text:
Is there an official way to include an image from the internet in a paper?
For a paper we're writing, we need to use a small image of a popular, easily recognized piece of consumer electronics.
In previous drafts of the paper, a long time ago, someone made an image for the paper that ended up being the "headliner" image, i.e., the largest image that explains and outlines the subject of the whole paper. In it, because it was such an early draft and he was just trying to get the concept down, he clearly just googled the name of the piece of electronics and grabbed a random image he liked, cropped it, and put it in the larger image.
Now we're at the stage where we're actually going to submit the paper, but of course now part of our "headline" image is a random picture that we don't own, so I'm in a bit of an awkward position. Hopefully I can at least get the original composite image from the one who made our "headline" image (the image in the paper is flat so it can't just be "ungrouped" so I can remove/replace the offending part), but even then I don't know how to proceed.
So my question is, how can one use images in this way in a professional paper? Are you allowed to use anything on the internet as long as you credit it clearly? And if so, is there some way you're supposed to credit just a random URL?

This is a really good example of why it's important to be careful about copyright from the beginning: there's really no good way to ensure that you can actually secure permissions to use a random image.  In terms of scientific ethics, you can credit the source, but that is completely unrelated to the fact that you may have no legal right to use the image.
As I see it, there are three good paths to proceed:

Track down the source of the original image (e.g., via reverse image search) and see if it happens to come from somewhere that you can acquire a copyright from.
Search for a similar image that is less restricted by copyright (Wikipedia is often a good source of such, due to their restrictions).
Make your own image.  Since you're dealing with a popular piece of consumer electronics, you might even just lay hands on one and take a picture yourself, then enhance and crop as necessary with image editing tools (there's lots of good free tools out there).

Thank you for the response. So if I can find a free image, like from wikipedia, is there a common way to cite it? For some reason just saying "image from www.wikipedia.com/etcblahblah" seems awkward and wrong.

Wikipedia has a nice article on how to cite material found there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia

While it is somewhat grey area and a bit risky (but IMHO not too much in this context), the OP might consider using a copyrighted image (with proper credit, of course), based on the legal doctrine of fair use, if it is applicable in the OP's country of origin as well as the country of publication.

Depending on the jurisdiction, the photo variant of suggestion 3 could even be somewhat risky, as the photograph might depict printed or sculpted design elements that are a part of the device and that are themselves subject to copyright. (I mean, if depicting ancient artifacts can open up copyright-based legal battles, I can imagine some companies to be picky about depictions of their products.)

Scientific publishing is just a specialized part of publishing. So all the rules on intangible assets apply just as much as in non-scientific editions.
Submitting a paper involves a scientific undertaking: you are making a representation that all scientific ideas contained in the paper are either yours, or have been duly referenced. But it also involves a legal representation, i.e. that you have the right to publish or to have published all content you present. This is why most journals make you subscribe a legal document in this sense.
The easiest solution, in my sense, is to make your own image. That way, there is no possible contest as to who owns the legal rights to the same. It may mean using a photo that is not quite as good from the point of view  of clarity, or for scientific quality. But in the end of the day, what is most important is the innovative thinking contained in your paper, not just the support used to convey this thinking.
Do consider this hiccup as good training for that day, later on, when you will be involved in writing a publication in book form. On that day, you will be happy to have this experience to keep you aware of what can be used from a legal point of view, and what not. Asset management is, perhaps unfortunately, also a part of science.

Hi, thanks for the response. There's one tricky part that prevents me from making my own image (i.e., taking a picture of the object as suggested by someone else as well): without getting too specific, it's a special, fairly rare version of something pretty common, so I don't know where I'd be able to get one in person. Thank you though.

@YungHummmma What has worked for me in the past is to find a suitable image, then contact the author directly. Basically, I asked him pretty please if I could use his image for this and that purpose. He was happy to provide such permission, so I was covered from the legal standpoint. This works mostly with non-professional photographers, who can then say "My images have been published in this Journal" - a bit of a win-win situation. The important part is that there was explicit acceptance by the original author of the photo. Hope this helps.


text:
Another PhD student is going to present my research
I'm doing a PhD with a professor with serious funding problems. He invited me to prepare a presentation for a conference, making it clear that he wouldn't pay for my travel expenses. I, in turn, replied that I didn't have the money to travel to that conference. He offered that another student go present my research because that student, unlike me, is ready to pay for the travel expenses.
My professor claims it to be common practice, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that a student who didn't contribute the slightest bit to my research will be presenting my results. Is it really common practice? What do you think about that offer?

It is not so uncommon to see people presenting on behalf of others (mostly because of visa or funding issues). The main point here is to clearly state during the other student's presentation (and also in the proceedings) that you are the author.

This surely depends on the field. In experimental high energy physics it is very common, I've even heard speaker assignment boards putting up the policy "you already got the credit for conducting the work, now somebody else can shall get the credit for presenting." As you see from the replies, others are not used to this practice.

It isn't necessary unusual for others to present your work if funding is the problem. Equally well, your supervisor can present your work as well. As long as you are named as the author I don't see a problem.

Please note that many conferences have some kind of hardship fund aimed at those who would like to attend but could not otherwise afford to go. It would be worth investigating this if you have not done so already.

As can also be judged from the answers, it is very hard to say anything about common practice without knowing the field of study.

A common requirement for conferences in CS/ES/CPS is that the presenter is listed on the paper as an author. Does the professor also require that the presenter would become a co-author? I would personally find that unacceptable.

As long as you are the author, it doesn't matter who gives the talk.

At least make very sure that you will be first name on paper.

We can answer better if you let us know what your career goals.

In my experience, it is very common for one person to present someone else's conference talk.  I know this happens because at about 5% of talks speaker announces they are doing it at the beginning of the talk.  The reason for this occurring is not usually given.  I would guess the most common reason is that the original speaker changed jobs or graduated, and is no longer able to attend.  I suspect that some speakers wish to give more talks (usually there is a limit of one or two per speaker), so they ask their students who are not able to attend to submit talks for them, and then change the speaker at the last minute.
Personally, I have given talks for colleagues twice.  The first time, the colleague was having a baby (it's mysterious why he didn't know this until a month before the conference) and I gave his talk.  In the second case, the colleague quit science altogether well before the conference.  We asked the conference to remove his abstract and put a new one, with a new author list, in its place.  I made the talk from scratch, with limited content about his work.
I think your professor's proposal is reasonable, but that it would also be reasonable to refuse or to specify how you would like to be credited.  But in my field, conference talks have near zero prestige.  Computer scientists see things differently.

Computer scientists see things differently. Even in CS, what is important is being an author of a paper that appears in the conference proceedings. Who gives the talk is of less importance I would say, as long as it does not conflict with the rules set by the conference (and perhaps does not differ much in prestige from other fields). Of course attending conferences can be important for other reasons, (say, networking).

It is a normal thing that during pregnancy, the pregnant party may experience events or emotions that cause the non-pregnant partner to make significant changes to existing plans. Perhaps you were joking at not being able to figure out a reason?

@iheanyi ... or even just had highly unrealistic expectations of what his free time as a parent of a newborn would look like.

@iheanyi You are right that pregnancies can have unexpected complications, but apparently the event was the baby's due date.  I thought people usually figured that out a bit further in advance.  I didn't feel a need to ask him about it.

@AnonymousPhysicist due dates are not an exact science unless you're doing an induction, in which case you will induce labor at a date you choose within a particular window. Even then, there's no guarantee the baby won't come early. Essentially, even if you know the exact date of conception and get assigned a due date 40 weeks out, there's still +/- 2 weeks around that, especially on first births, where the baby could actually arrive (that would still be normal). Given that many (unless diligently "trying") don't know the conception date, due dates can have an additional week or so of error.

@iheanyi Yes, but that in no way explains his behavior.

Another common reason is Visa issues, I think.
PhD students are often from countries with less favorable visa conditions than the one in which they are studying. Which means a domestic student (or the proffessor) may be able to attend an international conference without a visa. Where as the original author may have there visa refused. Requiring a last minute swap.

A lot of people talked about the pregnancy. What about the guy who quit science altogether? What's his story?

"What do you think about that offer?"

I would accept the offer.
TDLR; I would see it is a good way to maximize the impact of my work.
Indeed, the more people talk about your work the better it is. In the end of the day, it is the paper which is cited and not the talk. In particular, if this is your work, you'll probably be (first) author. Furthermore, I'd be happy to know that there will be one more person who knows how to the use tools I'm creating. Also, if the person presenting the work gets nice contacts/collaborations thanks to the talk, you may get involved you as well. In any case, it is better than nothing.

I would be very concerned about maintaining authorship of the work, especially in fields like computer science where conferences are taken really seriously. There may be some work-around -- for example, letting the other student present it "on your behalf" with you as first author. In your case, though, it sounds like this other student doesn't even deserve to be listed as an author.
Note, this may vary a bit by field. I did my PhD in particle physics, where our whole experiment shared data, and our (large) group shared code, results, etc. In such cases, all our names went on all the reports, even ones we weren't personally involved in. Results from many different studies would frequently be amalgamated into one talk with one speaker. Having one student present another's work would be unusual, but not unthinkable -- in this field, it was the group's work, not the individual. I believe this is unusual, however.

especially in fields like computer science where conferences are taken really seriously — Again: It isn't the conference talk that's taken seriously, but the paper in the conference proceedings. And authorship of the paper is unaffected by the identity of the speaker, even if the speaker tries to claim credit during the talk.

