text:
My relationship with my supervisor has turned bad and she does not respond to my emails. Can I defend my thesis elsewhere in Germany?
I am in the last semester of my PhD. in Germany and my professor did not extend my job contract. I am an international student and my stay is guaranteed by a residence permit here. Due to the visa issues, I had to then look for another job which I luckily found in another city. Now when I informed her about it, she was rather mad at me because according to her, I kept her in the dark and kept looking for a job elsewhere. However, I do not think that I misled her. She offered me a job for only 3 months which could not have helped me.
I am usually afraid of her all the while because she is very powerful, does not communicate well, and does not read emails too. Also, she would micromanage my work at the language and conceptual level. My professor takes the liberty to change the words in my text. I do not know where to find out about my rights as a doctoral student. Even during the online meetings, I had informed her about the job scenario and also informed her regarding it through email. I planned to save money and work on the thesis and not depend on her financially but little did I know that the immigration office would issue me a job-search visa for six months. I am having other difficulties with her as well. I have lost my confidence as an independent scholar because I have no hold on my work.
Keeping all this in mind, I am thinking to change my supervisor in the last stage of my thesis. Is it possible to do so if I allow the last semester to fizzle out at the current university and I do not seek another desperate attention from my professor to extend my semester for staying matriculated there? I find it very unreliable to work with her. I do not feel mentally healthy and I have already begun to seek help.
I already tried seeking help from the international counselor at the university office 2 years back. I was convinced to inform my professor that I will quit after the counseling. To my surprise my supervisor herself called me to her office and told me that I can write my thesis the way I want and that she would only guide me so that the defense goes well. But she changed my work again afterwards. I feel betrayed by the counselor too.

Use the counseling again.  Talk to a student union, omsbudsperson, or faculty member who can help mediate conflict.  I don't think you can get good help here.

Formally, it should be possible to have another professor (or Privatdozent) act as your official PhD advisor. Note that in Germany, typically the only formal role of the PhD advisor is just to be the first referee of your thesis. It does not matter with whom you did the work in the thesis (can even be all on your own), or who paid you.  It might also be possible to do this with a professor at a different university, but more contemporary rules now often require you to have attended some courses for your PhD (though quite possibly not in more traditional places, didn't use to be like that).

Traditionally, German universities do not have requirements of doing courses or having some minimum candidature period for doctoral studies. As long as you meet the overall admissions criteria and have the support of a local professor, you can in principle just show up with your thesis in hand and submit it.
Individual universities or departments however may have introduced extra requirements. Given the sensitivy of your request, I would recommend to first identify potential new PhD supervisors, and then check the local "Promotionsordnung" before contacting them.
While I would not expect official problems, I am somewhat sceptical of your chances to find a professor willing to go along with this (unless you have already a close relation with them without them being closer to your current supervisor). It would seem to be "inviting trouble" to accept your request, without much incentive or moral obligation.


text:
Concerns about a very old PhD advisor?
I’m thinking about taking a 70-year old math professor as my PhD advisor, in a US school. I like his teaching and research. If I don’t choose him, I would probably have to switch fields, which I can do with some pain, since I have not specialized deeply yet. My main concerns are:

As he is far more likely than a young supervisor to pass away suddenly due to his age, how should I best plan for this scenario? What will happen to me if it happens?
He is also far more likely to retire than a young supervisor – could his retirement (in the unspecified future) cause problems for my future career in academia, with respect to references and networking?

Related: How should I take a potential PhD supervisor's age into account, when planning to follow PhD with habilitation?

Have you already asked him whether he accepts new students? If not, this question might be irrelevant, because he might simply say "I'm going to retire soon, so I won't mentor any new PhD students".

Just the age itself is a poor indicator of longevity and capability. I know people in their early 60s who are in a worse condition than some I know who are over 80 and very active.

While you are young and 70 may sound like it is forever away, once you do graduate and get on with your life, the years go by really quickly.  You eventually realize that 70 really isn't all that many years. Could you please change "excessively old" in the title to something less inflammatory?

Age doesn't matter, you could die at any time!

@vsz: Nor is being in good physical condition any guarantee.  My first advisor, who was in excellent physical condition (and younger than me!) died in an accident.

@Matt A male in the age range of 65-74 has a chance of 1 in 42 to die, while someone between the age of 35 and 44 has a chance of 1 in 663 (uk statistics). So sure a young person could die just as much, but the chances of it happening are much lower statistically speaking. It's certainly something that shouldn't be ignored.

Ironic to read this question today, on the day that Prince, known to be one of the more vibrant, healthier, and cleaner-living rock stars, suddenly died at age 57. Meanwhile Mick Jagger & Keith Richards, infamous for their not-so-clean living, are both continuing to rock-on at age 72 each. I would not advise making major life decisions based on an individual’s age. Your new 32-year-old professor might die mountain-biking or rock-climbing or drunk-driving. If this professor is basically of sound mind and body, not retiring, and willing to take you on with active support… easy decision.

@Voo Unless you mean "1 in 42 chance to die, ever" you need to specify a length of time for the statistic to be meaningful. In the next week? In the next 5 years? In the time it takes me to write a dissertation?

@bof I linked the source, but I thought it was clear that it'd per year. Assuming three years to write a thesis,  statistically the chances would be 15 times higher for the older prof to die than the younger one (in absolute numbers it's 7% vs 0.5%).

Incidentally, when I talked to the professor, the first subject he talked about was his own age, without any prompting by me. He was very realistic about his own mortality.

One minor counterpoint to @adipro's answer: rather than age of the professor, consider where they stand in their professional career. Age aside, you want to make sure that they're still highly active in the research community. I made the mistake of being what turned out to be my advisor's last graduate student; not a good position to be in. To present the case more generally: While all the positive points listed by @adipro were are true of someone close to retirement, they may simply might not care as much about things you care about. Specifically:

They have no pressure to publish, and consequently, your need to publish doesn't scratch any itch of theirs
Since they're close to retiring, they won't want to enter extensive collaborations, as they will likely be gone before the work is done. (This is referring to long, multi-year projects, not smaller stuff.)
Their interest in grant-writing will be far less than yours, for the same reason as the preceding point; multi-year research efforts will likely complete after they're gone.

When researching potential advisors, talk to their graduate students about the number of grants they've applied for in the past two years, the number of new students they've taken on, the number of new collaborations they've started, and the like. You want to make sure they're not winding things down, as that means they'll be less interested in things you care about, such as creating new relationships, writing more papers, and finding new grants.

It may not even be their interest in grant writing - the funding agency may refuse grants to people they think close to retirement if they think there's a risk that the project is not finished (because of death, retirement) or even if they think it likely the group will disassemble immediately after the project is finished, so the grant will have low on-going effect.

@cbeleites That kind of age discrimination would be illegal in many countries. And, besides, one could just as well say that a professor who has dangerous hobbies is also quite likely to die before the end of the grant period.

@DavidRicherby: professors are state officers here (Germany) and are retired automatically when reaching pension age. They usually go on working if they like. AFAIK any money they receive for their work is subtracted from the pension - so if they stay at university, it is typically not in the form of a work contract or anything similar. The funding agency presumaby discriminates against this change in contract situation. Age discrimination law is tricky: more holidays for older people were discriminating, but driver's licenses can have age-limits...

The concerns raised in this answer are not so important in mathematics, where 1. Advisors typically don't coauthor papers with their students (so whether the advisor has a need to publish is irrelevant) and 2. Most research does not require grant funding (if the advisor has a nice grant, it may mean less teaching for the PhD student, but lack of a grant won't be a serious detriment to research). On the other hand, the point about making sure that the advisor is still highly active in the research community is a very important one.

My PhD advisor was already retired when I started my PhD. He is in his 80s now. One of my collaborators is due to retire soon; the other is in his 90s. All I can say is that everyone of them has had a tremendous impact on me. They have been the most brilliant people I know.
So I don't see any problem at all with very old PhD advisors. In fact, my experience suggests that you should consider yourself privileged to have an old PhD advisor. A few reasons stand out, at least from my experience:

They have a wealth of experience.
Old professors are usually kind, generous, and so eager to share with you what they know.
They have nothing to lose. They don't have issues that younger professors face such as getting promoted, tenured, or the pressure to publish.
Retired professors don't have as many responsibilities as they used to, and so can devote more time advising you. Of course, they probably have other interests they would like to pursue now that they are retired, but research will always be their main interest.

All I wanted to say is that age doesn't matter when it comes to choosing an advisor. Passion is more important. Some professors manage research; some others do research. Choose the latter.

What if the advisor suddenly dies or backs away?  Would the PhD student be able to continue without that weighing very heavily on their references or PhD program?

