view has zip to do with religion.  If you're in a secular country, use it as you will.

To "lecture without offending anyone", do not say anything.

I don't find it offensive, but according to this authorative source the expression doesn't seem right for your usage. I'm not a native speaker, but isn't, as @compass suggests, 'bird's eye view' what you mean, and certainly not controversial?

IMO, "a god's eye view" is distinct from "God's eye view".

What about speaking about the Flying Teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Joke put aside, If you want to use a being whose vision/mind can encompass more than the one of a regular being, you can use aliens. "If aliens were visiting us,..." would probably hurt noone. Exemples from pop-cultures (heroes or gods from comics for example) can be an option too.

@Compass - Those suggestions don't fit because (as per the first line of wikipedia article) the inertial reference frame describes all of space and item in a time-independent manner—i.e. as an omniscient being (God) might see it. The suggestions about aliens, Greek gods and the Flying Spaghetti Monster all miss the point because omniscience isn't implied by any of those terms. That said, I don't see how this is "offensive". If you made some analogy referencing how Santa Clause can travel the world in an evening, I wouldn't be offended just because I don't believe in Santa Clause.

if someone really wants to be offended, then they will be offended, no matter how you try to say it.

@vsz I take offence in that claim of yours :P

Given that G-d created all time and space and is therefore outside of time and space and therefore can see all time and space at once…..
Somehow I don't think is what you mean…

@DaoWen, the FSM is definitely omniscient. He has to be omniscient in order to change all our observations of the physical world with His Noodly Appendage, as they impact upon our consciousness. (Letter to Kansas School Board 5:5). If he were not omniscient then it would be possible for someone to observe the physical world without His intercession; clearly this is impossible therefore He must be omniscient.

@Ian Some time back I was watching some movie at the point where a rocket is taking off and you see it from above, and a Mormon person in the audience referred to it as "God's eye view".

tbh the religeous people will probably be the ones you confuse the most by that! Only a very naive, childish view has him sitting on a cloud looking down at us whether you believe or not.  I would avoid using the term, not in case of offense, but simply because it is too ambiguous.

Could you explain exactly what you mean by "God's eye view". I don't think its offensive but I'm not entirely clear what it means; what exactly is gods frame of reference? Isn't it all of them?

It's acceptable, but why do you need to use it? It seems to me that you could just as easily use a secular phrase like "looking down from above"?

Yeah. I for one wouldn't find it offensive, but I'm also not sure that I'd understand what you meant by it.

"Real writers rewrite to avoid the problem." If you think there could be a significant misunderstanding or objection, pick a different phrase. (Personally I feel you're overthinking this. On the other hand, not all gods look down from above, so it may not be the right phrase even from a simple content point of view.)

I am a meteorologist and have never heard the phrase "God's eye view" when referring to the coriolis force. I agree with "looking down from above". I vividly remember being shown a video like this one that explains the coriolis effect well.

Plus, not that it would bother me, but I would prefer a scientific subject not to mention god; I understand that it would be just a way to illustrate a concept, but it feels.. I don't know, out of place. Again, it would not bother me at all, but if I had to choose I would not mention it :)

You seem to be a reasonable person. The fact that you're asking this question means that at least one reasonable person has doubts about what you're proposing to do is appropriate. Since using this particular metaphor isn't crucial to your course, why do it?
To be honest, I don't think it would be an issue but I'd also recommend against it simply because it isn't clear. Many religions view god as being present everywhere so it doesn't really make sense to use "god's eye view" to refer to looking from a particular direction. Instead, you can use the prosaic "Seen from above, ..." or say things like "If you were in orbit, looking down at the earth..." If you want something a bit more fun and colourful, "So, a martian looking at the earth through a telescope would see..."

"If you were in orbit, looking down at the earth"... then that's only an inertial frame in general relativity. Introducing which probably creates more problems than it solves in "intro to meteorology" ;-)

Why don't you call it a "satellite view" or "orbital view"? Satellites are used for this kind of imagery anyway, and people will understand that this is about view from high above. "Orbital" indicates a view from orbit and is easier to say.

Satellites spin around the earth and are not in an inertial frame of reference.

@user54609 Geostationary satellites are always above the same point on the equator. for this purpose, they're close enough to an inertial frame of reference.

I think "orbital view" makes a lot of sense in the context given.  It's highly likely that the distinction between "a fixed point 100,000 miles above the earth" and "an orbital view" is irrelevant (in other words, geosynchronicity is probably irrelevant for purposes of the discussion). Even a "fixed point 100,000 miles above the earth" could be confusing, because it begs a question about the seasonal  movement of the earth about the sun.  "A God's eye view" isn't any more clear either, so I'd go with "orbital view", and explain further if necessary.

In context, references to 'God' are best avoided because religion may be a big part of many people's lives. Yet, to others He (or She, or It) is an archaic irrelevance and for a few - those who will be making assumptions about who you are and why you are focusing away from the science. (I assume since it underpins the class and will have to be spoken about at some point, even if you will be helping them take a run at it.)
Short version, bringing God into your lecture will be distracting (assuming the members of your class aren't coreligionists/members of the same sect/congregation/Bible study group/friends/neighbors/family members). If you feel compelled to use the specific form of shorthand terms mentioned - and I can understand why you might, if it's accustomed and familiar - I'd advise saying so up front where you personally are coming from and quickly move on.
Alternatively you could substitute the anodyne but less contentious phraseology, such as 'from the viewpoint of a space probe/flying saucer/little green man etc' but ideally I'd advise a combination of both based on audience reaction. Perhaps I've been lucky but I've found most classes - particularly those dealing with challenging material - respond well to mild comic irony and gentle self-deprecation.

Well, I am European and an atheist, so I may not have the most relevant opinion. However, I find this perfectly fine. I understand that you are just using this as a connection of words people tend to say, just like "birds perspective." Why should I be offended by that? Why should anyone? I understand that you are not teaching that the god actually is the reason why the Coriolis effect takes place, so I believe it should not interfere with anyone's impression what the god is - whether he exists, what he possibly looks like and so on. I say that if you believe it will make the topic easier to understand, go for it.

"Bird's-eye view" would be the idiomatic phrase but it doesn't work, here since most birds are under the weather most of the time and we need a phrase that implies looking down on the weather from above.  (Migrating geese can fly at some pretty astonishing altitudes but people tend not to think of that.)

I may have not expressed myself in the best way. I awanted to say, that both expressions are kind of idiomatic, not that they have necesarily the same meaning.

To say that a phrase is idiomatic means that it is a standard phrase that people use to describe a situation and that they use that specific phrase, rather than another similar form of words that would have the same meaning. As far as I'm aware, "god's-eye view" is not idiomatic: it's not an expression I've ever heard as a native speaker. And "bird's perspective" is certainly not idiomatic: people always use the phrase "bird's-eye view" instead. "Bird's perspective" obviously has the same meaning but it's not the phrase that people use for that concept.

@DavidRicherby I can show you a top-down picture of the solar system and call it a "birds-eye view". Such an idiomatic phrase is not meant to be taken literally. It's still just as applicable to situations where it's not so easy to find a bird.