Indeed, I've seen it in plenty of times at NLP conferences, people presenting on work that they are not on the author list at all. (and that is not to mention the very common case of the 2nd or 3rd author presenting)

It depends on the field as to whether this is common practice. I have been to a number of conferences where a presentation/paper has been delivered on behalf of another person.
On each occasion, the slides were done the same as if it were the author delivering the presentation. On most of the occasions, the proxy presenter was also presenting their own paper in addition to that of the colleague who, for whatever reason, were unable to attend and present their work themself. I have only occasionally seen a conference attendee present a paper on behalf of someone else when they were not also presenting their own work. But in all cases the conference guide/abstracts booklet showed Title, Author with sometimes a presented by ... note.

I admit to little experience with this, having not missed an opportunity to present or presented on someone else's behalf.  In my field (which is not a scientific area of academia,) this would not be a big deal.  But it is fairly uncommon, just because remote appearance is now so easy.  It is routine for a presenter to appear via video uplink (generally with at least one other person in the room to take over the presentation if technical glitches make that necessary).
I do not know if it is common practice in your area.  As to what I think of the offer - it seems legit, provided you can submit your own paper (with pride of authorship) to the proceedings, and direct the presentation.  It might be appropriate for you to actually construct any visual aids or presentation materials (and put your name all over them, if you are concerned about attribution).  Put an acknowledgement somewhere public, if you like ("I am grateful to Joe Dokes for presenting my paper and findings at the 2018 Schmoochuckers Conference, which I regrettably was unable to attend.")  On your own or the project website, put in some detail about it ("Joe Dokes, who is not normally a member of the project team, will present my paper and findings at the 2018 Schmoochuckers Conference.  Please attend if you are able, and if not or if you would like to learn more about our work, please connect with the principal author, Starmare.")  If your findings are significant, and it appears your advisor believes them to be, that is very good news!  Congratulations, and take the opportunity to get the word out.

I do recall some papers presented on proxy during conferences I attended during undergrad. There were also some other presentations that were presented by the researchers themselves on Skype. If someone is presenting your research paper on your behalf, it is no harm in asking for the session to be videoed real time for you with due credits to your name in the introduction and the conclusion.
These could be two options you could explore. You could also proactively come up with arrangements for answering questions if there is a question and answer round after.

Since you are doing a PhD it is likely that you are considering a potential future as TT faculty or researcher?  A job in which your expertise on a particular field is your Intellectual Property and recognition of which is part of the basis for gaining funding for grants and facilitating authorship in peer-reviewed journals that lead to your ability to gain tenure and access to better jobs?  Then consider carefully the importance of protecting your own hard work and IP and do not sacrifice it to another PhD student (effectively your competition, whether you are friends or not).  Of course they are willing to present on someone else's work and gain that recognition -- they would put it on their CV, right? -- without putting in the effort that goes behind it!  You should be able to politely and respectfully decline this request.  And if the faculty you are working with pressures or threatens you despite misgivings you might have, that is sketch.  They are looking out for their own interests, not yours, and if it continues to be a problem consider take it to a higher power (your university ombudsperson might be able to offer suggestions) or finding someone else to work with if you are early in your PhD program.  Now, it does not appear to apply in this case, but if you both are working on the same project and the other student is presenting on content that they have worked on and covering some topics that you are working on as well (with proper attribution), that is a different matter altogether.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Recommended Level of Japanese for PhD in internet privacy and computer science in Japan
I am in a process of preparation for applying for a MEXT scholarship in order to continue my Master Thesis in end-to-end encryption over chat-rooms.
Also in order to be able to communicate I am also learning Japanese and I gave the N5 examination. Even though there are Japanese Lessons for Research Students, what the recommended Level of Japanese In order to be able to safely communicate with the professor and research colleagues;
Is English pretty much favoured in Japanese Universities?

I am in a process of preparation for applying for a MEXT scholarship

As I recall, MEXT accepts any level of Japanese and if your level is low they arrange Japanese classes for the first half a year? year? of your scholarship period before you take the entrance exam to officially enter the university program.

what the recommended Level of Japanese In order to be able to safely communicate with the professor and research colleagues

To be brutally honest, at least N2, preferably N1. All the international students in graduate programs I know here had this highest level. The following mixes my experience with information from the Summary of Linguistic Competence Required for Each Level of the exam:
N2 is about using Japanese in "everyday situations", so daily conversations would be no problem. And N2 is when your technical reading starts to get good. Understanding "lectures spoken at natural speed" is N1 level but you might get by with N2. Technical communication one-on-one or in small groups might also be OK -- the other participants can mix in some English and also accommodate your level of Japanese in other ways (speed of speech, vocabulary choice, etc.).
But a lot of academic life involves technical discussion among many people -- seminars, workshops, research/study groups, etc. -- where accommodation of the one foreigner is more difficult. Surrounded by many Japanese debating technical matters at native speed, I feel you need to have nailed the highest level N1 to keep up.

Is English pretty much favoured in Japanese Universities?

Some universities have some specific programs conducted in English. But besides that, in my experience, no. In my field* (and probably yours) at least a lot of the reading and writing of papers can be done in English. But Japanese students and faculty are the great majority, they speak in Japanese among themselves, and classes are conducted in Japanese.
Seminars, study groups, etc. (among students and faculty), as well as symposia, conference presentations, etc. (national organizations) tend to be in Japanese. High level Japanese seems to be necessary to get the most out of academic life here.
* I was in an English Linguistics dept. and communication was conducted primarily in Japanese. Your more technical field might be more 'international' (though some stories I've heard and a quick look at some conference programmes don't make me think so).

I realize this is an old question! I recall reading on meta that giving an answer to old, unanswered questions is encouraged. I hope that is still the case.

For those not familiar -- the MEXT scholarship is the best Japanese government scholarship for international students. And N5 (in the question) and N1/N2 (in this answer) refer to levels of the Japanese Language Proficiency Test, N5 being the lowest and N1 being the highest level.

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


text:
What is the difference between “Hochschule” and “Universität/Technische Universität”, especially for master degrees?
I am really confused by the difference between Hochschule (university of applied sciences) and (Technische) Universität ((technical) university) in Germany, especially with respect to the master’s degree.
What is the main difference and features?
Can a master graduate from Hochschule have a chance to do PhD like a graduate from a university in Europe, US, Canada or Australia?

Related, especially for the last paragraph: Is it realistic to apply to a Master at MIT, Harvard, Yale, Berkeley, Stanford with a Bachelor of a German Fachhochschule?

At least in German universities, PhD admission is possible for those holding a Master's degree from a University of Applied Sciences, but they usually have to take extra exams and prove their qualification before they are admitted.

Does this answer your question? Are Masters degrees from German universities of applied sciences (Fachhochschulen) eligible for PhD?

First we should get the words right. In Germany, a Hochschule is the general name for higher education. A University and a University of Applied Science are both a Hochschule. It is the generalization.
A Fachhochschule on the other hand is just the University of Applied Science.
When it comes to Germany, a graduate from a "Fachhochschule" is allowed to write his or her PhD at a normal university. However, some universities may have some reservations and force you to "prove" your scientific skills, or to attend additional classes.
From the legal point of view, an M.Sc. from the Fachhochschule is equal to the one of the University.
However, the Fachhochschule often awards the Master of Engineering, instead of the Master of Science from the University. (While the M.Eng still allows you to write the PHD)

Do both Fachhochschule and University have the same entry requirements? In the Netherlands, the university demands a Gymnasium degree and the Dutch Fachhochschule equivalent also allows a lower high school tier to enter. So I was wondering if this is the same for Germany? Is the secondary education needed (high school level) also lower for Fachhochschule compared to University?

The term "University of applied sciences" is an attempt at translating the name "Fachhochschule" for the international audience. The issue with this wording is that they are not universities.
They give vocational degrees geared at preparing students to enter the workforce directly. These degrees are typically valued in industry and government or healthcare settings, not so much in academic ones. Note that the Bachelor/Masters system has been (somewhat awkwardly) patched over the previous education system in German-speaking countries. A Bachelor from a Fachhochschule typically cannot get you admitted in a Masters at a Technical university.
What complicates the issue is that some institutions with the word "Hochschule" in their names have university accreditation. These and
technical universities offer more fundamental learning, an education more suitable to pursue academic careers.

but how can someone who has a MSc from Fachhochschule can get to PhD?

@Yaakov If youare in Germany, see my answer here. If you are in a different country (e.g. Austria), then I don't know.

YES I AM IN AUSTRIA. I have 4 friends who are doing their PhD nows with Msc from FH.