@Panzercrisis: All advisors are at risk of suddenly dying or backing away. Don't live your life in fear but go forth and succeed. Be ready to adapt if you need to.

@Panzercrisis, I like Kimball's answer below, which I believe answers the OP's question and yours more directly. My answer was based on my interpretation of the question in the original.

@Panzercrisis, having a co-advisor is also a good solution, as offered by T K below.

@djechlin: Of course not but come on. You could get hit by a bus tomorrow. Just live.

@djechlin: Didn't suggest ignoring it.

Yeah, I should have been more specific in the wording of my question to make it clear I understood that age was only a part of the whole picture. My mistake. My considered advisor has an amazing network, respected research abilities, and great outreach to students; I am confident he will make a great advisor as long as he is active. I just wanted to understand the possible downsides.

@first-yearPhDstudent, I think your concerns are not unique to old advisors. A young advisor is more likely to move to another place or break down due to stress. Your concerns equally apply.

@first-year-phd-student My personal opinion is that older professors have more time to help you build your career than younger professors who are still focused on building their own. I had two first year professors downplay my work to elevate the amount of their contribution.

So the conclusion of this comment thread is that the best PhD advisors are between 50 and 60 years old :+ .

For a male who has reached age 70 in the United States their average life expectancy is 84.3 years. So unless it is going to take you upwards of 14 years to get your degree, the odds are very much that your adviser isn't going to die.
The more likely issue is whether or not your adviser is going to retire. Lucky for you, you can easily get an answer to that question. Go ask him.

The average life expectancy is not going to tell when someone will die. This is a terrible abuse of that information. Plus retired doesn't mean that they cannot continue to mentor.

Life expectancy is by definition an "average" so that word is redundant. At this age the survival curve of a human cohort is more toward an exponential shape so the median survival is actually greater than the mean survival ( which is how "life expectancy" is calculated). Furthermore a currently active academician is going to have much better survival prospects both for survival and for survival free of dementing illnesses than an average 70 yo male.

@42 - Just because you have a definition in mind doesn't mean everyone agrees with your idea. What about median Life Expectancy?

@DarioP - You are correct that it doesn't tell when a specific person will die. The entire point of the post and using the statistic is to point out that the OP is placing too much emphasis on something that isn't likely going to happen. Can it happen, sure.  But a 30 year old professor can die also.

@Dunk; It's not just "my definition"; it's shared by statisticians, actuaries and demographers around the world. An "expectancy" in probability and statistics is a mean value, i.e., the "first moment". There is a notion of a median predicted survival but that is no "median life expectancy". The life expectancy as calculated in life tables (which was the figure that was being offered) is the arithmetic mean of future expected survival in a cohort. (My comment was in support of the notion that the life expectancy offered was not a particularly compelling issue.)

@42 - I really dislike that I'm belaboring this point but here it goes. While your definition is the more commonly used definition, you don't have to search hard to find many people using the phrase "median life expectancy". Including this blurb - "Average life expectancy is almost always calculated as an arithmetic mean as above. The median life expectancy is very occasionally used instead." "As above" referred to the average. Anyways, median and mode "estimated survival age" are both higher by several years than the average, further solidifying my point. 70 is old, but not excessively old.

I already said the median would be higher than the mean, which was actually in support of your main point, so that cannot be the source of any dispute. Just because people use the wrong definition for a technical term, doesn't make it correct or accepted. This is not really an English language usage issue. You gave a specific number and I will lay very long odds that you got it from a life table calculation of  the mean expected lifespan based on a period lifetable.

@42-: I'm very suspicious of your claim that the median would be higher than the mean. This seems like exactly the sort of statistic that would be right-skewed (long-tailed, mean > median). Do you have a source?

I take it back. When I actually calculate the median and the mean for a survival curve using insurance life life tables for a 70 yo male I get virtually the same value: 13.9 and 14.4 years. Your original point remains unchallenged.

Several sites mention that the median is higher than the mean for "how old a typical person might live". I no longer know what terminology to use:( Anyways, I don't know how reliable this site's numbers are but the guy on david's blog gave me the impression that he sort of knew what he was doing in his "Why 'life expectancy' is a misleading summary of survival". As of today, the url is here: http://understandinguncertainty.org/why-life-expectancy-misleading-summary-survival  I'm not sure of the difference between median and mean for a 70 year old male, I just know the median is higher.

You seem to be thinking only about the downsides, but having an experienced supervisor has many benefits as well:

Decades of experience as a research mathematician.
Decades of experience as an advisor.
Connections to lots of other experienced mathematicians.
A developed mathematical taste.

I would gauge your decision accordingly, but if he is an accomplished mathematician, you will probably get to know many of his contacts. If, God forbid, something were to happen to him, both the department and his colleagues/friends should be able help you. Looking after orphaned PhD students sometimes doesn't go very well, but I think the risk of being abandoned is much higher as a student of a young and inexperienced advisor (who quit/moved/whatever).
My biggest worry would actually be #4: If he hasn't been keeping up with new developments in mathematics, you might be learning classical theory, learning to think about problems in an old-fashioned way. This can go two ways: (1) gaining solid foundations in an area of mathematics that's still relevant today or (2) learning mathematics that's not relevant in modern mathematics. There are many old mathematicians who lead research in modern/new developments. There are also old mathematicians, who haven't substantially changed their focus of attention for 40 years and keep on working on old problems that your future colleagues might not find interesting any longer.
If your potential advisor still publishes papers in a range of journals and with younger collaborators from well-known universities, you probably don't have to worry that your knowledge will become obsolete and/or unfashionable any time soon.

Your #4 was very relevant for my previous 70-year-old advisor. He didn't follow the current state of the field, and he told me this, so consequently I had the complete freedom to do whatever research I wanted. Which was great for my undergraduate research, but would be unacceptable for a PhD student.

Ultimately it is your decision. But one thing to keep in mind is that an advisor is not only your advisor during your PhD, but also for the next ten years if you stay in academia as you navigate postdocs and then tenure. In the US, it is common to need letters of recommendation from an advisor in one's tenure case, which is probably over ten years from now for you. The actuary tables are not perfect for the onset you're looking at, but in the end, it's your choice to decide whether or not it's worth a risk to work on what you want to work on and work with him instead of transferring fields or institutions.
Another option is to get a secondary outside advisor with this current one in order to mitigate the risk.

A secondary advisor is a very interesting solution I hadn't thought about.

You might also consider how big your 'academic family' would be. How many of your potential advisor's previous students are still in the field, and do they have students now etc.

As he is far more likely than a young supervisor to pass away suddenly due to his age, how should I best plan for this scenario? What will happen to me if it happens?

Well, you will need to find another advisor.  You will also need to deal with the emotional trauma of having lost your advisor.  It sounds like there is no one else at your university in this field, so depending on how far you are along if this happens, you might switch advisors and move into their field, or someone might take you on as your official advisor and not be able to provide you with much help.  If your advisor has several former students who are successful academia, one of them might be willing to be a (possibly unofficial) advisor for you.  (If this is not the case, look for another advisor now!) I know cases where this has happened (even if the official advisor was still alive, but perhaps just in very poor health, and deteriorating health may be a more likely scenario than sudden death).

He is also far more likely to retire than a young supervisor – could his retirement (in the unspecified future) cause problems for my future career in academia, with respect to references and networking?

As long as he is well connected and respected now, people will still value his letters and students.  But, some people stay quite active after retirement and some don't.  Certainly having an active advisor can help a lot after graduation (if they organize lots of conferences they'll invite you often, they may continue to suggest problems or involve you in collaborations, talk about your work at conferences, recommendation letters, etc).  It may not be quite the same, but if he has a large group of former students who support each other, probably they will provide a good support network for you.

Try to get another younger co-supervisor. That way you can benefit from the strong sides of both a younger supervisor and an older supervisor.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Starting an independent research project as a PhD student
I am a 2nd-year student in a 4-year PhD program.
I want to apply for an additional scholarship in October 2024. One of the conditions of that scholarship is to present papers at conferences and/or publish papers in journals. Also, this research must not be directly related to my PhD topic.
Somewhere I read or heard that additional scholarship helps strengthen future careers as the recruiters think that "since this person has already successfully acquired grants, he has a higher potential of acquiring future grants."
My supervisor's past PhD students produced three first-authored papers and six second- or third-authored papers on average. His last PhD students produced only two first-author papers because they failed to conclude their third research. However, that student collaborated with many other people and produced seven second- and third-authored papers. I don't have other connections. So, in case, like my supervisor's last student, I fail to conclude the third project, I will have only two papers by the end of my PhD.
My supervisor has declined to help me in this regard, citing the fact that this will interfere with my main research, and hence my PhD will be delayed.
In the meantime, I have done some research myself and discovered a suitable project that I will like very much.
However, the issue is that I am feeling a little scared to venture into it all by myself because of potential time overruns and a lack of guidance.
What should I do now?