@Moriarty I agree that you can show me such a picture and call it that and, while the metaphor would jar a little, it would be obvious what you meant because you were showing me the picture. But, if you said "a bird's-eye view of the weather" without showing me a picture, I wouldn't know if you meant a view of the weather seen from above the atmosphere or a view of the weather seen from an altitude of a couple of hundred feet. Both of those would, IMO, be reasonable parsings.

This may have been the first conversation ever to go from a religious topic to something different rather than the other way around.

@DavidRicherby Aha, I see what you mean now. Fair enough, though I suspect that would mostly confuse ESL speakers. I've always translated "birds-eye" to "top-down", rather than imagining it from the literal altitude of an unladen swallow unless the context says otherwise.

@Petr Sadly, I think you're right!

@DavidRicherby I was curious how correct you were about the commonality of the two phrases and thought I'd share. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=bird%27s-eye+view%2C+God%27s+eye+view&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cbird%27s%20-%20eye%20view%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CGod%20%27s%20eye%20view%3B%2Cc0

@MiniRagnarok Unfortunately, something broke your link but clicking on the search button fixes it. (I tried posting a replacement link but that broke, too!) Summary: "god's-eye view" is used very, very occasionally but "bird's-eye view" is much more common.

I think the phrase "God's eye view" works fine, because it implies a level of omniscience that you wouldn't get as a human observer, regardless of location.  A non-religious person can still understand the concept of God, which is all you really need to make your point
A human can't see air currents, only the shapes of clouds.  If you look at a hurricane for example, you can infer the motion of the air currents but you would not be able to see a jet stream on a clear day.
As a human, you are limited to looking at one hemisphere at a time.  God, presumably, can see the entire earth and gain a more complete big picture view
Finally, a God's eye view would be better for time-lapse imagery.  As humans, we are constrained to experiencing time (and gravity) in the usual sense.  You would not be able to sit over one spot of the earth observing a hurricane developing over the course of several days and then distill it down to a span of a few minutes
TLDR; if you are describing something a human would reasonably be able to observe, describe it from that human's viewpoint.  If you are describing something that would be difficult/impossible to observe directly with the naked eye use a metaphor.  God, in this case, is used as a metaphor not religious doctrine

The perfect place to admire the dynamics of Earth's atmospheric currents and their interaction with the Earth's rotation is, of course, Moonbase Alpha from "Space 1999" TV series, or any similar Moon base that you can devise.
OTOH who thinks Apollo's missions are a fake could be offended. But a Believer in Flat Earth would be offended by the notion per se of Coriolis forces.

This is total nonsense: ever since almost the very start of that show, Moonbase Alpha has next to no visibility of the Earth whatsoever — they're too far away!!

Also, Moon (before the Moonbase desaster) rotates around the Earth, so it is not the best example of an  inertial frame

But a Believer in Flat Earth would be offended by the notion per se of Coriolis forces. Pertinent observation.

@LightnessRacesinOrbit In retrospect, I'm too old for "Space 1999"... The Moon base I'm thinking of must be (it is) the one in "UFO", the 1969 TV series also by the Andersons.

@gboffi: I don't understand. Did you lose your sight and hearing at a certain age? Why are you "too old" for Space 1999? FWIW I watched it for the first time during late-90s reruns.

@LightnessRacesinOrbit In Italy UFO was aired in 1971 (I just checked, did I tell you I'm too old?) and Space 1999 in 1975. I was an avid fan of UFO, but 4 years later I was no more interested in TV series... Ciao

Maybe use "from the outside"?
For example something like this "Imagine a ball, floating in space (no gravity), but rotating as it does. An ant on the surface picks up a grain of sand and throws it. No gravity, so to an outside observer/from the outside the grain of sand will fly straight. But the ant rotates together with the ball, so from the ant's point of view the grain of sand appears to be spinning and turning as if a bunch of strange forces was accelerating it all over the place." and then work on Earth and the forces in reference frames.

I think you want to gather attention by making an outstanding sentence.
Hence, I do not think jakebeal's answer serves your purpose (of course it is the best way I can think of, but if your purpose is not only telling the subject but giving an extraordinary example, it will not be enough).
Using God is I think not a good idea. However, there are several choices for you, I think:

You can tell a mythological story and use one of the gods' name (e.g. Zeus).
You can ask "have you ever imagined how an astranaut sees the world?" and then build your sentences on this question, like "he/she sees the world turning otherwise" etc.
You can show a video of a spinning wheel of a car and ask the question "towards which direction does this car go?" and then answer "we cannot know until we see the bigger picture".

In summary, I would not use it but give another extraordinary example to emphasise on the subject.

Anytime God is used in a scientific context, you should replace it the the ambiguous Universe. The use of God to explain or describe any force that can't be observed is directly insulting to anyone who isn't from a monotheistic religion. By referring to god as the universe you remove the superstitious and replace it with a polite "we can't describe it." Seeing as these forces are are only unknown due to lack of advancement, not because there is a bearded man in the sky moving the stars about.

The problem with using "god's eye view" is that by choosing to use 'God' in preference to, say 'Allah's eye view' or 'Yahweh's eye view', you have already introduce a religious element into the discussion and taken a stance on it.
Unless you actively want to introduce God for some reason, there is absolutely no need to do it. I studied basic meteorology, and 'god's eye view' was never mentioned, though 'stationary point in space was'. Both The Met Office and Wikipedia manage to explain it without mentioning God.


text:
What is the standard/recommended font to use in papers?
I looked around but did not find that anyone has asked this before, but what are the fonts that are standard/recommended while writing academic reports/papers?

No need to search for the perfect font. You just download the latex/word template that the journal / conference provides and you stick to it.

In my case there isn't a template, that is the problem.

unless your a graphic designer, if theres no standard specified its safe to stick with times new roman

@user1938107: In English, that is.

@O.R.Mapper yes very true, although I assume if the OP was looking for the standard font of every language in the world for academic publishing, we could close it as "too broad"

If you don't have the journal/conference template; then look for the the paper you like the template of which more. Then you can not only find out which font it has used, but also you can see other customizations of the papers. You can use those templates to prepare your assignments, drafts and reports. However, please note that every conference or journal has its own template and you don't have the chance to choose the font you like. The only standard in the case of fonts and templates is the paper's publisher preference and standard.

People stick with the Computer Modern default in LaTeX so much that I once had someone tell me a paper where I intentionally chose a different serif font "looked unprofessional."

You may take a look at this article, which is behind a paywall now, but recaptured here.

Please do not be "that person" who has the only paper in the journal or proceedings with a different font from the others.

People, please refrain from engaging in a comment war about fonts.

Gentium is great IMHO, especially if you need special Latin characters or support for Cyrillic or Greek.

If there's no template, then the choice is yours. However, you should make sure to pick a font that's easy to read. The usual standards in academia tend to be the Times, Helvetica/Arial, and Computer Modern families. This doesn't restrict you from using fonts like Book Antiqua, Myriad Pro, Goudy Old Style, or Garamond, but they're definitely not standard.