Both the answers by Cape Code and user6522399 are spot on. Two other things are:
One additional difference, albeit not related to Master studies but important nontheless: A Fachhochschule usually does not award PhD degrees. It used to be like this throughout Germany, but things changed very recently. So if you get an MSc (or MEng) from a Fachhochschule you will have to change places in most cases.
A bit more related to Master studies: Fachhochschulen do not have the mission to train the students for research - as Cape Code said, they train students to get jobs in companies. Their training is often much more hands on and not focusing on fundamental issues that much. That said, I know at least one Master student from a Fachhochschule who wrote good PhD thesis at a university later…

"So if you get an MSc (or MEng) from a Fachhochschule you will have to change places in most cases." Not sure if it's most cases - I know quite a few "external PhD students", who are employed at a Fachhochschule or some associated institute, and also have a university supervisor who acts as the official supervisor for the PhD thesis.

@lighthousekeeper Yes, this is getting more and more common.

@user64845 I have studied in FH in Austria and I have spoken with a manager in Electronics engineering, in Austria too, and he told me that FH is not a University!!! I am bit shocked and I am thinking to wrote the Minister of Higher Education  in Austria to get a proper infos.

Well, Austria is not Germany. I do not know about the status of Fachhochschulen in Austria but I would not be surprised if the situation is different from Germany.

I did my bachelor of art in a FH. I was confused about it too.
Some of the answers are correct here, but some are not. So few things to clarify:

It all depends on your curriculum and degree in the end. I got B.A. with 27 ECT in empirical research and I got several admission from M.A. programs from good research universities, none of them ask me to do additional courses after they see my transcript and module handbooks.
This is when it gets confusing, yes, FH is generally there to train for jobs, but there are some FHs that offer highly research-oriented courses (who knows why.. but I choose one because I like the major). With the degrees from these courses, you won’t have problems with getting admissions to research universities, it all depends on your GPA.
Most of the research M.A. requires more than 12 ECT in empirical research and I got 27 ECT, so there is no reason for them to reject me just because of a title.
This is, however, not the case for the Netherlands. They have a relatively strict legal distinction, so most of the HBO students have to do pre-master if they enter research universities due to their lack of ECT in research methods.
At the master level though, if you aim for research, go with research university instead of FH. The FH bachelor to Uni master transition can be easy if your curriculum still focuses on research. But the majority of the FH masters will not prepare you for an academic career.
FH does not offer Ph.D. degrees usually, but sometimes in collaborations with some universities, people complete parts of their PhDs in an FH, because there are FHs that have really good reputations in certain majors and have collaborations with universities.

Few things to add: If you have chance or not, it depends on your curriculum (if you have learned and practiced research methods needed...) and degree (as long as you have M.S. or M.A.). (Also, connection with the professors, funding availabilities, etc...) Legally there is no problem, but of course, it depends on the skills you have acquired during your studies. If you get into only FH Masters, it’s not the end of the world. In Germany, you can take additional courses or be guest students at other research universities in your region too. (I think you need to pay in certain areas, but in some regions, this is possible and completely free) Just try to get good grades in those additional courses in research universities to prove yourself, it will count.

Thanks for your answer. but how can someone do additional courses at TU?

Since you have asked this question five years ago, things have changed and more people from Fachhochschulen are doing PhDs (although you still have to have a supervisor from a proper university). I know many people who do a joint PhD, where they stay at the Fachhochschule and do their research there (most of the time applied research), but are enrolled as a PhD student at a proper University.
The main issue is that many of the disciplines that one can study at a Fachhochschule differ from the disciplines that are taught at proper universities, so finding a supervisor can be challenging, as their specialty might be quite far from the aspiring PhD students area of study. Thus, it is quite common that the PhD candidate from the Fachhochschule needs to take several additional courses.
In general, if you have really good grades and are determined to do your PhD, is is perfectly possible to do it even with a Fachhochschul-Master, albeit it will probably take a bit more effort than for those coming from a proper university.
There are efforts to give even (select) Fachhochschulen the so called "Promotionsrecht", allowing professors from Fachhochschulen to supervise the PhD candidates on their own, without aonther professor from a proper university necessary.
One thing to add is, that since some years, professors at Fachhochschulen are requiered to have a PhD themselves (that was not the case until a few years back). Because of this, some Fachhochschulen have difficulties in finding appropriate candidates (as people with the right, applied skills often don't have a PhD) and often professor posts are vacant as a result. So as a Fachhochschul-PhD holder, it might be easier to attain a professorship as they are in high demand.

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


text:
What does cfr. stand for?
In a article I saw this expression:

... initial sample (cfr. Härdle et al. (2004))...

What is the meaning of cfr. or does it stands for?

Not to be confused with CFR, the US Code of Federal Regulations.

Not to be confused with the Council on Foreign Relations.

Cfr is the abbreviation of the Latin imperative confer, which means compare with.
The common English abbreviation is cf.
Your citation can be found in this document, which is written by a Spanish group. A search of the Oxford Spanish Dictionary yields:

cf.
1 Abreviatura del imperativo latino confer, 'compara' o 'consulta',
  que se utiliza en escritos para remitir a un párrafo o libro que
  contiene información relacionada con el tema tratado.
Usage
También se abrevia cfr

The last sentence tells you that in Spanish cf is sometimes abbreviated as cfr.

@aeismail Thanks,and let me thank you for the other edits: being a non-native English speaker I appreciate edits that improve my writing. Usually, I use "see" too, but I'm not totally against the usage of expressions coming from different languages (e.g., from Latin, French, Spanish or German): I love expanding my vocabulary in any direction!

@MassimoOrtolano I see what you did there with the e.g.,.

@StrongBad Funnily enough, as a kid, I was terrible at grammar and writing, with abysmal grades. Now I spend my time correcting student's writings - in Italian and English - and arguing about grammar and usage on the net. It's probably a clear example of the Dunning-Kruger effect or of contrappasso.

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


text:
Is it a bad idea to get a PhD?
Hope this doesn't fall into the category of personal advice, but I just have  a general question about academia today (particularly in Philosophy).
I have read many articles on the internet indicating that it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find a tenure track position in a relatively highly ranked university (top 100 nationally, say) after completing a PhD in today's job market, even from a very highly ranked program. Is this true, and is it a bad idea to get a PhD if the only thing I'd be able to do with it is teach? Does the internet exaggerate how difficult the market is? Would I have to move across the country, potentially, to find a T.T. position somewhere? Thanks.

Welcome to Academia.SE. I suspect your question is too broad -- getting a PhD is a good idea for some and a bad idea for others. It will depend on your skills, country, interests, and field. The first chapter of Karen Kelsky's book gives an excellent overview of how dismal the tenure-track job market is. On the other hand, in some fields, there are research positions outside of the university. My advice is to have a realistic backup plan, particularly if you are not in STEM.

The articles are right, the market is extremely tough - http://www.lawcha.org/2017/01/09/decline-faculty-tenure-less-oversupply-phds-systematic-de-valuation-phd-credential-college-teaching/, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/10/12/about-three-quarters-all-faculty-positions-are-tenure-track-according-new-aaup

Is it a bad idea to get a dog?

The target you set (top 100 nationally) is extremely small. Many of those institutions are, themselves, quite small with small faculties in any given discipline. You can have a rewarding career elsewhere. The US has more than 4000 colleges and universities.

Are you aware that you are asking a community of people where most of the members chose to get PhD or already have it? For sure, some may be regretting now buy still this is not a very representative sample of people.

This is only one person's experience, and it's English not Philosophy, but still worth a read: https://medium.com/@Hegelbon/two-things-off-the-bat-fb7a0a5d5f56

My somewhat disgruntled late-PhD student take that's not good enough to be an answer is: If you love your field (philosophy) so much that you can't imagine doing anything else in your life and you would constantly regret not doing a PhD, then do a PhD. Otherwise don't, because the TT job market is as bad as you've heard, and especially a philosophy PhD is unfortunately not highly valued by employers in any other field that I know of.

By "top 100 nationally", which country do you mean?

If you think it's hard to get tenure after doing a PhD; try getting it without one.

I can’t think of any situation where I’d recommend getting a PhD. Here is a good Elon Musk clip: https://youtu.be/WFFYRI8RDG8

A PhD is a research degree; it’s a piece of paper that says “this person is a competent researcher”. If you want to go into a field where being a researcher is important (e.g. corporate R&D), then it’s worth your time to get one. If you’re not, it probably isn’t.

This answer could be improved by adding that a PhD also says in which subject the person is competent. I would think that if corporate R&D is looking for a PhD in Chemistry, they're more likely to accept an M.Sc in Chemistry than a PhD in Philosophy.

often the path is more important than the goal, i.e. the piece of paper at the end may be totally unimportant to a person, but the way to get there may be what makes the journey worthwhile. A Phd can be a pretty unique experience where you can do challenging scientific work with limited pressure regarding time schedule and topic selection compared to industry jobs (and a lot more resources than trying to do it as a hobby).

The 100 best universities or programs aren't the only places where research happens. In fact, doing research will be part of most jobs at universities, regardless of whether that university is in the top 100 or not.
If you choose a career in academia you can expect to have an initial phase where you have to move from university to university to pursue postdoc positions and the like followed by a more stable phase. You will be unlikely to end up at a top university, but research will be part of your job, just as teaching and management duties.
However, there is no guarantee that if you choose to pursue a career in academia that academia also chooses you. In particular, the number of open positions, and thus the degree of competition, tends to be quite cyclical; there are periods where it is easy to start a career and periods where it is very hard. Luckily the cycles don't always match up across countries. So many work around bad periods by moving abroad.