Why are you scared?

And why do you want/need another scholarship?

Consider what Buffy has remarked on the possibility of focusing on the main project. But if you want to start an independent project apart from your main one, I would suggest you ask someone to work with you. Before that, make sure you explain to your advisor and convince him that this is a pet problem that you are thinking of working on it only in your free time and will definitely not interfere with your main project. If he doesn't allow it or is hesitant, perhaps it's not such a good idea.
If he is okay with that, then, I would suggest to look for someone at Postdoc level who is working on the same field. Since Postdocs are at initial stage of research as a professional, they are mostly very keen in exploring if they find the problem interesting. Ask them what they think about the problem and its importance to people in the field. It will be better if you can find someone from your own institute, if not then, then you can explore other options. You can try contacting Professor, but its rarely if they be interested.

If you can manage the finances and that wouldn't end your chances, I guess I'd suggest that you follow your advisors advice and prioritize finishing your degree work. Taking on an additional responsibility would have the risk of delaying your graduation.
If the alternate research is especially appealing to you, not just for the money, then you can still devote a bit of time to it, by, mostly, keeping notes on ideas you have for later follow up after finishing. It is useful, in fact, to have a notebook of future research ideas when you start a career.
If money is an insurmountable problem, talk to your advisor about what options you have and work out a solution that involves either money or time or both.
But if you are doing intense research toward your degree, it is useful to take occasional breaks both to strengthen your body and relax your mind. A "low priority side project" isn't necessarily a bad thing if you don't let it interfere. But, if it does interfere it could be the worst case scenario. Talk to your advisor, especially about money.

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


text:
Postdoc vs Assistant prof in a lower tier university
I am from South Asia and am doing a Ph.D. in molecular simulation in the EU.
My long-term goal is to become a world-class research professor with a good supply of research funds at a top-ranking, prestigious university anywhere in the world.
Suppose, when I am done with my Ph.D., I get two offers at around the same time:

A postdoc in the EU
A permanent position as an assistant professor at a Chinese or Southeast Asian (e.g., Malaysia, Thailand, etc., but not Singapore) tier 2 or 3 university.

Which one would be more helpful in achieving my long-term goal in the future?

How can we know? What's your long-term goal? "Academic career" is a rather generic goal, surely you have more specifics in mind!

I think that there is a vast gap between the best universities in China and most of the ones in SE Asia. You have to be more specific about your options. Surely there is a difference between going to Peking or Fudan University, and going to Mae Fah Luang University.

I think it is clear that a postdoc at a good place in Germany will get you much further than a low-Tier professorship almost anywhere. This presumes you want to end up in a Tier-1 institution in the end.

"Suppose I get" meaning you don't actually have these offers in hand yet? Is there some practical, answerable problem that you're actually currently facing that we can address? My understanding based on the Don't Ask page is that you should ask about actual problems that you have, not about problems you might theoretically face in the future. The question is also rather subjective as written; what do you mean by "better"?

Possibly related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2206/what-are-the-tradeoffs-involved-in-taking-a-postdoc-at-a-top-university-versus-a https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/148847/postdoc-vs-academic-position?noredirect=1&lq=1 https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/24238/career-choice-another-postdoc-in-a-strong-university-or-faculty-in-a-weaker-on?noredirect=1&lq=1

You would probably get better results by asking your PhD supervisor and/or others in your institution, as they know your circumstances.

@Flyto, I already managed a PostDoc in Sweden. So, I am not thinking about Asian professorship any more.

If you want to be (become) attractive to a top research university you will need to build a significant resume. A mid level assistant professorship isn't the best place to do that, but it is possible, depending on what sort of research the other faculty there do and their success.
A postdoc at a top level university in Germany (or elsewhere) seems to be a much better path if it doesn't require teaching and has, again, a very active faculty in your field.
But pay attention to the quality of the other faculty in your field, not just the reputation of the university as a whole. You will want to do a lot of collaboration early on as it can lead to more publications as well as better breadth in your own field.
But, be aware that nothing is guaranteed. There are many paths to the top, but none of them are easy. Most require sacrifice of other things in life. How far you get depends on you and what you produce. You can piggyback a bit early on, but not forever.

Caveats: Note two things. First, it is possible to have a fine and rewarding career at a mid level university even without the extreme focus on research. Second, not many of us get to make such a choice, especially in a difficult academic marketplace.

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


text:
Is short-term or long-term PostDoc better for academic career?
Is working on a 1-year postdoctoral project better or worse than multi-year (2–3 years) postdoctoral projects for a research academic career, and why?
A supplementary question: Is three 1-year postdoc better or worse than one 3-year postdoc?
N.B. I am from Computer Science.

@Aruralreader, what are your aspirations? -- To become a research professor as soon/quickly as possible.

I would always prefer to longer project. You can leave after a year if you find something better. Since becoming a (research) professor involves a good deal of luck, be sure to have a plan b.

One year? Move halfway across the country or continent, find a flat, build a new social environment, and after one year move to the next place?

Is it really a 1-year postdoc, or is it a 1-year renewable (with near automatic renewals)? At my national lab all postdocs are temporary employees and their contracts are one-year renewable.

@JonCuster, 1-year non-renewable. However, you are welcome to tell your part of the story.

@user366312 - Hmmmm.... Personally, I would avoid a one-year non-renewable appointment - too much time spend relocating and not enough time to get to high productivity.

Most of the open positions as assistant professor require at least 3 years of postdoc experience. A period of 3 to 5 years is a reasonable postdoc training, even though this can be highly dependent on your field. I have seen one postdoc becoming assistant professor after 2 years only, but this is very unusual. Conversely, I know many people who have been postdocs for over 10 years. This is because you need remarkable achievements to become a tenure-track assistant professor (several high profile publications, grant acquisition, etc.). If your CV is strong enough, none will force you to do a second postdoc. You better move forward with your career. I agree that a postdoc needs to be reasonably fast if they want to apply for a starting grant to open their lab. Eligibility criteria for these funding opportunities usually require max of 7-8 years from the PhD award date.

I am from Computer Science.

My advisors always recommended at least 2 years for a postdoc. The first reason is because the transition to a new location and research group is cumbersome. Therefore the first 3 months is slow progress.
The second reason is that the search process for a new postdoc takes some time; this is doubly true for faculty positions. In my field the timeline from application to start for a faculty position is about 9 months. Even if you only have to apply for a new postdoc, that would ideally start several months before your current appointment is set to end.
So a one year postdoc just doesn’t give much benefit in my field-unless you do it as a year deferral from an already accepted faculty role.

Yeah the problem with a one year postdoc is that you would basically have to start looking for a new one as soon as you started.

First, this is highly field-specific. In experimental wet lab life-sciences research, for instance, a one-year postdoc will barely get you any data, let alone a paper.
Second, if you aspire to become a research professor, what will determine your chances is a combination of your output (i.e. papers, presentations at conferences etc.), your funding record, your prior training and expertise/skill set and your future research vision/ideas. All of these will need time to accumulate and mature and the latter two will also determine how attractive you are as a hire depending on departmental needs and/or 'what's hot' in the field (neither of which you will have much control over). How you reach this stage, matters much much less. Some people will be ready to start a group straight out of their PhD (rare I would say), others benefit from more training and time (myself included).
Some unsolicited advice: thinking about your postdoc in terms of "speed" and "quick, get me out of here so I can become a research professor" sounds like the worst motivation to start a postdoc in the first place.

First, this is highly field-specific - Is it?  What is a field where a 1-year postdoc would be better?  I don't think it's better in theoretical fields either.

In theoretical computer science you can apply after one year of postdoc. In computer science in general, you can apply without any postdoc.

I worked both on theoretical physics and applied Biostatistics. 1 year postdoc would be terrible in both fields. The only way I would accept a 1 year postdoc would be to extend a current contract, or if it wouldn't require reallocation. In addition, the project wouldn't demand to learn many new things and provide clear deliverables for the period.

All of the "maturing" you're describing purportedly used to happen during the first years of a TT job back when people typically got those directly out of a PhD more frequently. I.e., back when supply and demand wasn't as terrible for workers in academia. It's the same in hotter subjects that still have some of that character, like CS. "Quick, get me a promotion to a position that is less garbage from a labor perspective" is a great motivation to have in a postdoc.


text:
Do professors hold lower occupational prestige than physicians in the UK and the USA?
In South Asia, university professors hold much lower occupational prestige than physicians. There are two reasons for that:

People think that their lives are in the hands of doctors, so it is better to revere them.
Doctors earn a lot (20 times as much, sometimes more)

Is this the same case in the USA and the UK?