As to Helvetica/Arial: I think conventional wisdom is that serif fonts are preferred for large bodies of text, while sans serif should be reserved for short chunks like labels, headings, etc.  I've certainly never seen a published paper set entirely in Helvetica.  Then again, in my field everyone uses LaTeX, so unless you make a special effort, everything comes out in Computer Modern.

@NateEldredge: You are correct that serif fonts are easier to handle in large doses, but Helvetica is the "default" font for most "official" documents and reports throughout most of Europe. And this extends to preprints when not done in LaTeX.

Eurghhhhhhhhhhh.

@NateEldredge: This is not undisputed. @ aeismail: It’s rather Arial due that popular operating system (which does not make this any better; not because of serif vs. sans-serif, but because I do not want to see that font anymore to the extent that I tweaked my browser to auto-replace any resembling fonts).

@Wrzlprmft: True, it is normally Arial that is specified; fortunately the differences are small enough that I use Helvetica and no one complains. (And actually I'm starting to see more references to Helvetica nowadays.)

@aeismail "Helvetica is the 'default' font for most 'official' documents and reports throughout most of Europe." [citation needed]

For an academic paper each publisher journal have their standards. These do not affect or are affected by the manuscripts sent in to the journal. Some journals specify fonts, commonly standard Times Roman, for their manuscripts. If the journal specifies something, follow that specification. Otherwise use a font that is easy to read. There is no need to use anything but a standard font for whatever typesetting/word processor system.

There isn't any.
Focus on the content, write using your favorite writing software's default font, and let the journal's typesetting staff worry about the looks of the published version.
For the subset of journals that do not take care of typesetting, first make sure they are legitimate, then use the template they provide.
If no template is provided discuss with your supervisor and colleagues whether the journal is really worth your time, if it is then use your favorite software's default font.

As others have mentioned, the standard font varies, but is usually a serif font such as Times New Roman, although sans serif fonts such as Arial and Helvetica seem to be gaining traction as well. Their is major disagreement over which is easier to read--serif or sans serif fonts, with no clear consensus on the outcome. For example, see this paper.
Font size is typically twelve point. Follow the guidelines on this one, and make sure to keep your font consistent. Nothing is more likely to get you minus points than some obvious monkeying with the font size, whether to lengthen your manuscript (most commonly seen in undergrad papers) or to fit your text into the page limit (the rest of us!).

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Should the PhD supervisor's name be first in a scientific journal?
I am a self funded PhD student and have been told by my supervisor that her name should be first on any future journal I will be publishing during my studies under her supervision as "this is the only thing she gets from her PhD students".
I am just wondering if the ordering of author names matter? She is going to help me only by proof writing my article. All research will be done by myself.
Is she legally allowed to say it? Should I accept it?

What field are you working in?  That will help people tell you how reasonable and common this behavior is.  In my field -- mathematics -- this would be a very strange thing to say: it would be more than enough cause for you to find a different advisor.  By the way, of course it is legal (in the United States): there are no laws governing academic coauthorship!

@Vahid: That would be bad enough, but what the advisor actually asked was pre-guaranteed first authorship.  Since in mathematics more than 99% of papers have authors listed in alphabetical order, I think we can conclude that this practice must be essentially unheard of everywhere.

But still: I would be interested to know in what parts of the mathematical world the practice you describe is at all common.

@Vahid: If that makes you more comfortable, please feel free.  But if you want me to keep the information itself confidential, please be sure to say so.

If you end up deciding to follow this person (which I think is a bad idea because she is pretty narrow-minded when it comes to mentoring). Do not ever sign off "all the articles you will publish when working with her." This is plainly ridiculous. Lay out the objectives, give a number of the articles to her as 1st author, and set aside a couple that both of your agree that you'll be the 1st author. You'll need some 1st author evidence to jump start your career. If she declines, run away like escaping a plague.

This is not a duplicate of the marked question. This question asks specifically whether the supervisor should be first author, not whether the supervisor should be any author.

@ff524 - regardless, this has been addressed multiple times, both generally and for specific fields. See this search: http://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=author+order

I am just wondering if the ordering of author names matter?

In a small number of academic fields -- like mathematics -- the overwhelmingly majority of jointly authored papers list the authors' names in alphabetical order.  In these fields, a non-alphabetical ordering of the authors stands out like a sore thumb: the average mathematician knows it is meant to look bad for the latter-listed author but is not sure exactly what it means.  In a field like this, if you hear a potential advisor say this, you should say "Thank you, I'll look for someone else" and walk out the door.
In most other academic fields, the ordering of the authors conveys important meaning in a manner which can be subtle and vary from field to field.  There are some academic fields where being the last named author carries a lot of prestige, but in my understanding this is the kind of prestige awarded a very senior person.  I don't know of any academic field in which putting the junior author at the end looks good for them.
But anyway, here is another kind of answer to your question: the ordering of names must matter to your potential advisor or she wouldn't have brought it up!  Therefore if you yourself are not sure what rights you are signing away in such an agreement, you should be especially skeptical.  I think the first thing that you should do is look around to see how common this practice is among other faculty and students in your department.  (If you are in an academic context far from the American one, it would be more prudent to do this even if you are in a field like mathematics than to immediately walk out of the office like I suggested above.  I don't know what the standard arrangement is at every math department in the world...obviously.)  This will be easy to check just by looking at the publications of the faculty members.  Also asking the other students can help.

She is going to help me only by proof writing my article. All research will be done by myself.

Proofreading is not the same as advising.  An agreement where your advisor guarantees in advance not to advise you in most meaningful ways and that she will insist on first coauthorship sounds like an especially bad one.  It also sounds unethical to me by the general standards of academic ethics, although subfield ethics may have a role to play.

Is she legally allowed to say it?

Not every form of bad behavior is illegal (thank goodness).  I can't speak to the law over the entire surface of the earth, but in the US there are certainly no laws pertaining to this kind of thing.

Should I accept it?

I think that what potential advisor is really trying to say is that she does not want to be your potential advisor.  Sometimes people have trouble saying "no" outright; this happens in academia (where the tenure process takes a good shot at making "yes-men" and "yes-women" out of academics) but also in life generally.  A lot of times I have seen academics offer to do things for students only under quite unreasonable conditions that they clearly (to me) expect the students to turn down...only to have the student not know so clearly that the conditions are unreasonable and accept them.  Of course both parties end up unhappy.
In your case I feel reasonably confident that your advisor is trying to tell you to go away.  What I am unsure of is whether she's telling it to you specifically or to all students generally: the rather oafish "this is the only thing she gets from her PhD students" seems to indicate that this professor is simply not onboard with the practice of having PhD students at all.  But either way, I advise you to look around: probably you can do better.

In many fields first authorship signals who has contributed the most, scientifically, to the paper. Included in this is not only efforts to do experiments and drawing conclusions from the experiments but also to originate the ideas on which the paper is built as well as writing the paper. It is quite normal that the first paper a graduate student writes may have the main advisor as first author because of the wealth of input an inexperienced student may need. As time progresses, I would say the student should move to the first author position as the work becomes more and more independent. The goal is, after all, to train you to become an independent researcher. So the statement that the advisor should be first author on all you produce would not be considered reasonable in many disciplines.
Should you accept it? From an ethical point, no. In reality, you need to think of your future and assess what effects such actions would result in. Not knowing the way publications normally look in your field it is difficult to say anything specific but when considering general authorship guidelines as detailed in, for example, the Vancouver protocol (do a search on Academia.se to see details) the person who fulfil all criteria should be an author and the person who contributes most should e first author.