You'll need to do your own research to answer most of these questions.

Is it true that it's very difficult to find a tenure track position in a relatively highly ranked university (top 100 nationally, say) after completing a PhD in today's job market, even from a very highly ranked program?

I'm not familiar with philosophy, but in other fields: yes. (Example)

Would I have to move across the country, potentially, to find a T.T. position somewhere?

Again, not familiar with philosophy, but in other fields: yes. There's actually a good chance you'll not just have to move "across the country", but also "outside the country". Example.
If you're unfamiliar with the job market in philosophy and can't find any good leads online, try asking philosophy professors at your local university. They can tell you more about what it takes to become one of them. If possible, talk to the graduate students in philosophy as well - they should have a more current perspective.

Is it a bad idea to get a PhD if the only thing I'd be able to do with it is teach?

This is only something you can answer. Can you see yourself making a career as a teacher? If yes then this wouldn't be bad (as long as you're willing to take on the challenge of finding a job as a teacher). If no then you should avoid getting a PhD - it's not worth it.
One more thing thing: whatever you choose, you're making a life-changing decision. Chances are, for most of your life, someone else (your parents/guardians) has been making these life-changing decisions for you. They can't do that forever, and neither can anyone else. At some point you become an adult and become responsible for your own well-being. Making these choices won't be easy, and it's often unclear what the consequences will be, but you're still the best-positioned person to make these choices. Do your research, sleep on it, make the decision, and deal with the consequences when they come.

Plenty of people with PhDs don't teach, so although I agree with most of your post I disagree with your answer to the teaching bit.

@user1729 OP did say philosophy, and according to my Googling, PhDs in philosophy generally become teachers.

A PhD in philosophy may make it much harder to get many jobs then not having a PhD, it is not a subject well respected by "normal people".

@Ian Not just that, but having spent 4-7 years in postgraduate education in Philosophy, it also means that, if you're looking for work in any other field, that, as a candidate, you effectively have very little practical experience doing anything else of direct value.  A PhD is a signal to an employer that you have devoted intense personal time and resources into learning highly specific skills in a narrow field, necessarily at the expense of other skills in that time.

@Ian  For example, I've seen Physics PhD's that barely knew how to operate lab equipment they relied on for their work - being so focused on the models and theory that they effectively relied on others to actually make their equipment work.  If you can leave physics with a PhD and no idea how to actually work in a lab, what hope does a Philosophy PhD have for an expectation of useful transferable skills?

I would recommend asking recent graduates of the PhD program about job opportunities, not professors. Many professor's info can be out of date or biased (they were the lucky ones who got the tenure position after all).  Recent graduates may have a more realistic perspective.

You need to think about this extremely important question: Why do you want a Ph.D.?
There are good reasons and bad reasons to pursue a Ph.D. You need to understand that a Ph.D. isn't a badge saying you're smart, but rather an apprenticeship towards becoming a professional researcher.
Good reasons to get a Ph.D. include:

You genuinely love philosophy and want a career working with it
You want to become a professional researcher
You've looked into what a typical academic career looks like and decided it's the kind of life you want to live

Bad reasons to get a Ph.D. include:

You want to prove you're very intelligent
You want the prestige that comes with an advanced degree
Everyone around you seems to be going into grad school
It just seems like the most obvious next step after undergrad

These "bad reasons" aren't bad in the sense that you're a bad person if they're what you're thinking. They're bad in that getting a Ph.D. locks you into a very specific and frankly demanding career path. You don't want to be halfway into your Ph.D. before you realize that you don't really enjoy the work you're doing.
You're very right that the job market for academic research positions is incredibly competitive. Your fears that you'll likely have to move to find a good job are right. Your expectations that you'll be able to get a job in a top 100 university, while possible, are going to be extremely difficult to achieve. Do you want to be a researcher so dearly that you're willing to accept those downsides? If so, then getting a Ph.D. is the right decision. If not, there are many other things you can do with your life that are just as worthwhile, just as honorable, and likely more along the lines of what you personally value.

I decided myself that I didn't want a research career. After I finished my master's degree, I left academia for industry. I am very happy now and can't imagine how stressed out and miserable I would be if I were forcing myself to go through years of a Ph.D. just to be able to say I had done it.
This was my personal decision. You need to make this decision for yourself.

Actually, for many of us, getting a doctorate was a kind of compulsion. There were no options for us. Even when it was hard and the future looked dim we soldiered on.

@Buffy Unfortunately, I think that's a significant factor towards what's lead to the incredibly difficult academic job market. There aren't really any new academic jobs opening up, so if only the students who already knew they truly wanted a research career went into academia, the job market would still be challenging. Add the large number of students who go into academia because they don't think through the other options, and the situation has become fiercely competitive.

Actually, the job market is very cyclic but the cycles vary by fields. The year I finished (math) it was essentially impossible to get a decent job. Two years earlier it was a great market. Ten years later the pall had lifted. I managed to hang on and wound up with a great career - especially the last 20 years of it. But nobody gets a guarantee.

Yes, it's a bad decision to get a PhD in any humanities discipline if you value things like any degree of stability.  Something like 50+% of humanities PhD's will never get a tenure-track professorship ("there's jobs in research" and "the skills and discipline you learn during your PhD program are 'transferable to other areas of industry'" propaganda you'll hear from your advisors and graying professors notwithstanding) -- which is the only job you're reasonably qualified for after most likely being six figures in debt and burning most of your younger years slaving away for minimum wage and trying to get published in obscure academic journals [which almost NO ONE ever reads -- ditto your thesis, which will most likely promptly do nothing but collect dust once completed].
Please take a few minutes to read the likes of William Pannapacker's two-part series: "Graduate School in the Humanities: Just Don't Go" before you decide to commit many years and thousands of dollars to something that could very well be the antithesis of an activity designed to produce long term satisfaction and fulfillment.  It still amazes me after all of these years and the availability of information on the Internet that "career students" STILL commit themselves to years in a PhD program without doing even a minute of common-sense evaluation as to its long term career feasibility.

Saying a PhD in humanities is always a bad idea is just as misleading as saying that it is always a good idea. You seem to have a bad experience with people giving you wrong advise (or "propaganda"). This is not what I experience. The advise I have received, I give, and I see others give is pretty realistic.

If you want to be an academic philosopher, then getting a Ph.D. a good idea because it is required. But it is no guarantee; you have to be prepared for a high probability of not ending up in academia at all. It is a gamble.
Academic job searches are generally national or even international. Every metropolitan area has lots of openings for doctors, lawyers, accountants, and chefs, but only a handful (or fewer) for philosophers or theoretical physicists. If the thought of having to move across the country for a job is a problem for you, then maybe you don't want to be a philosopher badly enough to justify the time and effort of the Ph.D.
On the other hand, the experience of getting the degree is not all bad. If you really like doing philosophy, then it's a chance to spend five or six years doing something interesting, in hopes of possibly making it a career. If that career doesn't work out, you are close to where you would have been if you were just getting out of college.
This is all assuming you can get TA-ships and possibly (if you're lucky) fellowships to support you. If you have to pay tuition the whole time then it's really not worth it.

There was an article called "should you go to West Point" by an old colonel.  His short answer: "probably not".  (The long answer was the measured, negative article.)
So...short answer "yes, probably a bad idea".  Better off getting an MBA.
This is a little bit different if you are in a field (e.g. pharma) where large amount of Ph.D. hiring occurs.  But corporate central research is under pressure as well.
In some cases, you may find that things are not quite as bad.  For example if you are (really truly) in that upper 10% (maybe even upper 5%) of grad students.  Then you have the potential to win the tournament position.  But otherwise...look at music or acting.  Supply and demand reduces the earnings of all but the superstars to a low level.
Of course if you're happy raising a family on a postdoc salary, fine.  Some people are, (mostly immigrants, in the US).  Also if you really have the goods...than fine...go for it. You don't quite need to be Albert Einstein, either.  But you should have a pretty damned good feeling that you are better than almost every single classmate.  Don't expect reasonable rewards if you are in the middle of the bell curve (let alone the left side).
P.s.  Moderators, don't delete this answer.  OP needs to hear different views, not just the "it's gonna be OK" view.
Edit:  Just saw that you are going for a philosophy Ph.D.  Yikes.  Very little use of that in industry.  I would be very concerned about the supply/demand picture.  The one good thing is you don't have grants incentivizing masses of lab students (as cheap technicians).  But you also will have a worse funding situation during your degree and almost no industrial positions to apply to.  Just go research the numbers on graduates and job postings.

Why would you assume the poster is trying to raise a family? Why would you assume that they have any interest in an MBA when they’ve said nothing to indicate that they’re interested in business?