Social status works differently in these countries

American here, and I don't believe this question is answerable. Rather I would say that, in the USA, social status is in the eye of the beholder and there is no real cultural consensus. I would answer your question "no", but I wouldn't be surprised if many Americans said "yes".

I see a lot of close votes on this question, but I believe it could be answered definitively with survey data.

@Ian Agreed, usual Ac.SE "social science methods don't exist"

It may be answerable, but is it really “about academia”? Maybe, I guess, if I squint really hard…

Occupational prestige in the US is very much driven by salary.

What about professors who are physicians?!

usa
According to the 2012 General Social Survey, professional prestige for physicians is a mean of 7.6. This is higher than any university professor categories including physics (7.2) and biology (6.9).
I can’t comment definitively on statistical significance of those differences, but this also matches my professional experience in the US.

2012 is quite long ago. A lot has changed in the medical field since then. All of my doctors (many many) are now employees of corporations. Their support staff, though not the doctors , often wear corporate logos. I view this a step backwards, actually.

@Buffy The professional prestige used to create those numbers is actually a scale developed in the 1960's, so it is even worse.

The survey even mentions computer tape librarian!

It depends on the university, as well. A community college English professor does not hold the same "prestige" as a Princeton professor of, say, economics.

A particular US-born Australian Vice Chancellor (who, in the US would be called a "president") once told me that would never put "Professor" as the title on an airline ticket in the US because it was not considered to be important. He would, instead, write "Dr". But in non-US English-speaking countries, he would invariably write Professor.
The difference, in part, is simply that there are academic staff in the US whose title is "Professor" but who would be several promotional-rungs off being thought of as a professor in the other countries. For example, the appointments to permanent academic staff in Australia would be Level A (Senior Tutor; this position is not a TA), Level B (Lecturer), Level C (Senior Lecturer), Level D (Associate Professor or Reader), Level E (Professor).
Not only does social status have different appearances in different countries, but the effects of terminology are confounded with actual job position and societal role.

Interesting observation and I would agree. Also, here's a US State Department guideline that generally follow what you're suggesting https://fam.state.gov/fam/05fah01/05fah010420.html

@RichardErickson The link is fascinating. To paraphrase ... Associate Professor with doctoral degree should be addressed as "Dr" (don't demean them by calling them "professor"); without doctoral degree, address as "Professor". Not so in the UK. ... nor in the Soviet Union where women dominate in the medical profession and where (therefore???) being a "doctor" is not such high status, or certainly wasn't during the Soviet era.


text:
Is taking tests after each lecture a good idea?
Suppose I deliver a 1.5-hour lecture on Python programming on each Monday. Generally, the passing criteria is to take a comprehensive exam at the end of the semester.
What if I eliminate the final comprehensive exam and replace it with a class test at the beginning of each lecture?
E.g., I start the semester on February 5, 2024. On the first day, I deliver a lecture. Then, on February 12, 2024, I conducted a 15-minute multiple-choice or one-line or one-word short-question test on the lecture that I delivered on February 5, 2024.
The final grade will be based on the average of all the tests.
What kind of issue may arise in this system?

@xxxxxxxxx, Yes, I am teaching.

I once had a Calculus class with a professor who started almost every class with the statement "Please take out a sheet of paper". Pop quiz time. The quizzes count, but not for the entire grade. We hated that guy, but we learned Calculus. That is the tradeoff.
It is the stick half of the carrot and stick approach. You knew that you needed to study for every class. The difference was, however, that the quiz was at the beginning, covering recent material, forcing you to stay up to date. I think it would be less valuable at the end of the class. At the end of class, a quiz would rely more on short term memory rather than real learning. The next class period tries to force some review of material which aids learning.
I once had an "end of class" ritual that seemed effective, though probably only for the most attentive students. It wasn't graded. I started doing this because I found that (in a CS class) many students weren't taking notes, thinking, incorrectly, that they would just remember what they saw and heard in the class. I spent some time teaching them to take notes on index cards during the class, rather than either doing nothing or trying to capture every word. One "big idea" per card. At the end of the class, I'd take a minute or two and ask "What was the most important idea today", hoping that they had captured it. People would volunteer ideas and I'd confirm, or not. I also encouraged them to spend some time within a few hours to summarize the cards for the class (on other cards) and to carry a bunch of the cards about during the day to review.

For more on this notecard idea see Hipster PDA in my answer to a question on another site.


text:
An assessment system to indicate the outcome of completing an online course
I am a 4th year Electronics engineering student studying in India. I applied to Master's of Science in computer science programs (I wish to change fields) offered by 11 universities in the US, but my application was rejected by all 11 of them.
I am planning to apply to Master's in Computer Science courses for the fall 2017 term, and trying to strengthen my application.
An important part of my application that I wish to address is the lack of formal background courses. Most universities list some courses (particularly : algorithms, datastructures, operating systems, programming languages) as prerequisites to the Master's degree in Computer science, and I possess formal background in none (even though I possess a lot of informal background, but looking at the rejections, it seems that this is not enough).
The last question that I asked addressed (or should I say still addressing) the dilemma whether I should consider enrolling in a graduate pathway program over taking MOOC's. After looking at the responses, and looking many other similar questions, the consensus seems that taking MOOC's is only looked as an indicator of how motivated a student is, and not how much knowledge did the student gain.
To address this problem, I am thinking about (right now just thinking) devising a system that I would follow, that would guarantee to an outsider (the admissions committee) that I have mastered the topic. I quite frequently learn a lot of subjects from MIT's open courseware, and I am thinking of some way (more like an organisational system) to more formally present the things that I have learnt in such a way that reflects the understanding and mastery of the coursework.
MIT OCW courses, and for that matter courses on EdX and Coursera include a lot of material that is actually included in the courses that take place at these universities, and a lot of this material can be used to assess how much a person understands the topic. I think the only problem that needs to be addressed is how to represent the outcome each aspect of the course (say tutorials, recitations, lectures, quizzes, ...)
My final AIM is to design a system (and obviously follow it), and then write down the results (could be daily, weekly, only the test results, ... anything) such that these results clearly represent what and how much have I learnt over a course.
Any and all advise will be helpful. Thank you.

If lacking prerequisites is really your problem, then an admissions committee wants to see that someone they trust (faculty at another university, for example) believes you can do the work in grad school (as indicated by your grades and recommendations from those faculty). They don't want to personally evaluate all your ad-hoc makeup work themselves - that's really not their job. A MOOC curriculum is not going to give you what you need.

@ff524 Could you please turn your comment into an answer?

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


text:
What's going on: I got nothing when many applicants got rejection from the same grad program
I am an applicant of a biology graduate program. After exploring some on a website, the gradcafe.com, I found that I got nothing when many applicants got rejection on a specific day from the same graduate program. Several waves of invitation were alread gone now, but I got neither invitation nor rejection.
Do you think it's a good sign? I don't know much about how graduate admission process is going on. Could you a bit explain this situation?
PS. I asked about it by an email to the office of the grad program, but they didn't answer yet even after 5 days. No phone number available...

They did receive your application, right?

Yes, of course.

Oh you're probably on some unofficial waitlist or something.  Or the email went to your spam folder etc

If you're not status_rejected, that's a good thing.

The only people who know are involved with the admissions process. Maybe they have accepted you, but just have sent the acceptances out or maybe they rejected you and you rejection is in a later batch. They also could have never received or lost your application. You just cannot know. In a situation like this, where you think something is up because other people have heard, it would be inappropriate to ask the admissions team what is happening. If you think they lost your application, and if they sent you an aknonowledgement it is very unlikely, then it might be reasonable to ask. Then again, it is pretty late to check and they are probably not interested in getting a late application.
In simple terms, not having been rejected yet is much better news than having been rejected. Not having been rejected when others have, is not particularly predictive.


text:
Green card or student visa (J1) for a post-doc in the US?
I'm a non-US citizen, considering a post-doc in the states. I'm eligible for a 'green card' through marriage (my wife is a US citizen). I'm deliberating whether I should apply for permanent residency right now or go through the standard path of a student visa (e.g. J1) once I find a post-doc position.
I understand that not being a 'US person' somewhat limits the funding options of prospective advisors. Does searching for a post-doc as a permanent resident holder indeed opens up more opportunities?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of holding a green card instead of a student visa, both prior and during the post-doc?

Some potential employers do not want to deal with your visa needs.  Apply for the green card and hope you get it before you need it.

Doesn't a J1 visa require intent to return to your home country on completion of the program? If so, it may be difficult for the spouse of a US citizen to qualify for one.