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


text:
After initial contact, how long should I address a professor as "Dr. Smith" or "Professor Smith"?
Let's assume that I've contacted professors in the United States and referred to them appropriately as "Dr. Smith" or "Professor Smith" based on their having attained a Ph.D.
If they respond to me informally, should I continue to address them formally? If so, for how long?

See my answer to a similar question.

@earthling Thanks. While your question is similar, it does not cover a few specific details that are important in these situations.

@AndrewHundt - I see your comment and read the text in your flag, but I do not see the distinction between the two questions. Indeed, your exact question is answered in the comment right on the question in the linked answer. I think the duplicate designation is appropriate here.

@eykanal: The issue is the continued contact. The original question here is: "How long do I call Prof. X by his official title?"

In the words of my boss, "It is always better to err on the side of flattery." (in case you don't know if someone is a Doctor/Professor or not)

This is so highly dependent on particular universities -- let alone particular regions -- that it is probably best just to ask students and faculty what is the culture at their particular university.
I will give one example.  At most American universities you should begin by calling all your instructors by "Dr." or "Professor", although in some cases your instructors will be neither one of these and should probably say so in response.  For anyone who is either a Doctor (i.e., has a doctoral degree) or a Professor (in the United States this usually means "is on the tenure track", but already there are variations...), it seems a bit rude not to use one of these two appellations.  When students call me "Mr. Clark" I assume they are just forgetting that they are not in high school anymore.  But whether "Dr." or "Professor" is preferred is highly variable.  At my university it seems that "Dr." is the go-to appellation: I have even heard other faculty refer to me as "Dr. Clark" when talking to students.  Nevertheless I prefer being called "Professor": getting my PhD was nice.  Getting a tenure-track job took place three years later, and that's when I really made it big.  However at some places you call people "Professor" because you are not sure whether they have a doctorate, and for the ones who do, "Dr." is the superior honorific.  Et cetera...
(I believe I learned some of this from Paul Halmos's Automathography, which I highly recommend to all academics and not just to mathematicians: to mathematicians I would require that you read it if I could!  He goes on to explain more nuances than I did above.)
What you call your instructor also depends on things like their age, their gender, and honestly perhaps even their ethnic background.  As a tenured Caucasian male, the desired aura of authority is already there: I don't have to do anything special to summon it. On the other hand I am still "young" -- closer in age to some of my students than some of my colleagues -- so if I met a student in a non-academic context I would not want any deferential treatment.  (This is also a generational thing: telemarketers, phone company employees and so forth now call me and refer to me by my first name, and I wonder where our civilization is heading...) I am totally okay being called by my first name by any university student.  Whether they are similarly okay doing so is another question, but I encourage this behavior particularly from former students and in contexts outside out of the university campus.  If I were 65 years old and wearing a suit, calling me by my first name would seem less appropriate.  (In fact I had to steel myself at first to call all of my colleagues by their first names, even the ones who were famous mathematicians before I was born.  But that is definitely contemporary American academic culture: any of my colleagues who calls me "Dr. Clark" is signalling that they want to strangle me.)
I feel that it is especially important not to use less formal appellations for female faculty.  I covered a colleague's class a few weeks ago, and one of the students asked a question, beginning with "Miss Matic said..." And my answer began "Well, first things first: it's Dr. Matic..." I then got the student to agree that that was the correct thing to say before moving on to address the question.  Also I feel honorbound to stand more carefully on honorifics when addressing minorities.  It is sad to me that contemporary American society has not gotten past the point where this seems necessary...but it hasn't yet.

"it is probably best just to ask students" - Unfortunately, I have only gotten answers to the effect of "it happens naturally when you feel it's right". Not very helpful.

as an example to your second paragraph, in both art and architecture, it is usual for the most common terminal degree to be an MFA or MArch, in which many are Professor, but few are Doctor.

I find different modes of address for women than men awkward. I first encountered it in the 1960's, as an Imperial College mathematics undergraduate. In any posted list of student names, I was "Miss P. Shanahan" where my male peers were not given any title.

For email, the general rule of thumb is to address the person in the same way in which they sign their emails to you. If they always sign as "Professor" or "Doctor", you should address them by the same title. If they sign informally; i.e.  "Chris" or "Dr. J.", address them by that name.
It gets a little more complicated when speaking face to face, and here I tend to err on the side of formality, and use Doctor or Professor unless and until they ask me to do otherwise. As @Penguin_Knight states above, you may need to take the initiative and ask them to call you by your first name and hope they get the hint.

A lot of professor of my acquaintance will sign their emails with their full name and no title--e.g., "Bob Smith." But you can't really start an email with "Dear Bob Smith".

@Charles, in this case it may depend on whether you are a student or a colleague. If a student, I would stick w/ Dr. Smith. If a colleague, it depends on how well you know Bob Smith, but still err on the side of formality.

This is the heuristic I employ. In fact, on one occasion, a collaborator signed off with a nickname she apparently didn't want me to use. Subsequently, she signed with the name she did prefer and that has been stable since.

"Dr. [Last name]" is more common and also more versatile because it covers people with a doctoral degree but not involved with academic organization. If you do know that person does teach or you are/were in his/her class, then "Professor [Last name]" works as well.
The formality can be toned down when the other side writes something like "Please call me [First name]." Otherwise, keep using "Dr."
If you feel that it's safe to be more collegial while the other side still keeps addressing you formally as Mr. Hundt or Dr. Hundt, you can take the initiative to say "Please call me Andrew." Usually, a socially viable person (notice that social skills can be scarce among PhDs, but give it some patience and eventually this will happen) should reply and say, "Please call me [First name] as well." If not, look pass the awkwardness and keep using Dr. [Last name] until perhaps you two get to meet and be more acquainted during the meeting.

Honestly, I have always assumed the "appropriate" thing to do would be to call them by their title until they tell you to just call them John or whatever. This can drag out quite a bit, though, but in my mind, if someone is addressing me with a title, and I feel they can address me by my first name, I'll definitely say so. So I suppose the same could be said for faculty. If they feel that a change is appropriate, they should or would tell you "Please call me John", but if they stay silent on the matter, then that would imply they feel it's fitting for Dr.'s or Prof.'s still being thrown in the mix.

By definition, Doctor is reserved for individuals who have completed their doctorate.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_(title))
I would think most educators that have taken on the arduous task of completing their PhD would be offended by students addressing non-PhD professors as 'Dr.'. Although there are several PhDs I know who prefer NOT to be addressed as 'Dr.', I would never make that assumption unless specifically requested to refrain from doing so.