I didn't "assume" that he was.  Just told him/her/it to consider the downside, if he happens to have this somewhat common desire of the human animal.  I have no idea of his interest in an MBA.  I do have an idea of the earning power.  Big picture: learn to think in probabilities and possibilities.  More Bayes, less Euclid.  Maybe this fellow can avoid academic failure:  https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/108543/what-makes-academic-failure-different-from-failure-in-another-career

My personal opinion is that you don't take a degree of any kind and then see what you can do with it, but rather the opposite: first you need to know what you want to do in your life, what makes you enjoy it, etc., and then you do what it takes to achieve it, including taking a PhD if needed.
In my case I have a MsC on Computer Science and while I've always loved computers since I was a kid, and I also have my small personal IT projects once in a while, I find myself happy with my daily work challenges + playing and creating music during my free time. I don't have a PhD on CS nor any degree in music, the knowledge that I have is enough for me to achieve what I want + when I miss any knowledge I know where to find the resources to learn what I need (learning of course never ends when you finish BsC, MsC or PhD, it's a constant thing).
Therefore if a PhD will help you to achieve what you want, it's - of course - a great idea. If you are not sure if it will help you or you are actually sure that it won't, then what for will you spend a significant amount of your life taking it? You'll be better off (in my opinion) doing other things that you like the most. Each one of us has his/her own needs.

You can approach this as a math problem. I'll demonstrate with some round numbers, modify the numbers if you have more realistic estimates.
Say the average tenured career lasts 30 years (start at 35, retire at 65).
Say the average department has 20 tenure track faculty.
So in the top 100 you'll have 67 tenure track job openings per year.
Random Google source says that approximately 500 doctorates are awarded in Philosophy every year.
So the first year, you have 500 people applying for 67 positions. The second year, you have 500+433 = 933 people applying for 67 positions. And so on, until people start just giving up.
Say the average person is willing to spend 5 years trying to get a tenure track position before they give up and do something else instead.
So there will be 2232 people applying for 67 positions every year, or roughly a 3% chance that one person will get any position in one year.
Or over five years, one person has a 15% chance of getting any position. Even if you are twice as likely to be hired in any year as average, your chances over 5 years are still only 25%.

This is a very good analysis, but, I would say 'conservative'. On a worldwide scale it is much more difficult with the 'immigration' agenda. The number of doctorates issued in India, China, etc are huge. So, as per my answer, unless you have some 'patronage' it is hard. Sadly 'patronage' works in EVERY country for the top jobs.

5 times 3% chance does not equate to 15%.

@hkBst I'm not sure I'm following your logic...

5 years of trying with 3% success chance equates to 3% + .973% + .97.973% + ... + .97^43% < 15%.

@hkBst Actually, I’m pretty sure that it’s 1-(.97^5), which is about 14%.

@nick012000, yes that is the smart way of calculating :) but should give the same answer.

This may border as an 'opinion'...
I have built businesses since 1989 for Entrepreneurs and I found the following to be true:

There are no self-made men/women.
None of the 'super-rich' have college degrees (Asia to the U.S.A).
The 'super-rich/entrepreneurs' however do prefer to employ 'paper' holders.

Getting a PhD early  in life may limit your job opportunities. It, actually, may hinder your path to 'riches' unless you want to do politics (or a hot political topic...).

“none of the super-rich have college degrees” This simply isn’t true. The billionaire college dropout is the exception rather than the rule.

Trace ANY 'billionaire's' money path and you will find a 'trace' of political money, sometimes disguised as 'VC'. In other words 'paper' alone wont make you rich unless you have political patronage. Do you really believe that even 'Greta Tunberg' is not backed by politicians/connections (and is NOT a simple 'activist')?

I googled the top 5 richest people in the world. Forbes recently published a list. 4/5 had degrees. Did you mean to say that the richest people do not have PhDs?

There are Stock/IT billionaires and real billionaires (honorary degrees don't count) Just because  they are not on the Forbes list does not mean they don't exist. Also, I am talking about CASH/Fixed-Assets rich, not value based on stocks, etc. I know (of)  over 1.5 million+ Indians (I am not Indian) who can buy a country with a CASH cheque... we did an informal study in 1996.

Again with the leaps in logic and bold, unsubstantiated claims. This is getting silly.

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава


text:
Can a grad student take undergrad classes?
Maybe a dumb question, but for example: say I'm doing a PhD in Theoretical Physics (I'm not) but I need to have taken certain undergrad math courses to understand the material, which I never took in undergrad. Do grad students ever end up in undergrad classes for this reason, or do they just learn the material themselves out of books?

It is not unheard of for grad students to be directed to take an upper-level undergrad course during their first year in order to fill in a gap in their background.

I took a couple of undergrad courses as a grad. I also TA'ed courses that I've never taken them as courses in my undergrad. It was easier for me to learn and teach at that point. These were some really great learning experiences.

At many universities, lectures are public and everybody may listen to them (of course, there are maximal amounts of people due to fire regulations).

Please specify the country in the question.

Depends on institution policies, but usually yes.
That said, the grade you get usually won't matter, and besides you might already know some of the things in the course. You might be better off just focusing on the interesting part then, by self-educating.

Agreed. Just audit the course so that you don’t have to worry about a letter grade.

And auditing is cheaper!

Auditing may be cheaper, but at some institutions it costs the same as taking the course for credit.

...in which case, just sitting in on the lectures and doing the work on your own is cheaper still.

As others say, this depends entirely on specific institutional culture and policies.  But from my experience (studying/working at various universities in North America and Western Europe):

You can almost certainly audit the class — i.e. go to the lectures, get access to online study materials, etc.

You can probably, but not certainly, take the class  — i.e. submit homeworks, take the exam, and get assessment, feedback, and a grade.  At some universities, especially in the US, this may incur tuition fees, or count towards an allowance of how many courses you can take.  All programmes I’ve been involved in allow this, as far as I know, but I wouldn’t be shocked by an institution that didn’t.

You may or may not be able to use this course as credit towards your PhD requirements.  Most PhD programmes require you to take a certain number of courses, but have certain limitations (in both level and topic) on which courses count for this.  Some programmes I’ve known have allowed higher-level undergrad courses to count; others haven’t.

There are some institutions where auditing is more expensive than enrolling in a course for credit; often this comes from losing the tax money from the government agency.  There are some institutions where there is a pass-fail or pass-no record option; in some cases, a grade of D will either count as a fail, or be reported as a D.  In some cases, the professor turns in a letter grade and the registrar changes it to pass, fail, or whatever.
At other schools, there is a Math 505 or some analogous number which is only open to non-math graduate students and covers what they missed in their undergraduate program.
And taking a course for as long as you can and then withdrawing?  It may not affect your GPA, but Financial Aid may view that the same as failing the course.
In order not to influence any committees that may decide to pass you or offer you a fellowship, I might ask the main graduate school office of the university(ies) you are interested in, rather than the department, for their answer.

And there are institution where all lectures are public and anybody who wishes can just go there.


text:
Getting a teaching recommendation as a mathematics postdoc in the UK
I am a postdoc in mathematics in the UK.  When my current position ends, I plan to apply for positions in the US (among other places).  Most of these positions will require some teaching experience, including a teaching recommendation.  My current position does not require me to teach, but I have the option of teaching tutorials, teaching graduate courses, and supervising student projects.  Is one of these kinds of teaching more in line with the experience that US universities are looking for?

It's important to remember that teaching is not the same as "giving lectures in front of a class". So you (or your letter writers) have some leeway in deciding what exactly the letter should cover.
In practice, lots of people are in your situation. (I was too, when I was looking for faculty positions.) What is important is that one of your letter writers covers how you teach, and this can cover the style in which you give professional presentations, interact with students you mentor, etc. All of these are, when explained by someone who has a lot of experience as a teacher, predictive of how good a teacher you will be in the future. Of course, most potential employers would ideally like to see a discussion in these letters how good a teacher you are in a regular classroom -- since that's one of your primary job duties as a professor -- but the selection committee will be able to extrapolate to that from what they find in a letter.
If you do have the opportunity to teach any regular class, then I would try to do that -- it doesn't matter much in that case whether it's an undergrad or grad course. It just rounds out your resume, and gives you more options for potential letter writers, and more material for letter writers to write about if they choose to sit in on your class once or twice.

I agree that all of these are relevant, but teaching a graduate course would probably be the most useful because hiring committees may have a hard time considering tutorials or supervising projects to be "teaching."


text:
How to ask for lettler of recommendation from supervisor when he would be interacting very little with me?
I am an undergraduate student in my final year and started doing my bachelor's thesis in a research lab. My official thesis supervisor is head of the lab, and a highly experienced expert and equally busy person. He has assigned a junior Professor and a PhD student as my direct points of contact.
I will be applying for masters in another university in a year and would need letter of recommendation from the head of the lab. But, since the interaction with him would be very minimal (2-3 meetings in 6 months), how can I ask him for the letter of recommendation? Also, is there anything I can do at this point in time to get the strong letter from him later?

The solution seems fairly simple. At your next meeting with this professor, or one you can arrange sooner rather than later, let him know of your future plans and that you will eventually want to ask him for a letter. Make a special request that he "follow your work" enough that he can write such a letter. But also ask hime for advice about how to be a success in the project and to prepare yourself for later academic work.
The goal is just to get him to notice you even if you aren't interacting much. But, of course, this assumes that your work will be very good overall so that there are only good things to say about you when the time comes.
It is helpful for a professor to know that students have certain aspirations beyond the current project/course/degree. Make him aware early on, rather than later.