The only downside of a greencard is a minimum annual U.S. residency requirement in order to keep it, in the future. Other than that, it blows my mind why someone would consider super-restrictive student visa when elegible for a greencard.

@gnometorule: first, thank you for commenting. Two advantages I know of the student visa over permanent residency are taxation (post-docs on student visa don't pay federal taxes during the first two years) and eligibility for home-country or bi-national personal grants.

@Tal: be careful about your tax treatment on a student visa. Absent double tax treaties, you are subject to U.S. federal and state taxes; and a 2 year exemption as the one you mention might not be as golden as it first seems - you are likely back-paying the taxes from those 2 years later when staying >2 years (you describe it as a Postdoc exemption which is unlikely - it should be under a general NR double tax treaty).

@gnometorule Most countries have those treaties, and with the salaries post-docs get they actually helpful. Also, there is no back-paying after. The bigger problem as people people already mentioned is that J-1 visa holder can have no immigration intent, and should return to their countries for 2 years (one can have waived it though).

Get your green card as soon as possible, do not waste your time with J1 visa. As Patricia said, you have to go back to your country where the visa was issued and you can't come back to USA for period of time (there is 2 years rule) stated on your visa. It is very restricted visa. Talk to an immigrant attorney and find the quickest way to get the green card.

Not necessarily. The "return home" clause (212e, if I'm not mistaken) can be waived in certain cases. I have several friends doing postdocs on J1, which is not as restrictive as a student F visa, and their visa says "exempt of clause 212e"....

I don't think I said exactly that. I just raise the question of whether intent to return home might be required.

On the visa it just says " two year rule may apply".

I was on an F-1 visa, my wife is American and I got my GC through EB2-National Interest Waiver program while I was a in my 4th year as a PhD student. For NIW, you'll need two applications I-140 and I-485. Once I-140 is approved, I-485 will adjust your status from whatever visa you are at now to that of a permanent citizen.
My friend was on J-1 (he is single), he applied for I-140 (NIW), but even if he got approved, he will still will need to go back home for 2 years then apply for I-485 (adjustment of status) after that to get his GC.
However, in your case since your wife is American, you can get a waiver and out-rule the 2 years rule. You will need to have a good lawyer and spend some time at the court. But again, since she is American, she can go back home with you (if possible). Keep in mind that count for citizenship starts ONCE you get a GC (and not when you got married).
For instance, I got married in 2013, but in 2015 I applied for NIW and got my GC within 10 months. It would have been cheaper, faster and easier to apply for GC through marriage [in my case since I was on a F-1!]. But, to be honest, my credentials are extremely good and I figured getting GC through NIW would feel like an accomplishment and looks much better in my resume.
Good luck,


text:
How does a 'quasi-tenured' hire work in practice?
I'm posting to help out a friend. The operational parameters are US + research university + computer science, so I'm looking for information primarily in that context, though the question is not computer science-specific.
He's tenured at one university and applying to another place. The latter has a funny kind of tenure option. In addition to regular tenured hires, they can make a rapid hiring decision based on just a small number of letters (say 3-4) into a quasi-tenured position. When this happens, after the person joins they go through a proper tenure review. So in principle, you could be hired to a "tenured" position but then later find you don't have tenure after all.
It seems to be neither the traditional "enter with tenure" model nor "enter with abbreviated tenure clock" model, but some new thing entirely. Someone I spoke to said this is increasingly common, and he'd heard of other departments that did this too. I have never heard of it before and find it rather strange.
Do you know of departments that do this? How does it work in practice?

This sounds very suspect to me. What would you say if someone told you that they'd loan you money today, but the interest rate will be figured out later?

How is this quasi-tenured, as opposed to an untenured position with a very short tenure clock?  I don't understand the distinction.  Are they suggesting to your friend that the later tenure review is a formality?

That was my thought as well. This is merely a very short tenure clock.

@DavidHill: Well, for one thing, the tenure process is often quite long, requiring approvals and documents at many levels within the institution, and it may be that they can't get through it on the same short time scale that's needed for making job offers.  So I can understand why an institution would need to have such a process.

@DavidHill: It's a little harder to see why a candidate who already has tenure elsewhere would put up with it.  But in many cases, such a candidate will retain the option to return to her previous job if things don't work out (by being on leave for a year or so), so they may have some insurance anyway.

@AnonymousMathematician, yes, the implication is that the later tenure is essentially a formality, though in a strictly legal sense it is, of course, merely a very short tenure clock. As Nate Eldredge points out, this lets a department that cannot complete the process in a brief period of time convey the message, “We intend to hire you with tenure, we'll just work it out in a while”; in contrast, a short clock is a much weaker statement (in particular, with the implication -- depending on clock length -- that the candidate is truly under probation).

I don't see how this is really different from hiring somebody with a very short (i.e. one year) tenure clock.  The difference probably has more to do with the hiring institution's internal rules than anything else.
We had a senior hire with a one year clock a while back.  It wasn't labeled as "quasi-tenure," but that was basically how it worked.  You don't give somebody a one year clock unless you are overwhelmingly sure that the person is going to get tenure.  And that seems to be what this position is offering; the hire will start without tenure, but the expectation is that they will be fully tenured in short order.

Expectations are irrelevant.


text:
After quitting a PhD program, would time off before applying to a new program be harmful?
If one plans to quit one's current PhD program and apply to other PhD programs in other universities, is it recommended that one tries to get to the new program as fast as possible? Waiting could make it possible to apply to several places and choose which suits one best.
Would working outside of academia a period of time before applying or before the new PhD program starts hurt one's chances of getting accepted (or damage one's career later in some other way)? I imagine getting recommendation letters might be an issue if the period is long.
I remember reading that if one should try to find out what work outside academia is like the best point in time to do so is before graduate studies. Myself I have studied my whole life and for many years my only career goal was in academic research, but thinking about the job prospects and sacrifices associated to academia I have become mildly curious about life outside academia. I think some time outside could bring some perspective and a point of comparison. If it matters my own area is pure math.

If you quit, good luck getting recommendation letters strong enough to go to another graduate program. It's one thing if you find the type of math you are interested in now is not well represented in your current department, but if you want to leave because the general academic career path is not as interesting to you then why should another pure math program want to admit you? Just ask your department if you can take leave and return.

I think working outside academia could make one appreciate academic work more than one did before. This could make one even more motivated and determined. Many drift into graduate studies, thinking it as a natural continuation of school (I think this also applies to me to some extent).

Your comment sounds like "I need to go hook-up with other girls to appreciate my current girlfriend". In that case, your passion for a PHD does not sound that great and it is better to head to industry directly before wasting your time on something you are not passionate about. But note, there is a rather great chance that a) you probably will not come back to a PHD b) that if you do, it might still be an act of desperation to escape from a boring industry job.

Aren't academics allowed to know what the world outside the ivory tower is like? I am fascinated by pure mathematics, but I also don't know what the world outside of it is like. Also I mentioned in the post trying a non-academic job is not the only reason one might wait.

"Aren't academics allowed to know what the world outside the ivory tower is like"? Yes they do. You can always do that AFTER the PHD or BEFORE entering a PHD program. If doing a PHD is your real passion, quiting just to return a few years later seems counter-productive.

It wouldn't have to few years, it could be a shorter period of time like a couple of months, half a year or maybe even a year.

If it is for a couple of months or a year you could ask for an unpaid leave from the university. But I doubt that you will get a decent industry job (to see how the outside world is) for such a short period. Can't you apply for an related internship somewhere to see how industry jobs are?

I should note that I'm interested in what is the optimal (in terms of keeping options open) point in an academic career that one may experiment with non-academic work (taking into account "PhD half-life" etc). As for internships I do not know if such possibilities exist.

@Wanderer The optimal points, if you are interested in being a professor, are 1) before starting a Ph.D. program and 2) In a temporary leave after obtaining tenure.

A respectable wish, but perhaps not the best approach. I would suggest a few points to consider:

If you want to form an opinion about what it's like outside of academe based on one single work experience (at one company or organization), then indeed it will be a biased opinion as it will be based on a sample of 1...and you don't know if it's representative of that 'life' or is an outlier. Best case, it will be representative of only one category of jobs outside of the academe (e.g. for profit, non-profit, NGO, small, mid-size, or large orgn, in one industry or another).
I would compare leaving the academe for the 'real world' to not dating another girl to appreciate one's girlfriend, but to hooking up with a guy to see if you like guys better than girls. I think that would be a more accurate reflection of the difference in culture, incentive structure, relationships with superiors/bosses and colleagues, compensation/quality of life, work schedule/flexibility, free time after work, etc. Or like living in a foreign country for a while.