I may be unaccustomed to customs at US universities, but if someone addresses me "informally", i.e. with my first name or "Hey", (that was the point of the question, right?) I will do the same towards him.
A professor expecting anything else should quit university, and become a high middle school teacher.


text:
Is it OK to thank the examiners in the acknowledgements of the final draft of a PhD thesis?
The examiners of a friend's PhD thesis required revisions which they needed to approve before they would accept the thesis. The requirements were fairly demanding but overall reasonable and helpfully explained, and my friend wishes to acknowledge the examiners' contribution in the final submission, in anticipation of their approval.
However, it seems to me that examiners are not supposed to be friends; and any implication that they are seems to suggest that the examination process was too cosy, or that the examiners were perhaps rather a push-over or even somewhat corrupt. Are such concerns well founded, or am I worrying unduly?

I'm assuming that 'examiners' is analogous to 'committee members'? In the dissertations that I've seen, all have included a thank you to the committee members, and most of these are detailed, personal thank yous.

One comment: in my experience with theses, the final copy that the committee approves is not literally the final copy the student submits: she is allowed / sometimes encouraged to make further routine or cosmetic changes.  If you want to avoid the appearance of impropriety, you could probably arrange to turn in the acknowledgments after committee approval: if technically possible, this is really reasonable because the acknowledgments are certainly not a part of the thesis that the committee will scrutinize.

Peer-reviewers of academic research papers are not supposed to be authors' friends, and on many occasions are direct opposite. However, it is not uncommon to thank them in the final version of the paper, because their contribution often helps to improve the paper considerably.
In the same way, I think that it is OK to thank the examiners for their suggestions, which helped you to improve the presentation of your thesis.

The acknowledgment section of your thesis is to give thanks to anyone or anything that you want to give thanks to. This should include anyone who provided substantial intellectual  support towards the contents of the thesis (your advisor and any other collabators who helped with the content). After that, you are free to thank (or not thank) whomeverelse you want. Thesis examiners are appropriate if you are grateful for anything they did. We've even had questions on academic stack exchange about thanking god or your pet. All of which is fine. Some people may find who you include strange. However, ultimately its silly for anyone to pass judgment on people for giving thanks, since whom you feel grateful for supporting you while you completed a thesis (a huge accomplishment) is truly personal.

An acknowledgment is a statement of thanks for a contribution, not a declaration of friendship. Of course it's appropriate to acknowledge one's examiners.

For a dissertation, that contribution need not be related to the content of the thesis. Emotional or professional support unrelated to the thesis's content by friends and family members is appropriate to acknowledge in a thesis. A thesis is more like a book than a paper and the acknowledgements can reflect this.

The acknowledgement is for the people that helps you to provide such a work like this.
I think the examiner is only the person give you some feedback,  but he was not during your Ph.D process.


text:
PhD advisor switching schools wants me to go with him
I'm a 4th year PhD Student in engineering in the US. I'm in school #19 (ranking). My advisor is moving to #4, and wants me to go with him (promises no delay on time to graduation.) There are no other suitable advisors in #19, but I love the University and the city, and my partner is tied here for 4 more years (another PhD student). Any advice? I might want to consider academic positions in the future.

how much more time would you need to finish? To move for e.g. a year to the other city to finish the PhD and then moving would be possibility. Or, is it possible to do some or most of the work remote? So that you would only have to be in the other place for weeks at a time?

does your phd involves lab work?

With respect to your two-body problem, what were you planning to do for the 2-3 years after you got your PhD but before they completed theirs?

A note of solidarity here, I was in a similar position. Both were serious top universities, but my switch would have included a country change (back to my home country). I stayed put despite having no supervisor who understood my work. My fellow PhD left with the supervisor. Over 15 years later, I'm gainfully academically employed, I have a spectacular continuing research relationship with my original supervisor, and I don't regret my decision at all. That's me, not you, but I am an example of not moving being just fine.

It would help to know the field. Remote work in math is easy enough. High energy physics maybe not so much.

@JonCuster it's kinda hard to see the relevance of that question. Whatever the answer is, we can probably assume it's different from "get a postdoc at engineering school #4."

Do you have a clear understanding of the requirements to complete your PhD at university #4?  Will you have to take additional coursework?  pass prelim exams?  pass a candidacy exam?  be registered for some large number of research credits before you can graduate?   In the other direction, would your current university allow your advisor to supervise you remotely while you remain there?  Where you are, is your funding tied to the advisor or your department?

This "no other suitable supervisors" point seems plain crazy to me. I am aware academics habitually overestimate their own uniqueness, and maybe engineers are particularly difficult, or maybe in the US simple matters are rendered impossible by a system geared to mistrust and competition for prestige?

What about the possibility of both you and your partner moving to #4? This may well be a good opportunity for both of you. You could make it a condition of your coming that your partner has to be allowed to come too (though I would phrase the request a bit more diplomatically), and see if your advisor may be able to arrange it. He may not be, but it doesn’t hurt to ask, these lateral move situations are fairly unique and departments are sometimes pretty open to making accommodations of this type. If the answer is no, then both of you still have the option of staying where you are.

"Promises no delay on time to graduation": can he actually deliver that? It doesn't seem likely. It sounds like he needs you more than you need him.

Relevant information missing from the question: what is the geographic distance between universities #4 and #19?

So many are suggesting that the OP complete the PhD remotely ... if this were an option, would the OP be asking this question in the first place? It would be ideal if this were explicit in the question, but a bit of inferential work on the part of the commenters would also be nice.

A few points:
Rated #4'th, rated #19'th - whatever; who cares.
Many people seem to have a bit of a fetish for these numeric rankings. Forget about them.

If your advisor was moving from a decent university to a poor one, or the other way around;
If he were moving to a department where the facilities you would enjoy are inferior or superior to what you have now;
If he were moving to a department with more people working on subjects relevant to your own work, or less such people;

... that would be worth mentioning. Otherwise, it's not relevant.
"Graduation"
It's not "graduation", mostly. It's the conclusion of your research work and your recognition as a Doctor of Philosophy. You're not a pupil going to school; you're a junior researcher, and don't you forget it! :-)
Anyway, Your advisor can probably not really promise you will complete your Ph.D. at the original planned time. Unless you've already done enough bankable research to just write-and-graduate (and even then it might not be so trivial - requirements may involve different coursework, for example; I wonder if he really checked.)
But the more important question is whether you expect to be able to conclude your research work successfully. If this is your fourth year, you probably have a subject and some directions you're pursuing. Would you be able to go on with him physically not there? How much do you actually collaborate?
Lots of possible arrangements
You could, quite possibly:

Get a second advisor, with your original one remaining as the co-advisor, or vise versa.

Stay registered at your university, but physically spend some of your time with him, as a visitor. I'm guessing this can be arranged in terms of your stipend/employment conditions (but do check).

Be registered at the new university, but still spend most of your time at your current city and perhaps even your university as a visiting scholar.

So think flexibly.
Of course, if you don't care for your current advisor much, then - the spouse excuse works very well, and he is not very likely (I think) to hold it against you if you use it to part ways with him somewhat.

Really really nice answer, 'think flexibly' and the postives may outweigh the negative. Co-supervision with extensive visits to the 'new' university gives anon-eng and the partner time to locate and cultivate post-doc leads on the same campus.

Talk to your PhD advisor about this. There might be options were you complete your PhD mostly remotely at the new university or your advisor advising you remotely at the old university.
Your advisor is most likely aware that his move negatively impacts his students. If he is a decent human being, he will work with his students to find the optimal solution for them.