Buffy's suggestion about arranging a meeting is good advice. Outlining your aspirations will mean it will be easier to ask for a letter of recommendation later on.
Networking is the other aspect to this question. Even though you are being "supervised" by the head of the lab through his PhD student and junior professor, networking is a useful skill that you might want to work on while you have the opportunity now. Find out which meetings, activities that your head of lab goes to. This might give you opportunities for informal discussion about your project and for him to get to know you.
Consider developing your "professional identity" online as well. This may be useful for you as you network with your future university and developing a strong presence. Sign up to Twitter, ResearchGate, Mendeley, etc. Participate and engage with the various meetings of the department and lab - Academic Skills article, Manchester Uni
I liked this light-hearted article about social networking by Thesis Whisperer. Jennifer Streeter's article is also impressive.
Remember, if you can meet and get to know your future colleagues from your other university, you would be light-years ahead from the competition. If they grow to trust and appreciate your work, they would be bending over backwards to help get you across to them. Academic excellence is important and so is the recommendation letter, but if they like you, it does matter as well...


text:
Can I add a link to my website in a paper I'm coauthoring?
I'm writing a paper with a professor. I want to put a link to my website in the paper. I am first author, so I'm wondering if the following is okay:
Bob Smith, Slifer University, https://BobSmith.io
Peter Bob, Georgia Tech of Mechanical Engineering

Suppose I'm Bob Smith and the professor is Peter Bob.
This way people can see my other work and potentially hire me. I'd also mention, this is a quite well known professor, so don't say "No one will look at your website".

Where do you want to put this information? In the section about author/affiliations informations?

Why not????????

Hey guys, so, I never actually seen someone link to their personal website in a paper. So, I wasn't sure if this was allow.

@Dr.H.Lecter In the affiliations. I want to put a comma then my personal website.

I just wanted to make sure this wasn't inappropriate because I have never saw a paper with a link to a personal website.

I think it is a great idea. It sounds like you will have relevant work experience and more of a cv style information so people can possibly offer you a job. Just make sure that you are able to sustain the website for a long period of time though as Buffy has said. Website maintenance is difficult.

Some papers I've written, I've included, in the header with my name and email address, a link to my website, though not to the paper. Just a link to the front page. On joint papers we have all done this.
But only consider doing something like this if everyone approves, including other authors and the journal/conference authority.
But, if you don't own the site (say the university has provided you a web space), I would recommend against it as your affiliation will change eventually and you will lose control of your university owned web site. If your link is to a personal site (as you indicate) that you own and intend to maintain over the long run, say 50 years, then it might be fine.
However, Google and other search engines can find you and your work easily enough. The link isn't really necessary. If the paper has a reference on the site then a search with your name and some part of the title will probably turn it up easily enough. So, I think the advantage would be quite small.


text:
How should one address people with titles Dr. and Professor?
How should one address people with titles Dr. and Professor from Canada.

Thhis has several answers: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/94091/72855

In an email write "Dear Prof. X". If you're addressing them in their role as a professor at the university that is the preferred form. If you're addressing them outside that role it seems to be equally common to use "Dear Dr. X".
Note, that unlike in some countries (like Germany) the form "Dear Prof. Dr. X" is not used in Canada.

I just realized that your "from Canada" has different possible interpretations. Do you mean they are now part of your local community after having moved from Canada or are you addressing someone who is from Canada and still in Canada? If it's the former, the other answer is correct. It's your local customs you should follow. If it's the latter I explain how to follow Canadian customs.

Publicly, you should address them as you would their peers in your current country of residence. Privately, you can inquire as to their personal preference.

"You would do it like you would to anyone else" is not a very helpful response.

@AzorAhai There is distinct different between what I wrote and your interpretation. It appears that you have overlooked the word "peers".

Yes, you're right, I accidentally left off "anyone else with the same title." Your answer is still not helpful.

@AzorAhai I see no reason to distinguish between people on the basis of their country of origin. I look forward to learning why I am mistaken.


text:
Timeline of tenure-track position in mathematics/applied mathematics
I have been applying to dozens of tenure track positions with preferred dates in Nov and Dec, but I still have not heard back from any, which is very worrying. I have been able to gauge the timelines for other disciplines from online Excel sheets/Reddit, and there seem to be large variations in the timelines, but nothing for math. So I'd like to ask about the timeline for hiring/interviewing for math departments (R1), specifically:

Do math departments often do phone interviews? If so, when does this happen after the job deadline/preferred application dates ("full consideration")?

Do you have any specific stats from this year that you could share? I know of two R1 schools that have already finished interviews and started making offers. They both have early deadlines in early Nov.

Thanks!

I never heard of R1 math departments conducting phone job interviews.

@MoisheKohan I know of some that used to. I'm not sure it's really a thing now with the wide adoption of video chat software in academia at this point.

@CameronWilliams: Interesting. Were these really research oriented math departments? Did they use phone interviews for tenure track or postdoctoral positions?

@MoisheKohan: Phone interviews (now video calls, mostly) for faculty positions would be an intermediary step between screening of written applications and invitations to speak on campus. Is your experience that there is a different process than written -> phone -> in-person?

@RLH: In my experience (US, research-oriented math departments), phone/video is only used for postdoctoral positions (and even that is quite rare). For tenure track positions, it is just an invitation to come for a job interview in person. (I am excluding hiring in the middle of the pandemic when nothing was done in person.)

Huh, that's odd. In CS, typically short 30 minute zoom calls are usually used to help filter the top 8-15 candidates to the 3-5 to invite to campus interviews. Does that mean in math you get a ton of "unserious" candidates in campus interviews that looked good on paper but are terrible in person? It seems like a waste of flight money tbh.

I'm surprised if you've heard nothing from any place you've applied. You should ask to see if your application was received and for any available update. They should, at least, have sent a "thanks for applying" note.
I'm not surprised that you haven't seen anything definite near the end of January about acceptance and rejection. In the US there are defined processes to assure fairness to all candidates. They are usually respected. They involve face to face (usually) meetings of faculty, who may have been off on winter break since late December and are, perhaps, just getting back to the office.
The rules might include a requirement to interview more than one applicant if possible. They certainly include a time for consideration for any offers made. And top R1 candidates might have more than one offer, so any given offer might get rejected, delaying the process.
You won't get any decisions until decisions have been made, offers extended and accepted. You might get something when first offers go out if you are still in the mix, but otherwise it isn't especially likely.
The end of the year and the beginning of the next are both busy and with a break in between. Frustrating.
Some interviews might be by Zoom and such, but unlikely by phone.
And yes, early November deadlines implies that there was time in the previous term to have those decision meetings and send out invitations prior to the end of the year. Not so much for December deadlines.
Patience. Don't give up hope. But ask about any updates.

I doubt that this is special to math in any way. It is just the way universities work in the US. People are very unlikely to meet and make important decisions in late December and early January and that is bookended by intense other activity, ending one term and beginning the next.

Would probably be helpful to explain first and second round of selection. Ie at my school it is typical to do first round 30 min zoom with 10-30 candidates. Second round flyouts with 3-6 candidates.

I don't think most universities send "thanks for applying" responses. I've gotten one of those just a few times. There is just too much stuff to wade through for committees to add that on top.

@CameronWilliams, it probably depends on how much staff support the department has.

True true! The only times I've gotten those were pretty obviously cooked up by HR. I have gotten rejection emails months later, but even those were few and far between if I didn't personally follow up.

My experience from being on the (US, Math, TT, PhD granting depts) market last year is that anyone who takes applications before the end of last year has sent out Zoom interview invitations by this point. Maybe you can cling to some hope a week into February for the December deadlines, but I wouldn't count on it.
If you don't have your job locked down for the upcoming year, I'd start putting a lot of time into your industry materials, personally. Or I suppose a postdoc, if that's where you are and willing to take another. I was in exactly your same position last year around this time last year, and it seemed wise not to dither starting an industry job search. Ironically, I did end up getting a mid-tier R2/R1 cusp interview in March and eventually took that job. But the app for that closed in either late Jan or early Feb.
Contrary to some other answers, I've not heard of anywhere in math that deviates from App -> Zoom interviews -> In person interviews -> Decisions. A few places that don't have the deepest pockets seem willing to interview international applicants via Zoom for the final stage, but that's it.


text:
Can I submit an extended version of a conference paper or a journal, if a better algorithm exists?
We published a paper in a theoretical CS conference last year, and were hoping to submit it to a journal when we found out that our result was improved in a followup work.
While it's clear that there are no ethical issues with submitting the extended manuscript to a journal, its results are inferior to the recent followup paper.

Would we get the same consideration as if the new paper does not exist (i.e., comparing the results to what was known before our original publication)?
Assuming that the answer is no, is there even a point in submitting it?

To be clear, we do mean to cite the newer result; my question is about how likely our paper is to get accepted under the circumstances.

This is a perfectly normal timeline in theoretical computer science:

Result A is published in a conference.
Building on result A, someone else publishes followup work B in other conferences.
A polished version of result A is submitted to a journal and published there. The journal paper refers to result B and also discusses how follow-up work B has already improved on the results of the paper.

Here the fact that there is already follow-up work is a good sign that will help you to convince the reviewers that this is an important result that deserves to be published in a good journal.