Is it a great learning experience even if it turns out to be a very challenging, boring, and generally unpleasant job? Absolutely. It will teach you how to work with different kinds of people, how to handle responsibilities - in other words you will become more mature and 'seasoned' for what life may bring to you at some later time. You will be better prepared to handle reality.

Leaving a PhD program before graduating is a strike against you, which may result in a vote of no-confidence from past advisors. A more mature approach would be to take a 12-month academic leave, which is perfectly 'legal' and within the boundaries of acceptable professional conduct.

Academic leaves were designed for students whose life circumstances make continuation in a program very challenging, thus providing a way to continue in 'good standing' while taking time off in a structured way. That leave of absence may not need to be explicitly stated on your CV, it will merely postpone your graduation by a year. If employers care enough, they might ask; otherwise it will be hidden in that space on your CV between the graduation date from your Bachelor or Master's program, and the graduation date for your PhD program.

I would recommend against taking a leave of absence for more than a year (there may be a maximum cap of 12 months set by your university's graduate school policies anyway - check with them to find out for sure).
If you do end up taking a leave (which I think is really the way to go in your case), there may be some really cool ways to spend the year other than working the 8-5 drudgery for some firm.

There are countless graduate fellowships, community service organizations, foreign exchange programs, etc. that would be happy to have another warm body in their ranks for a year! Something like an international fellowship or community service experience could give you much broader exposure to different organizations, different kind of people, different workplace settings and cultures, than being stuck in a cubicle somewhere on the 40th floor in a concrete jugle.
So I would cast the net broadly and see what's out there. Your university's career services office could be a great place to go for advice.
Lastly, leaving a graduate program mid-way will mostly likely result in wasted time in terms of what it will take to re-start graduate studies and get to the same place where you are now. Not all credits might be transferred, thus some quarters or semesters that you have already spent in the program may go to waste (at least on paper). It will take renewed effort to build new relationships to secure RA/TA funding. And of course there is always a risk (which someone mentioned already) that you might not come back. A half-finished degree is really no degree, and doesn't count for much on a CV other than explaining what you've been up to for N years (though not necessarily to your credit).
Bottom line: I would suggest to stay in the program but take academic leave for 6-12 months. Before you do, first find a solid opportunity and get accepted/admitted to it, so you know for sure you won't be fumbling for months and wasting that precious time getting something lined up.
Hope this helps. Good luck!

Point well taken. After some thinking I believe this really depends, and have taken that out to avoid generalizing. Thanks for your input.


text:
Due to my depression, the department wants to kick me out of the graduate program. How to stay in this environment?
This is the third installment of the series: What can I do if my advisor wants me to keep working, even while I'm on medical leave for severe depression?
So, many months were gone and I'm still clinically depressed. Medication helps just a little bit, but I don't know how could I live without it. I had a very bad day at the lab a couple of weeks ago, and I posted on my personal profile in a social media that "life sucks, I can't take this anymore, my life is a failure, I wish I were dead".... that stuff. I was on my personal profile, and I wrote something like this before when I got really stressed. Nothing out of this world.
However, some of my lab mates and grad colleagues saw my post and went to the Head of the Program (faculty and staff too) "worried about a suicidal student".
It didn't end well. The HoP called my adviser and asked her about "a troubling student" that she may be dealing with. My advisor tried to save my back saying positive things about me. But the HoP said if I continue causing trouble, my adviser should send me to her and "she will take care of this mess".
This is not a good thing. I heard rumours that the department thinks about getting reasons to kick me out of the program, because if I leave - and never come back - the program itself would be penalized with less government funding. That wouldn't happen if I get expelled. Apparently, they don't want to take that risk.
But I want to stay. So, how to deal with this kind of environment? My professor got my back (after all problems that we had, so I happy for that), but the "Witch Hunters" are lighting up their torches. How to deal with a department that wants your head??
Even if I stay, how to deal with the stigma about depression and suicidal thoughts in academia? Everyone here thinks I'm about to star the second season of the Netflix's series 13 Reasons Why. I am now the "crazy psycho guy."

Is it possible to go over the HoP's head and get protection from the University? Maybe a dean or other administrative higher-up would be able to help you navigate this, especially if you have supporting evidence that the HoP is gunning for you? This is a very delicate situation, but it sounds like your advisor is close to throwing you under the bus, so you need to figure out how to at least make sure you don't get shafted by these people.

I feel that I have to ask -- why do you want to stay in this environment? Don't get me wrong -- I understand that you want to finish your degree, and that you (seem to) enjoy doing research. Unfortunately, however, this doesn't seem to be a very supportive workplace, and constantly being worried about your job security/what your coworkers are thinking will likely worsen your depression, not improve it. So again I ask -- why do you want to stay in this environment?

I'm having some trouble with the way you're mixing the words trouble, troubled and troubling.
If a student shows some red flags for possible suicidal thoughts, it's a good thing when the people around him alert the department, in order for support to be offered.
On the other hand, targeting the troubled student and painting him as a troublemaker would not be good.
As you are currently not in as good shape, mental health-wise, as you would like, it's difficult for me to know how objectively you are able to be, currently, in your perceptions and interpretations.  That is, I'm not sure whether your colleagues are actually targeting you for possible removal from your academic program.
However, I will go ahead and do my best to answer.  I'm not sure what country you're in, or what the laws and regulations are where you are, so I'll write the answer I would give to someone facing the problems you described in the U.S.
People fear what they don't understand.  The key to acceptance of a mental health disability is education -- both of staff and peers.
In the U.S., I would ask NAMI, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, or a local disability rights group, or a county mental health association, to send a trained expert to give a mental health awareness presentation to the students, and a separate training session for staff.
Here is an example of a presentation that a college student gave about her neurological disability, Tourette Syndrome, to her classmates, with the help of a staff ally: https://youtu.be/zVY6B3ezY3k
I get the feeling from your post that you might not be in the right place at this time to give a presentation of this type yourself.  That's okay.  There are people who have experience giving presentations on behalf of a student.
Here is a nice website with suggestions for how to seek reasonable accommodations for a disability in the workplace (in the U.S.) -- I think this may give you some good ideas, and in general instill you with more of a belief that you are entitled to accommodations! -- Job Accommodation Network.
It would be great if you could participate in a peer to peer support group.  In the U.S., in order to find such a group, one can try to find such a group with the following techniques:

google
ask a mental health professional, since these providers often have an email discussion group through which they can query each other about such opportunities
ask a government information service (one reaches it by dialing 211)
ask a psychiatric ward at a local hospital
the campus counseling center may have organized some groups of this type
ask the county mental health association
ask NAMI
if necessary, take the initiative and form such a group

You should not be fired for depression, but if starts to interfere severely with your work, the university can fire you due to poor performance. I know people who battled depression (not as my coworkers though), and a very realistic advice would be as follows:

Get your own issues in order. Your medication is NOT WORKING. This has nothing to do with the University, but psychiatric therapy is way more "hit and miss" than other fields of medicine. So, go to your psychiatrist, explain to him/her that your depression interferes with your work to the point where you may get fired for it. Explain EVERYTHING that you explained here.
I am sure your psychiatrist will change/adjust your medication and possibly, suggest that he/she writes a letter to the head of the department to at least buy more time for your medication to start working.
Unfortunately, if your illness do not get any better and you still are unable to do your work, then I am afraid, yo will not be able to continue this job. Top research is psychologically very demanding, even if one is completely healthy. Consider changing your job.

Perhaps you did not want to hear this, but as I said, this is perhaps the only realistic advice I can give.

I downvoted this answer because I think there are more effective ways of suggesting someone check in with their doctor for a medication check, and of suggesting someone take a step back to rethink their employment situation.

@aparente001What are more effective way of suggesting than telling the person this exact thing??

Example: Have you discussed your medication regime with your medical provider recently?  Perhaps some dosage adjustments, or an adjustment in the choice of medications, would give additional improvement. // Have you thought about whether this position is a good match for you at this time?  Top research is psychologically very demanding, even if one is completely healthy.

"Advice" in the post becoming "telling" in a comment indicates the severe aggressiveness of the answer. +1 to suggested edits.

The best thing that happened in the midst of all this is you got the support from your boss. When I had depression (still recovering) it's the one thing that I was most thankful for. Not every one will have this kind of support.
Like someone else said in their answer, when you are depressed you are more likely to experience exaggerated feelings that other people are trying to sabotage you. It happened to me. But regardless, you need to know you cannot change how people think and talk about you. And worrying about it would wear you out even more. When you are well again all those rumors would just go away on their own.
You need to be clear about what's making you depressed. From your previous posts I assume most of the stress comes from work. If it's relationship with others in the lab, learn to ignore them and accept that evil people exist and they are there to make you stronger. If it's work performance related, talk to your boss and let him know that your energy and motivation levels are low because mental problems do affect people physically. Ask him to give you time to slowly pick things up and restart again. As for yourself, just do the simple tasks first to regain confidence then move on to the more challenging ones. Don't worry about results too much as you can always repeat when you feel better.
I find that taking a break from work doesn't necessarily work for everyone. It's more like a general piece of advice that psychiatrists offer to anyone. If you truly want to have a career in academia you need to accept the fact that this job would only get tougher and tougher, and you need to be prepared to face all kinds of problems and crises. Then you would perhaps feel a bit easier to face the problems. Changing lifestyles worked for me in some ways as well.
Keep your chin up! Talk to your peers, professors, people who have similar experience as you. You would probably find that a lot of them are going through the same things and you are all trying to survive in the same environment...