If you have a good relation with the advisor, I suggest you to follow him.
You are so far in the program that this does not mean necessarily to follow the advisor 100% "physically" (i.e. as long as you do not do lab research and you have no other courses). You have some bartering power, you may propose to be affiliated with the new institution and doing a 6-months visit to your current institution.
As long as the supervisor can fund your position there, you can get the affiliation ... and probably get the work done remotely (actually if you have lab work to be done, it is even an advantage, your advisor must find an agreement for you to finish your lab work at the current institution, while being affiliated with the new institution).
Despite your advisor reassurances, you have to expect some delay (3/6 months) because of all the bureaucracy/hiccups/pandemic stuff potentially involved in the transition: stand your ground, make it clear there will be some minimal delay in the transition and that you need support when (not if) there will be such issues.

My advisor left the  #1 ranked school to go to a lesser school where he would be the big fish.   My advisor was kind enough to tell me honestly (and bluntly) that I'd have to re-do my qualifying exams and re-take some classes if I followed him, though I was 3+ years along. I stayed, and started my research over, with a new, well-regarded advisor. No hard feelings on either side.   We both did what we thought was best.
I'm skeptical that your advisor is in a position to promise you there will be no delays, though he may indeed believe that to be true.  As crass as it may seem, I suggest you get some things in writing, because vague claims can cost you years of your life.  And if you are apart from the one you love for several years, they will be long and difficult years.
Edit for emphasis: The point of mentioning school rankings is this: if a lower-ranked school is unwilling to accept transfer of classes/research from a more prestigious university, then the transition from a lower to a higher-ranked school is not likely to be easier.  A big fish going to a small pond has more leverage than the advisor in the OP's situation.  It does depend on how much capital the advisor is willing to spend on behalf of his student's interest.

You had to start over? With three years under your belt you ought to have been able to pretty much finish your PhD by yourself. Clearly, you need an academic who is not moving to step in and help you with admin issues, access to consumables etc., but this can be arranged w/o having to completely rejig your research to suit the replacement supervisor. This sort of thing can be arranged even at schools that are not number 1.

The right path for you depends on a variety of factors.
For example, will you remain a student at your current university and get your degree from there, or would you transfer?  Both pathways may be an option.  It might well be possible to remain a student where you are, especially if the school is willing to give your advisor an adjunct position while all their students finish up.  If you're planning to transfer, then you need to find out what the requirements are at your destination, what requirements are waivable, how long will it take to graduate, ....
Also, if you need access to a functioning lab, that isn't something that magically appears at the destination.  It can take months to set up a lab, especially if it involves major purchases.  You should make sure things are set up for you to hit the ground running when you get to your new place.
If you have no more lab work to do, my inclination is that you might be better of staying where you are and finishing up ASAP -- but this is really your choice to make.  Your advisor may need to arrange an adjunct position in this scenario, as well as for the scenario described earlier.
Lastly, your advisor likely wants you around because they feel they'll be more productive with you around.  If you can hang where you are and graduate in short order, but you're still interested in moving, see if your deal can be sweetened.  Maybe you can bump your stipend, or arrange a job, or some such.

I have seen these "moving alongs" pan out very badly, especially when the supervisor makes the move in order to become a bigger fish in a smaller pond.

This is probably the opposite case, since the old pond is #19 while the new one is #4.

@RichardHardy According to the student. The supervisor might have a different point of view. We also don't know if this "ranking" is for the whole universities, for the individual departments... The "#19 university" might very well have the "#1 department in XYZ engineering".

Moving to another university is a lot of work. Although a good advisor is very important in your academic life, don't risk your future by following one person. Things might change between you two and turn your last year of PhD to a hell. Happened to me, might happen to you as well. Stay where you are and get a new advisor/co-advisor.

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


text:
Potential supervisor didn't reply to my email, can I still show my interest on my SAP?
I am an undergraduate student applying to graduate schools. I tried to get in touch with a potential Ph.D. supervisor (in Electrical Engineering) but haven't heard back from him. In my application portal, the question asks me if I have already connected to a potential mentor, is it appropriate for me to write 'I tried to contact Dr. X, but haven't heard back from him.'?
If I am really interested in this professor's research, can I still show my interest to work with him on my statement of academic purpose (SAP)? Should I also include the name of another professor, in case Dr. X is not interested in my background? Thanks for the suggestions!
PS: The email I sent to Dr.X was just a few days ago. I could follow up a message, but it's close to the deadline of the application (12/15), so I'm not pretty sure what I should do.

"Just a few days ago" includes, at minimum, two weekend days, and in the US, two or more holidays. How many business days ago did you email?

Is this for US admissions or elsewhere?

@Azor Ahai -him- That's right, thanks for the comment. Actually, today is the 3rd business day. I'm just worried in case I don't hear back from him, can I still do that?

@Buffy Yes, this is for US admissions

Many universities also took the whole week off, so I would not stress yet. A good lesson in not waiting until the last minute.

@Azor Ahai -him- That's right, thank you!

Yes, you can, and probably should mention at least the research area of the professor and name them if you like.
For US admissions, they may not write back since the admissions process is probably committee controlled and they have no part it it. If you get any response it is most likely to be just encouragement to apply. But you won't get accepted as their advisee so early (almost all cases).
However, don't make the SoP so focused on one thing that you seem to be rejecting any other options. That won't help you if slots in that area are oversubscribed. Keep some flexibility in it. But it is good to specify a direction and also how you plan to go about achieving success in studies and thereafter.

Thanks for the suggestions!


text:
Rebuttal stage optionally allows authors to revise their papers. Should I make use of that option?
I am contributing to a top conference. It is now in the rebuttal stage. During the rebuttal stage, it's allowed to revise the submitted papers, in addition to the mandatory rebuttal text of 800 words (see detailed information below).
The reviewers gave some suggestions. For example, some pictures should be revised to be clearer, and the conclusion should be more specific. But most of them gave accept. Only one or two were rejected.
Should I to modify the description in the paper according to their suggestions? The alternative would be to just answer their question in the rebuttal text. In that case, I would declare that I will modify the paper in future versions.

As the author of the submitted work, here are your responsibilities:

Please read each review carefully and understand the main concern expressed by the reviewers. Reviewers spent substantial number of
hours in the review process to understand your work, and hence they
would appreciate if you also spend time to understand their concerns.
Please be respectful of your reviewer colleagues as you formulate your
rebuttals.

Rebuttal vs. Revision: Submit an 800-word text rebuttal directly into  the HotCRP rebuttal window. Optionally, provide a revised paper
in PDF  format. It is your choice on how to proceed, but keep in mind
that the  point of the rebuttal is to answer reviewer questions. If a
question can  be best answered with a text explanation but does not
need to go into  the paper, the 800-word text rebuttal should be
chosen. If a question is  best answered by revising the paper text
and/or paper figures, the  revised paper option is recommended (e.g.,
if reviewers point out bugs  and inconsistencies, you can fix them in
place in the paper). Reviewers  will first check the 800-word rebuttal
for answers to their questions  and read the revised paper only as
needed.