An interesting answer (and seemingly conflicting to Buffy's ;)). Thanks!

+1 I have seen this happen many times, and I have done it myself more than once.

Unless you have something new to add, it isn't likely that the journal will want to publish your longer version. You could submit it, of course, but it is no longer especially "novel" following the "better" result.
In CS, of course, your conference proceedings article stands on its own.
Maybe it is best to continue the work and try to leapfrog the newer paper so that you have something additional to say in the follow up. Any reviewer knowing the whole story might make the same comment.

We improved the analysis of the conference paper (so on its own it is a novel contribution), but it still seems inferior to the new paper :(.

Your call. And that of the reviewers.


text:
How should I email my graduate advisor if I did not hear anything?
I am a graduate student at a University and I am working on academic project under my advisor's guidance. I had emailed two weeks back about my project update (which helps him grade my project hours for the semester as Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory) and the reply was  "Lets talk next week. If you don't hear from me, please call/email me".
I  messaged again after a week to see whether its a convenient time to give  a call, but I did not get any reply.
I waited for quite a time and its been two weeks now. I was also working on couple of other projects and was quite hesitant to message again.  I also thought it is vacation as the semester ended. Now, I am unsure how to write an email.
However, I was given a Satisfactory without any discussion or checking my project, which is still good, as I really made some progress on the project.
Can anyone help me by giving a suggestion on how to handle this situation?
Edit: I have also taken one of my advisor's courses and he is pretty cool. I have never seen him getting angry for anything. Its just that I am confused and blaming my hesitant nature now.

It sounds like he is stressed and a bit disorganized.  Take pity on him and write again.  "How's it going, do you have some time to meet this week?"  Something like that.

Ahh, that's right! I think, I am overthinking these days. :)


text:
Final graduation thesis - Team members won't cooperate anymore
My friends and I are doing our graduation thesis so we can finish our engineering course here in Brazil. There are two main problems:

My buddies are not in the same step than I am: Basically, they have not that much of interest that I have for the title. I'm doing all of the major research and work so we can continue to follow our semester with no problems. They can't even read some pages and also are not following the schedule I've set.
I do have some more interests beside only "to graduate": I really want the thesis to be presented in a future congress, or to publish it in a scientific magazine. Since they do not have this goal, it is clear that they want only the document to finish the course.

Since we are huge friends, and there has been some conflicts already, I am afraid this could harm our friendship. Is there any way to align this situation?

Ah the joy of team projects. There's not really easy ways to deal with these kinds of problems in this context. In a workplace a manager has actual power over the individuals, in a team project you can't easily make any individual do anything without screwing over yourself.  There's endless stories of people getting frustrated with this kind of thing if they get teammates who can't be bothered.

Other team members may have been put off by your ambition to make the project publishable, rather than merely sufficient for graduation. They only signed up for a graduation thesis project, not an academic paper.
To meet their needs and try to get them back on board, I suggest splitting your planning into two phases, with two different objectives:

Graduation Thesis This should be a team project, but should only include work that is necessary for graduation. Do everything you can to limit the scope and difficulty, so that all members of the team can understand the project and contribute with a reasonable effort. You will then be in a strong position when asking the rest of the team to contribute.
Publication This is your personal project, not shared by the rest of the team. You should expect to do all the additional work for it after completion of the graduation thesis sub-project. It may involve rewriting material to give a more sophisticated treatment, as well as more research than is necessary for graduation.


text:
Research adviser is trying to give my thesis to another student. What to do?
Going to sound dramatic, but something just isn't right about my research adviser who is trying to give my research to another student.  I don't know the student at all, but they are attempting to force me into a "partnership" with them.  The student has zero research accomplishments in my research area, but I've been told to tack them onto my research and share a years worth of findings with them.  Yes, really.  What would you do? Have you even heard of something like this before?

Your advisor is giving you the chance to mentor someone. You seem to be taking it very badly. Is there some other reason you are so defensive about this?

"...share years worth of findings with him". How many papers have you published on these years? If you have published your work there is nothing to worry about. If you have not published your work, then "years worth of findings" really mean nothing, except meaningless self-praise.

"now she is trying to give my research to another student (...) and share years worth of findings with him" - I hope that at least within your immediate group, everyone has unrestricted access to each other's research at any time. Being secretive about one's research toward other members of your own team would be what would prompt me to ask "Have you even heard of something like this before?"

"and share years worth of findings with him" -Isn't this what science should be about?

@Alexandros and if after all these years, OP hasn't been able to publish, maybe this is the advisor's way of making sure the research gets finished and the paper(s) get published.

What would I do?
Mentor the guy, get him involved in my project, train him up. If you're as experienced as you claim, and he's as inexperienced as you think, you've got nothing to worry about except the time investment it will take to get him up to speed.
Have I heard of something like this before?
Yes, it's absolutely normal. Your research advisor is paying you a compliment -- she obviously thinks you're ready to mentor someone more junior. As someone who supervises more than one person, she's probably also planning for the future -- when you leave ultimately, someone will need to understand your work so that others in the group can build on it (this is a plus for you, in that you'll hopefully get citations).
There's absolutely no mileage in being melodramatic or defensive about your work. If someone were trying to take credit for stuff you'd done, that would be one thing (and there are ways of dealing with that), but in this case it's nothing of the kind -- you've been asked to mentor a more junior student, and the right way of looking at it is as an opportunity.

Cooperate.  Apparently you are a student.  When you apply for your next job, you will need to say how you worked in a team and how you supervised junior researchers.  This is an opportunity to add to that experience.  In addition, when you graduate, someone needs to know enough about your work to continue doing it.  You are responsible for making sure that person has enough training.

Apparently, a common mistake at the beginning of one's life is to treat one's work as one's baby. It takes time to realize that one's work belongs to others. It is good to share your findings and spread your word and to have students and followers. If you put yourself in the other student's shoes, it looks perfectly normal and it will add value to your career and your work. What you would realize, is that when you are mentoring him, you are mentoring yourself also, as he finds holes in your arguments. When you are trying to explain it to him, you are going to revisit your findings with fresh eyes and it would give you incredible insights. So, inspire him and be inspired

Even if it was a baby, keeping it locked in a room on its own would lead to a very maladjusted child!

Yeah, you are partially right

Parents normally protect their babies until the age when they are able to take care of themselves. Until babies grow to be children. Over-protecting their children afterwards leads to spoiled children

But anyways, I know what you mean: "Always exposing yourself and new ideas always lead to more strength"

But I have gone through similar experience of over-protecting my work, so I could understand wnere Gradsoon is coming from

Do you remember a time when you had zero research accomplished in your area?
When you were young and eager to learn?
I guess you do. By the way, I recall very clearly how happy I was to enter the world of research. My professors, my advisor, my research group and the fellow students (both undergrad and phd students)... everybody was keen on sharing an idea, a nice paper that had found, and so on. It was only natural, and enriching in itself, to learn to work with other people, at first more experienced than me and later both more and less experienced than me. I hope to have been able to help a younger fellow when it was my time, like they did with me when I was starting.
Cooperation is one of the nicest part of doing research!

My father is a retired professor of theoretical physics.  Well, if you want to call it retired.  He has passed 80 and is still publishing and giving conference talks.  He does not know when his clock will be running out, and it takes time until people take up what you've been working on.  So basically the last few years of his work will be lost because no-one will take it up.
I once was in a doctorate position in Electrical Engineering but due to personal problems, I never finished.  Part of the problem was that I tried to prove the stability of my approach (basically Kálmán filters in a continuously linked two-dimensional arrangement) which produced very good results for tracking object movements given multiple but shaky sensor data and there was always some more thing I had not covered completely.  Of course, had I realized that my approach was a generalization of fluid dynamics where instability is known to occur for certain parameters, I'd stopped wasting time on that angle of the theoretical underpinnings.
I did not actually need the PhD in my later life.  But this work (for which there is not sufficient self-control or an occasion to complete it) is reasonably important and unique that it will take considerable time for someone else to rediscover that approach.
And that is a burning shame.
I have my suspicions that my former diploma advisor (a PhD student then) independently marketed my approaches results of my diploma thesis.  Looking at abstracts, I was wary or resentful.  I never acted upon that, anyway.  Maybe my suspicions were right, maybe not.  No idea.
The resent I felt at that time is no match to the resent I feel for my unfinished work.  Entirely different scale.
If your work has anything to do with science, if it increases the knowledge and skills available for getting at things, don't hoard.
Yes, if you fail to market it yourself timely, someone else may.  That's the point of science.  As long as you stay active in the field, nobody will be able to beat the skills you have at working with your own creation.  And if you drop out, your baby will not die along with you.

This is actually a very interesting optimization problem that can be modeled as two person zero-sum game.  The goal your adviser tries to optimize is to create redundancy so that if you get hit by a car tomorrow, the research doesn't go away with you.  This is the same goal of many commercial organizations, everyone should be dispensable so that there is no single weakest link.
Of course, your goal is to monopolize value so that you can increase your academic reputation and be a well-known expert in the field.
Hence a clear trade-off is formed.
Your best action should be to publish as many papers as you can and share different pieces with different partners so that no one person can recreate what you know.  This is what is called split knowledge in cryptography.