I'm not convinced about the advisor having his back. Earlier installments in this story make the advisor sound either very clueless or a little hostile towards the OP's condition. Plus I'm guessing that the story about the HoP's intention came from the advisor. If he really were solidly behind the student, he wouldn't have relayed that. It's exactly because people who are in vulnerable positions tend to be too optimistic and trusting that I think the OP should be careful.

It's not impossible but the OP also really likes him and he gives me the impression of being pretty genuine at least. Some PIs are actually clueless when it comes to management etc. They either really don't know what's going on or pretends to be because they don't want drama and sometimes things do work out better without too much meddling. Statistically speaking most PIs want good things for their students so OP's advisor would have to be really cunning to do something like that.

Most universities in the UK (and imagine this would be similar in the US and most other countries?) have both support centres provided by the university, and students' union advisors. Support centres may be split in different branches, but there's usually some port of call for disability-related issues. Perhaps you could try and make an appointment with someone at your university's disability centre? In many places they can draw up what is known here as a "support plan", which actually mandates how your department should handle the issue, and they take care of informing relevant people on a strictly need-to-know basis and can intervene if anything untoward should happen. They are usually very experienced with dealing with all sorts of problems and prejudices, too. This sounds like the kind of support you may need to deal with the situation in your department. If they can't help or things go sour and your department starts to actively try and get rid of you or something, then I would try and speak to someone at your students' union (or graduate union, or postgrad association; whatever body is representing you on campus). They will have resources and intimate knowledge of regulations etc. and can intervene--that's a big part of what they are there for.
The overall message here is: This is a tricky situation and has issues very specific to your environment, so your best available resource might be that which is system-internal and knows all the specifics and actually has a managerial and/or legal mandate to do something to help you in your type of case.
A lot of what other people have suggested here (getting outside people in and trying to force reeducation on your department) might not help, but rather make you appear confrontational and make the situation more difficult. And, if they actually have real negative attitudes toward the situation, I doubt they'd agree to such external intervention anyhow and you cannot make them. Those things are real bombs, and I think it would be wise to try to handle things internally first and minimise the number of potentially burned bridges.
Just as a side note, and this will really depend on your jurisdiction and university regulations, but in many places, academic institutions have different rules for students regarding 'leave' vs. 'suspensions'. If this were in the UK, and I'd hear your description of the status quo, I'd think you're in the wrong category and would be better served by fully suspending your status for a half year or year, meaning you'd be completely out of the system and everything would be put on hold. But as I said, these things depend so much on the place you're at that it is impossible to say much about it without knowing where you're based.

I've been wondering for some time about how supports are planned for in European countries.  Thanks for the info.  By the way, what you call "support plan" is known in the US as "504 plan" or "504" for short.  It's based on federal legislation and regulations called "Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act."

@aparente001 Section 504 really only applies to K-12. IEPs don't exist for postsecondary education and especially not for grad level.

@ElizabethHenning - I think you are confusing 504 with IDEA.  IDEA is the legislative underpinning of IEPs; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is the legislative underpinning of the so-called "504 plan."  IEPs are not used in college but 504 plans are.  See, for example, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/transitionguide.html.

Florian, I do really hope you will post an answer at the question about Europe. // I really like your suggestion of trying to work with the university's disability centre. // Could you expand on what you wrote in your third paragraph?  Is this warning based on a bad experience you had with a disability awareness presentation?  What do you think of the sample presentation I linked to?

@aparente001 Section 504 plans are often (imprecisely) referred to as IEPs because they're functionally equivalent. The DoE link says nothing about postsecondary 504 plans because they don't exist. https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/choosing-starting-school/leaving-high-school/are-there-ieps-and-504-plans-in-college

@ElizabethHenning - Interesting.  Was it school personnel or parents that you heard refer to 504 plans as IEPs?  What state?  Urban, suburban or rural environment?  Large school or small?  Elementary or secondary?  I'm asking out of true interest. // Some functional differences I've noticed: 1 - government oversight is different; 2 - parent participation guaranteed under IDEA but not under 504; 3 - goals are required under IDEA but not 504.

Maybe I was simplifying things too much when I wrote, "IEPs are not used in college but 504 plans are."  Let me try again.  IEPs are not used in college, but reasonable accommodations (adjustments) may be provided in college under Section 504.  By the way, reasonable accommodations may be provided to a K-12 student under Section 504 without a formal plan having been written.

@aparente001 There's no EU-wide uniform approach to this. Even in the UK, for students this depends from institution to institution (staff are employees, so different regs apply). Anywhere within the EU it is illegal to treat people unfavorably due to disability, but how this is implemented varies country to country. In the UK, the main thing is an obligation for education providers (and employers) to make "reasonable adjustments". See government info here: https://www.gov.uk/rights-disabled-person/education-rights -- and here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/10/contents.

@aparente001 No issue with presentation. My reservation is about strategy: Going straight to getting outsiders in and to educate people presumes: i) they don't care/are not willing to help presently, and ii) they don't know. Both of these implications might be perceived as unfair (and may actually be unfair). It's like going to police before even giving someone a chance to explain/fix it after damaging your property. Insiders also usually know people involved, so may be perceived as less hostile. I know people who had unnecessary problems because they were being too confrontational early on.

@FlorianBreit - I know people who had unnecessary problems because they were being too confrontational early on -- I hope the tone of my answer wasn't confrontational. // The sample presentation I linked to shows the student giving her own presentation, but we're able to hear support from someone who seems to be on staff in the background.  It's great when the individual is able to give his or her own presentation, but my hunch was that OP is not at that place right now. // My experience is specifically in the Tourette and OCD world, and there, students find peer and staff education...

... invaluable.  When a representative from the Tourette Association or the International OCD Foundation is invited to give a staff or peer presentation, it's always, in my experience, a win-win situation.  Of course, if the university has people in-house who have the expertise and the gentle touch to be able to provide staff and peer education about the student's condition, that's great.  But OP's series of posts suggest that may not be the case at that university.

And thanks for the links. // I took a quick look in Google Scholar for studies about the effects of peer education.  Here's one article chosen at random: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0145445505279379. // By the way, disability rights are somewhat different in education vs. in the workplace as well.  That seems natural.

As  indirectly mentioned in other answers:  In the U.S., you can get a health care professional to provide documentation for an accommodation.  This is a reasonable accommodation for the "Americans with Disabilities Act" (ADA).  I recommend getting one ASAP.  See other answers about talking to psychiatrist for change of medications, etc.  It's important to treat everyone else well so that nothing true can be said of you that would be a cause for discharge.  Also, try to use 'work as therapy' -- the more you get done, the better you may feel about yourself.


text:
Is it appropriate to give feedback to instructor about final exam?
I wrote a final exam in a course, in which the professor said that he would not test our memory and give all the needed formulae, so I didn't concentrate on memorizing them.
Would it be appropriate to politely send the professor an email with some feedback / opinion about this situation? And if this would be appropriate, what would be the best way to express this opinion as neutrally and politely as possible? So that the professor wouldn't think that I'm mad at him or something like that.

Possible duplicate of Grounds for official complaint if students misinformed about exam

Voting to close.  This is almost identical to a question you asked earlier today: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/88431/32436.  Please close one of your questions; feel free to edit the one you keep.

I deleted the other one. It pertained to this issue, but it wasn't quite the same.

Appropriate? At my university, student feedback on learning and teaching is practically mandatory.

Students complain about assignments and exams all the time, and professors are quite used to this form of feedback. If enough of you complain, this feedback may be taken into consideration.

@AlexeyB. I don't know how many students would complain about dissatisfaction about the need to perform a heavy amount of massive numbers calculations using just a simple calculator, rather than concentrating on concepts. While to me, this is almost depressing, to other this may be "normal"...