Rules for a Revised PDF: If you submit a revised PDF please follow
these  rules:
-- When applicable: please indicate to the reviewers in the 800-word  rebuttal text which question(s) you address in the revised PDF.
-- Special provisions apply for new results/data: refrain from adding  new results/data unless explicitly asked by the reviewers. This holds
for both the revised paper and the 800-text rebuttal.
-- Same formatting guidelines apply for the revised PDF as in the  original submission. You cannot exceed 11 pages. However, an index
page  can be added to help reviewers navigate your changes in relation
to  their questions. No other content should appear in this index
page.
-- Make sure you remove all meta-data in the PDF highlights that may  compromise your identity.

For text rebuttals please limit your responses to focus on the questions raised by the reviewers. While the system will not enforce
the  800 word limit, it is at the discretion of the reviewers to
consider  explanations beyond the first 800 words.

You probably need to name the conference.  Readers on this forum would have submitted papers to it and know the precise process.

You should have received an e-mail with instructions. In my field, there is not a single conference where one revises the paper during the rebuttal phase.

Thanks! I added the rules of the conference.

The paragraph labelled with "2." answers your question - this conference allows you to revise your paper, but it's optional.

Thank you! I mean which one is better? Should I just answer the question (and change the format later), or change the format now? If the paper is accepted, there will be an opportunity to modify it based on the reviewer’s comments.

I took the liberty to revise your question based on your clarification.

It seems to me that you want the most public version of your paper to be the best version possible.
If the conference allows for revisions according to the policies you outline, I see no reason not to make revisions based on reviewer comments if those revisions will improve the paper. I'd highly recommend sticking as close to the original word limit is possible; if a revised sentence overruns you by 6 words I wouldn't worry, but don't use the reviewer comments to justify increasing the length by 25%.
If there were questions that are somewhat orthogonal to the main points or that would otherwise not fit well into the paper, you can leave those to the rebuttal; it seems the instructions are quite clear on what changes you should make vs. things you should keep in the rebuttal, in fact.


text:
How do I find CS research positions after graduating?
I am in computer science (CS). Is it possible to volunteer to do research in a CS group at a university during summers or part-time after I have already completed my bachelor's degree in CS?
I want to get some more research experience, but my understanding is that "undergrad" research work must legally be paid for and that I am basically not going to find opportunities like I am describing. Is this assumption correct?
If not, how do I go about finding these opportunities, just cold-emailing faculty? What are some other ways to get research experience after graduating in CS other than doing a master's?

Please don't volunteer to perform labor for professors. It undermines people seeking employment as professional researchers and undergraduates seeking training opportunities, and teaches professors/universities bad habits. Apply for a job - it can be a research job - you have a degree. Please also only ask one question per post.

what sort of research jobs are there for post-baccs?  I'm kind of in the same boat as OP and I'm struggling to find such opportunities aside ones at the national labs.

What is this in service to?  Are you just wanting to help out with research for altruistic reasons, are you trying to build up credentials for applying to a PhD program, or are you angling for a particular kind of position in industry?

@Daveguy I'm one of the rare few that managed to get a paying research job as a Baccalaureate (not post-bacc).  To be fair, I stacked the cards in my favor, by the time I applied, I had 1 year of basic lab prep work and two years of lab research (all unpaid volunteer) with my name (as an undegrad!) on an abstract (I discovered something new, I wasn't just the help).  When you land those paying jobs, they pay very poorly.  I loved research (and would have done it forever if money doesn't eventually become important), but made more money as a night manager in a grocery store.

I deleted the open-source question since it's not as related to the others.

@EdwinBuck What field are you in?  Seems you are in a different field?  I'm currently trying to set up something (also volunteer) with a professor at a different university, especially since funding/credits are prioritized for active students.

@Daveguy I was in research Biology, and then transitioned to Computer Science.  Or you might say I was CS that transitioned to Biology and then back, depending on one's point of view.

@EdwinBuck was your research in Biology or CS (particularly any you may have done after your undergrad)?  In Biology, as far as I am aware, it is more common for people to be a "lab tech" after their Bachelors in order to gain research experience for grad school.  This is not so common for CS, which is OP's situation.

I would email and talk with professors you are interested in working with. Professors later in their careers often have some extra money they can push around and may be willing to hire on a part time research assistant (even one who is not in school). In my experience these positions are not listed, they are created when the right person expresses interest.

Blind emails are unlikely to be helpful, however.

^ This is true. If you have to blind email, make sure to do your research on their lab/work ahead of time. Explicitly convey you have spent time looking into their work and how you could benefit their lab. Perhaps you have some experience or ideas that align well


text:
As a new faculty, should I attend students' thesis defense in my department but not in my field?
I am a new assistant professor.  My department is very weird — a combination of very different fields. An associate professor sent out invitations for her students' dissertation defense to all the faculties in my department. Should I attend them?
She is not in my research field and none of the topics are related with my research, so I ignored them.  However, one of my friends (who is at a different university) says that I should attend them to show my interest. So I am unsure.
Any thoughts and advice will be truly appreciated.

Is your friend part of the department?

nope -- my friend is in different university.

But, a university in the same area?

How many PhD's does the department produce in a year?  The answer may be different in a department that graduates 50 PhD's per year than in a department that graduates only one or two per year (or less)

This strongly depends on local culture.  Ask your chair or supervisor.

It might help a little if you clarify how broadly you're using the word "field" - does "very different fields" mean, say, particle physics and astronomy, or does it mean biochemistry and semiconductors/materials science, or is it statistics and 12th century Lithuanian poetry?

Seems like it would help to understand how they are run before you put your first student on the hot seat. Go to at least a few.

It's normal to advertise PhD defenses broadly in some systems; in many cases defenses are open to the public (at least in part; detailed questioning by the committee is often separate), but as in just about everything in Academia this varies by university/field/country.
It's not expected that everyone that receives such a notice/invitation should attend, but there may be some benefits for you in doing so: you see how defenses are carried out in the department, you learn what your colleagues are up to, you participate in the community of your department.
There are also advantages for the student. I'm in an interdisciplinary field myself, and while I don't understand all the details of research for people in areas further from mine, it is expected that a thesis defense cater to both a broad and narrow audience. Someone who can fit in the same department should be able to get something out of it, even if it isn't narrowly in their research field. PhD students in my program were even required to have one outside person from the department on their thesis committee (not outside the university, as is common in some other areas, but outside their field of interest) to help encourage that breadth of target audience.
I doubt everyone in your department attends every thesis defense in the department, but one good way to find out is to just show up for one. Hopefully you'll learn something new, and maybe you'll have an opportunity to ask a useful "outsider" question. I think it's extremely unlikely you will suffer any direct harm from not attending (that is, I doubt anyone will see it as rude or keep a written tally of who doesn't attend defenses), but you might miss out on opportunity.

Another factor: showing up is an easy way to demonstrate support for department's PhD student cohort (all you need to do is sit in a chair and remain minimally conscious for an hour or two). This is the sort of thing that can make a difference to the way people perceive you. You don't need to attend every single defence - just try and be there more often than not.