I'm not one of the downvoters, but I'm sympathetic to them. This answer mistakenly assumes that the value to you of a joint paper with the other student is necessarily less than the value of the paper if you were the sole author. Not so. I have never published a solo-authored paper, because there is always something that a co-author can do to improve my work. A coauthored paper that is 10% better with you as first author is worth more than a solo authored paper that is 10% worse. If your advisor is also an author, the same holds as you go from two to three authors.

I am one of the downvoters. I had certain doubts when I read the sentence "your goal is to monopolize value", as you normally publish to include the community in your advances, not to exclude it, as it would be the case with a monopoly. I finally decided to downvote when I read "so that no one person can recreate what you know", because enabling others to recreate what you know is the entire point of publishing about research results and procedures. If I reviewed a paper whose author tried to prevent me from recreating what the author knew, that would be a clear reason for rejection.


text:
Would it be an advantage in terms of admission, to study pedagogics before applying to a PhD?
Currently I am in my third year in engineering - applied mathemathics. I have been thinking about what I would want to do after I get my master. I have concluded that I have 3 options.

Work as an engineer.
Study one year pedagogics, then work as a high school teacher.
Apply for a PhD.

In my country you can, if you have a master in engineering - applied mathematics, study one year where most of the studies are pedagogics, and then be considered as any other high school teacher (in math). You will have a master in Teaching.
Since I am not sure of what I really want to do, all three options are "exciting". I want to have as many doors opened as possible.
So, for example, I could get my engineering degree, then a teaching degree and after that either work as engineering/teacher or apply for PhD.
Therefore I would like to know if it is an advantage in terms of admission, when applying for a PhD, if I have studied pedagogics for one year (right after I have finished engineering school and right before applying). Or would it be preferable to go direct from engineering to PhD, if that is what I want to do.
My location is Sweden. I have not given any thought to which university I would want to do my PhD, but the country would be in Sweden or Germany.

Can you include your location and where you want to do your PhD?

My location is Sweden, and if where aims at country, then it would be Sweden or Germany. If where aims to universith, I do not know yet, is that a problem?

I forgot to make a @  @MadJack

Not a problem, just that the answer could potentially vary depending on where in the world you are.

By advantage, do you mean advatangeous for chances of admission or some other more nebulous advantage?

Lets sat that the oppertunity to do the PhD stands between me and person P. The difference between me and P is that I spent a year after engineering school to study pedagogics, and P did not. P applied for engineering directly after engineering school. Then, would I have an advantage? @virmaior

So in other words, advantage in terms of chances for admission, right?

Yes! :) @virmaior

I can't answer for Sweden or Germany, but in the US the answer in terms of admissions to PhD programs is that prior experience as a high school teacher in a different discipline will not provide any significant benefit.

And therefor in terms of admission it would be useless to study pedagogics? I only wanted to get the one year of pedagogics and then apply for PhD. Not one year pedagogics, then some teaching then applying. @virmaior

Similar question (NA there vs Europe here):  http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/69705/would-going-to-teachers-college-be-useful-if-my-ultimate-goal-is-to-become-a-u

While I have little familiarity with Sweden or Germany, for most technical fields I would see taking a year off to study pedagogy and teach high school would generally provide no advantages and perhaps even be a slight disadvantage for PhD admissions.  I see how it could be an advantage if you want to pursue a PhD in education for example as it gives you relevant practical experience and perspective, but not for most subjects as the primary goal of a PhD program is to train you to be a researcher.
As such, for a PhD, you want to demonstrate passion and dedication to research.  Pursuing another career path first may make some professors question this, and indeed from your question it sounds like you are not totally committed to the research track.  Of course, applying for a PhD program right after a master's doesn't guarantee commitment either and many great researchers got their PhD's after doing other things first. Pursuing teaching next may be the right thing for you if it helps you figure out what you want to do, but I would not recommend it as a way to help you become a PhD student.

@Roland I'm in the US in math which probably involve (at some schools) as high amount of teaching as happens in just about any PhD program, and I don't view it as any advantage for admissions.  Part of our program involves training the students to teach (and at in my department they have to take some sort of pedagogy course).  Provided there are no red flags, our only real concern for applicants is that they is how they will do in courses and research.  While there may be exceptions, my guess is this is typical of STEM departments.

Practical teaching experience combine with an actual knowledge of teaching methods and learning theories is a priceless asset for anybody who is planning to study for a PhD. This is because earning a doctorate often leads to teaching in some form or another. In addition, studying teaching will provide you with insights into how you learn and think and should help you to improve in your own skills as a student.
There are many brilliant scholars who have not truly studied the art of communicating complex ideas in a simple way that actively involves the students. Instead, they wonder why their students "don't get" when there may have been issues with the instructional design and assessment. Having any exposure to concepts found in education at all will benefit you in an academic career. I have personally seen friends giving teaching opportunities during their doctoral studies because they had prior teaching experience at the high school level.
If children can understand you and are engaged with the learning experience, you should not have major issues with adults understanding you and being engaged when you are teaching grad courses at a later stage in your career.


text:
A professor who is less knowledgeable in certain subjects than a student
What is a proper way of showing academic knowledge with assignments when your professors and or school is not on par with a particular students knowledge, so-to-speak?
A student is extremely smart but lacks communication skills due to a disability and is completing advanced work when it is not required. In return, the professors have become egotistical and grade his papers for made up biased issues which have been confirmed to be incorrect grading from other members of the field.
How might a student handle a situation such as this and yet still prosper and graduate with a network of potential workplaces when the professors cannot handle someone who knows more then they do and go after him to encourage failure?

What does "completing advanced work when it is not required" mean in this context?

Perhaps, unsurprisingly, you do what needs to be done to get good grades, then get out of there as quickly as possible. Projecting your feelings for the professors, which come across clearly in your question, isn't likely to help either, but that is more for Interpersonal Skills SE.

You sound angry. That is not going to solve anything. First thing you need to do is calm down. Don't assume that you are smart and the others are dumb. Don't assume malice or egotism. Start from the position that you are surprised about the grade and would like to learn what you did wrong so you can improve your future work.

@MaartenBuis I am not angry because this is the third person involved in this conversation, but if this statement sounded angry then obviously what is partaking between a student-professor needs intervention. No one said anywhere that someone is dumb.

There are a couple of things that can be going on here.  The short version is that you have a disagreement with your instructor about how your work is being graded.  You have interpreted the grading one way; I'm sure we would get a different version if your professor were here.  It's entirely possible you are answering questions that are not being asked (and this is what is causing your low grades).
Here's one example: If I were to ask a student to solve a physics problem using only basic algebraic methods and then discuss the benefits of this method and its limitations, and a student solves the problem using methods that involve calculus, they have solved the problem using "more advanced work", except that they have totally failed to answer the question I asked.  In an ideal world, I would communicate to this student that, while their math was great, their lack of understanding of the question means they missed the point of the question (and, in fact had not answered it).
I have been in the position of being a student and thinking that a question was simplistically put and that it warranted a more complicated solution than what I thought was being asked for.  My solution was to go talk to the professor.  He had office hours; I went.  I started the conversation by saying that I thought two methods of looking at the problem would yield two different answers, and I explained why I thought that the more complicated answer was better.  The professor completely agreed and we had a great chat.  (He told me to keep the more complicated answer and wrote on my homework a note to his TA to accept it as is.)
One of the big challenges of teaching (perhaps the largest) is teaching by increment, and finding the right "sized" increment.  I've taught a wide range of science classes; all of them start with some simplifications that you later find are wrong.  These simplifications give students a chance to tackle a new concept without overwhelming them.  You may be running up against a limitation of this method.  Perhaps you (like the student in my example) are more proficient at math than what is being used in your class, but you are focusing on the math and ignoring what the question is really driving at.
My first suggestion to you is to go talk to your professor.  From your question, I believe that you feel you have some problems in communicating.  Getting better at this is going to require you practicing it.  You've also stated that the "professors have become egotistical"; this sounds like an assumption to me, and a dangerous one at that.  (I'm not saying that it isn't possible that this has happened, but I see no evidence here.)  If you have not spoken directly to your professor, you may be interpreting their responses through an inaccurate lens.
Lastly, if you have a disability, you should find out if your school has resources that are available to you, and use them.  Someone who is trained to be an advocate for students with disabilities working at your school will be able to give you more detailed advice than a bunch of strangers here on the internet.

@kartop_man Sure, there's a bit of an assumption on my part.  Options: 1. it's the professor.  (not likely, given the use of 'egotistical' and 'made up biases'.) 2. It's a third party (possible; poorly communicated; question shows lack of perspective.  Could be an upset 3rd party.) 3. The OP is the student.  (OP could be using language that avoids first person for a variety of reasons.) Given the language, I highly doubt the OP is the professor; without evidence I chose not to multiply my entities.  Thus, I assume the OP is the student.

I appreciate you taking the time out to type this response it was helpful.

If you have communication issues because of a disability, and it is interfering with your coursework, at least in the US, you would approach the office that handles disabilities.  They will work with you to get the disability officially documented, and then you will work with them to discuss appropriate accommodations with your coursework and your instructors.

Thank you, for the response.