The personalities of professors vary wildly, so you may want to first consider if your professor would be open to feedback about the exam. Also, make sure that you aren't the only or one of a few students who made such mistakes. For instance, is it possible that you missed some content or communication about the exam? If you are on the same page as others, you have a stronger case.
If you feel like giving feedback is beneficial, make sure that you express it constructively and professionally. Some professors may dismiss feedback that simply comes across as "This wasn't fair." For instance, explaining that "many students who studied were confused by some of the communication about how to approach the exam. Is it possible to have a review sheet provided for the next exam?" Or "I studied and followed instructions on the exam, but am confused about how I missed some things that were discussed before the exam. Can you help me understand where I went wrong or how to better prepare next time?" This is less confrontational and helps open a difficult dialogue.
I hope this helps!

Good answer. Sometimes (I do not imply that this is the case here) students misinterpret what has been communicated by the professor, and this can happen for many reasons. I wonder if the professor gave a list of topics for examination.

@PsySp I've double-checked - he certainly said that all the needed formulae would be given. But my main problem is that I felt like an accountant on a physics exam.

@sequence I do not understand: Was there a question that needed some formulas to solve and that formula was not given? "I felt like an accountant": While I understand what you mean, each instructor has her/his own style of examining.

@PsySp Yes, there was such a question.

And there you have the ambiguity: "All needed formulae…". Does this include, e.g., x^2 >=0, 1+1=2? Surely not, but probably you do not refer to these formulae. It may just be that you and your instructor drew the line between "common knowledge" and "formula that needs to be given" at different places…

@Dirk No, not common knowledge. The formula was very specific to the  field, not common at all. I bet you don't know it if you don't know astronomy. And I'm not talking about Kepler's laws.

Would it be appropriate to politely send the professor an email with some feedback / opinion about this situation?

Sending feedback may be OK, but sending your opinion, on the other hand, may not be welcomed. (Well, it is not helpful you both you and the instructor and will almost surely read as a complaint…)
As for most question that ask for "how to give feedback on…" the most important part of the answer is
Respect basic feedback rules.
Some of these are: Stick to facts, not opinions. Describe your experiences, but don't judge the other's behavior. Use "I" and "me" more than "you".

That's exactly how I did. No complaining tone, and not a single "you", except where I praised his course and his teaching.


text:
Become researcher after PhD at 40
How real is it to become a "formal" researcher (that is someone holding some research position) after earning a PhD at the age of 40? Sometimes it so happens that people discover their true interest only later in life. But because society is used to follow certain established patterns, it may be difficult for such people to readjust their lives. I believe there exist certain biases or prejudices about what people are supposed to do at a certain age, which may hinder one's path socially, emotionally, as well as professionally.

@Saturnus Are you a postdoc?

@Saturnus I mean can you be considered a "formal" researcher, as per my definition above?

@Saturnus One can also be a professor, as per my understanding. Also, from what I've read, postdocs usually earn less than professors.

@Saturnus I don't get that sentence. Of course postdoc is not that. Pretty much by definition of a postdoc in fact.

Just so you are aware OP, places like this are not conducive to "uncomfortable truths". Academia in general is not really conducive to uncomfortable truths...

@WetlabWalter Can you please elaborate?

It depends a lot on the field you are in. In some fields, almost everyone who ends up being a professor has had a previous career outside academia. An example is education where your previous background will be considered a plus and there is no stigma attached to being older.
But there are also fields where yours would be a very uncommon career trajectory and where people have the perception that researchers' best contributions come when they are still young. Mathematics would be an example. In these fields, you will probably have a harder time finding a career as a researcher in academia, though I suspect that it makes little difference if you are going for an industrial research position.

Do you mean that it would also be a harder time finding a career as an industrial research mathematician or that it would be less hard and there would be little difference with an academic position?

I think that industry cares more well-educated, productive employees who have the experience to work in groups on projects. Whereas research universities seem to place more emphasis on "promise", "brilliance", etc. I suspect that industry would value any previous experience you have, where at universities it may get in the way more than help.


text:
What is the best age to go to school?
Einstein's best work was not till after he was 30 years old. Is it possible for some people to mentally develop later in life obtaining the ability to learn Math and other subjects easier than when they were younger?
I heard that younger minds learn easier but is that always?
A side question:
I understand school is much harder now than then? So what is a D now would be an A++ then?

Not sure we can give you any real answer...seems like a psychology/human development question rather than an academic one...of course there are example of both old and young people making big contributions, so the answer to the "always" question is probably no...but the Einstein example seems a bit of a stretch, he mastered calculus when he was 14 and published some of his most influential papers at 26. Anyway, not sure where you are going with this, one shouldn't make career decisions based on the likelihood of being the next Einstein.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that people who achieve excellence in a field later in life could have done so if they hadn't already spent much of their life getting to that point? Or that people who do spontaneously achieve greatness late in life couldn't have done so earlier if they tried?

There is a Chinese saying about learning: The best time to plant an oak is 40 years ago. The second best time is right now.
Your question has little practical meaning, unless you think it might be good to wait to learn. It won't be. Newton "invented" parts of the calculus while barely out of his teen years. He didn't publish it. Leibniz reinvented it when about 30 years old (and about 15 years later). I've worked with mathematicians in their 50s who had marvelous insight and many many publications. I've worked with even older computer scientists.
Go to school when you have the opportunity.

@Muze - you might try reddit or somewhere....I too was initially off-put by how many interesting questions get closed...but we really look for specific, objectively-answerable questions, whereas Reddit is better suited for discussion questions like this one.


text:
Where do all the essays go in college?
At my college I worked in the back room shredding graded essays from various subjects for hours.
Some of them were very good and seems like a gross waste of data and labor.
I wonder is this the policy of all colleges?
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/40595/can-database-be-collected-from-essays-written-in-college

I certainly hope my university isn't mining my essays to sell data ....

Please do not post partial answers or data points as comments.

@Wrzlprmft how is this to broad if comments were good enough to be an answer. How many answers can come from this? or is it just a bad question?

Colleges have to keep everything that influences grades of students for a certain time in order to resolve disputes over grades. In our case it is 3 years.

and given confidentiality rules, shredding is probably the best plan after the hold time.

"Everything that influences grades" is putting it a bit strongly. I only have to keep final exams, and only for one year.  I can discard/destroy graded homework, midterms, project reports, and anything else except final exams at the end of the semester.

@JeffE so you can get rid of them but I am interested is can you keep them to collect data?


text:
Should I choose industry internship or research assistant job at the lab?
Currently, I'm a CS master student and I want to apply for a PhD program in the coming Fall. I'm interested in the system research (i.e., distributed system).
Right now, I have two opportunities presented in front of me:

Go to a professor's research lab over the summer. The professor's interest is in distributed storage and that quite matches with my interest.

Pros: Work with a professor directly
Cons: there isn't much pay and I want to rely on myself financially instead of family.

Do a software internship with High-Performance Computing (HPC) Infrastructure.

Pros: Good pay and industry experience that relates to my interest (HPC infrastructure is related to general distributed system (Dynamo, Spanner) but not quite the same). I also heard system research values industry experience more but not sure this is true (internship is from a big company but not in Tech industry)
Cons: is not research experience

To make thing complicated, I have contacted the professor before I got the internship offer and I don't know if I should talk my situation with the Professor. In addition, I'm an international student and if I couldn't get to a good PhD program, I may want to go to industry directly but I'm not sure if an experience in a research lab helps.
Questions:

Which one should I choose?
Should I talk to the professor about my situation?
Does systems research value industry experience (more than other fields)?

PS: Thanks for the editing the format and input from comments

We can't tell you what you should do. Perhaps focus your question on facts you are unsure of that we could help clarify. One might be: does systems research value industry experience (more than other fields)?

Thanks for the input. I add your comment into the question :)

If you want to stay in Academia, get an internship in research lab. If you want to have a high pay job in industry after you get the masters degree, take the internship with an HPC. Simple as that. Would you please explain why do you have this question?

I'm interested in the distributed system but it's really hard for me to come up with good intuition and research problems about the system without actually see some production system in real life. Maybe I can achieve the same by reading papers? Also, I think some work experience in the US can help me to get a job if I didn't get a good PhD program (working with the advisor I want to work with). @scaaahu

The answer depends on the people involved. If I were your professor, I would appreciate it if you would explain the situation and ask for advice.
Of course, I would not give you any advice ;-), but I would ask you some questions which might help you finding a good decision - and maybe this is a hidden job interview.

May I ask what questions are :)

Hard to tell - it depends really on the flow of conversation. I would try to figure out what's best for you, which skills you are lacking, your financial situation, your research interest, your future career plans, ... It's more a coaching...

Thanks for the advice. Actually, I talked with my professor and we had a pleasant email conversation.

good to hear! Did you come to a decision, yet? All the best!

Yes. Industry experience is actually equally important with research experience.  My professor suggests me to take the internship and find time to do research in the fall semester with some remote collaboration.