@avid Agreed; that's the sort of thing I meant to capture in "participate in the community" but spelling it out the way you did is more clear. Of course selfishly this doesn't just show support for the students but also shows support of the students for their advisors, aka department colleagues.

Often (at least in Europe) it is not allowed to ask questions. It is a presentation without questions and the question part in not public with the committee.

In Sweden I'm sure the public was allowed to ask questions (after the committee). Just check how it's done, if the public is asked if they have questions and if you have anything sensible to ask, do it then.

@avid +1 for "minimally conscious" XD

@usr1234567 same deal at my Canadian university, questions are only in the closed defence portion

Generally there are different customs at different places, and it is never wrong to follow those in such situations. Where I used to work, the principles were roughly these:
A. E-mails are sent to all staff members, so this is not an invitation but rather information that the defense will take place.
B. You should come to the defense (if you can, of course, that is, you have time and such) if (one yes is enough):

you are interested in the work of this particular PhD student;
you are specifically asked (in person) by at least one other staff member to come to the defense (can be in the form of "are you going to this defense?");
the PhD student asks you to come (this never happens, but...);
you (actively) collaborate with the supervisor (promoter) of the PhD student.

I am not saying that this is a perfect system, but it worked quite well and was never made public explicitly (as a PhD Defense Attendance Code or something similar), so I suppose it has more in it than just a set of arbitrary rules.

Point number 3, at least in my experience it happens quite frequently.  Also get quite a bunch of personal invites to master's thesises too, but i often dont have time to go.

If there are only few defenses per years, you should consider attending. Every one is a big deal.
Whether the field is different or not does not really have an effect in the beginning. If it is close to your interests, you can learn something and maybe it will scientifically useful. If it is far from your interests, you can get an idea of what those people do, which seems valuable, as you are in the same department. Maybe it is even interesting. Note that the value of getting familiar with the exotic goes down after you have attended to a few seminars or PhD defenses and the field is no longer quite as exotic for you. Then it becomes more a matter of interest.
For the social expectations, consult your mentor or colleagues. These vary enormously from country to country, and vary even from university to university in smaller countries, not to speak of the larger ones. In a comment John Coleman added that it also varies from department to department.

"and vary even from university to university [and not just in smaller countries] ..." you could add "and vary even from department to department"

@JohnColeman I added it, but I don't know if it is true, so I attributed it to you.

Yeah, atleast this is my experience also, everybody who does not have a pressing engagement goes to the defence. But then im in the same culture as you. There was usually a free print of the PHD thesis available for everyone. More than on ocasion I have learned something really valuable from the defence and later skim reading teh thesis even more. Often totally unrelated to my own field.

I'm with Bryan. At UT Austin, my department (Aerospace Engineering) had public defenses, and for popular students, lots of people came to support the student. I went to several in my last couple of years just to see how they were run. The non-committee members and the examinee were thrown out of the room after the student's presentation so that the committee could grill them. Then the student was thrown out into the hall to await their decision or they were immediately congratulated and the signature page was signed. Hard-core friends waited in the hall for the results and to be further support.
If you go in advance of the time of the talk, you might get a chance to ask a fellow faculty member if they are public events (except for the grilling), and then you'll get the opportunity to watch how your new school conducts these events. I would want to see a couple of them before I had to be on a committee or lead one. At the same time, you'll get to meet a few of your new colleagues from across the department that work on different things.


text:
For PhD admissions, do you mention who you want to work with in your application?
I was wondering how PhD admissions actually work. Do we have to mention the professor we want to work with in our application? Do we reach out to them before we actually apply? And what if my research experience is in one area (theoritical computer science and coding theory) but I'd like to do my PhD in some other area (Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning), where I haven't had any experience? Any advice would be appreciated.
Update: For context, I am an undergraduate student studying Applied Mathematics at a liberal arts college in the US. I want to apply for PhD programs in Computer Science in the US.

Please ask only one question per post.

Most PhD programs in the US (including CS, at least those I have any familiarity with) primarily admit students to a program; faculty advisors are chosen later.
These programs also tend to have extensive websites that explain the admissions process in detail, though you might have to dig a bit. For example the CS program at UW-Madison says about admissions decisions:

After careful review, the Graduate Admissions Committee recommends admission for the applicants they feel are most qualified for our program. The selection is made without regard to the degree goal (MS or PhD), area of interest or financial need.  The department’s admissions recommendations are reviewed and approved by the Graduate School.

Nothing is mentioned about having selected an advisor or having their support ahead of time. If you dig further, they have a guidebook that mentions:

It is the responsibility of a PhD student to eventually find a dissertation advisor; the Department does not guarantee that a dissertation advisor will be provided. The dissertation advisor must be a full-time or affiliate faculty member of the Department, or have retired or resigned from such a position no more than a year ago.

"Eventually" - not before admission. Typically the first year is spent taking classes and beginning relationships with faculty members that could be potential advisors. I was not in CS, but my own grad program (neuroscience) had a more formal "rotation" structure, where new students spent the first couple of semesters in rotations with 2-4 faculty members, spending a bit of time in their labs to get to know them.
This is just one example - you will need to research individual programs to see how they do things exactly. I spent about 5 minutes finding this information for one program, though there's a lot more to read. You'll want to apply to several programs, and should plan to spend a good number of hours doing research like this into programs before you apply.
If you want to work with a specific person, I'd highly recommend reaching out to them in advance. What if you get admitted and then find out they are moving to another university? Or retiring? Or not taking students because they have too many, don't have funding, plan to go on sabbatical, etc. However, their blessing will not be required for application (unless the program says otherwise; do your homework) and may not even be particularly beneficial, depending on how admissions decisions are made.
Even if you don't have a specific person you want to work with, it can still be worthwhile to reach out, but not all faculty will be that responsive: you might just get referred to the application process if they'd prefer to not deal with prospective students until they are actually interviewed or admitted.

There are a few questions in this post, but I will  answer the title question, "For PhD admissions, do you mention who you want to work with in your application??
There is no general answer. It is different in different fields and subfields, and across countries. You should ask an advisor in your field to make sure you are doing what is expected.

You normally need to contact the person you wish to work with before you start applying for your PhD since you need to make sure they are able to take you on as a student. You also normally need to mention it when you submit your application so the university knows everything is ready for you to start. For your last question, it depends on the area - for example, if you studied math prior to your PhD you may be able to apply for a PhD in data science, finance, etc. but it depends a lot on what the project requires and whether the specific department is willing to admit you.

This is not true in all countries/fields; in some places you are admitted to a program and while it may still be beneficial to be in advance contact with professors you may not choose an advisor until after the first year of study.

Really? Wow, that is pretty weird (not that I'm doubting you, you're likely correct). At any rate it definitely would be best to contact the researcher you wish to work with beforehand because if you start a PhD program (on the condition you wish to work with a specific researcher) only to find out that the researcher is unavailable to be your supervisor then you've basically wasted a year of your life. Also, it's possible that the interests of the researcher may be focused in a different area at the time you talk to them, so it's best to make sure both your interests align.

@Roland I'm in a country where PhDs are like that (I took two years  off, but same diff, the US). However, in my field you are expected to contact advisors. There is no general answer. Even some departments are more receptive to it than others.