text:
Can I enroll in an engineering PhD as an MD?
I currently have a bachelor's degree in biomedical engineering and soon I will get a Medical Doctor's degree (which technically is a Master's degree). I want to start a PhD after finishing medical studies but I'm more interested in the field of engineering, machine learning and statistics (applied in medicine) than in a purely medical PhD.
My question is can I enroll in PhD program with a main field of engineering/computer science without getting a getting a Master's in engineering, that is, having only the Master's in medicine?
I'm curious both about the formal requirements (how much the fields of Master's and PhD have to match) and the actual chance of succeeding (maybe it's formally possible but usually universities do not allow it). Also, does it depend on the country? I'm especially interested in EU and USA.
I found this question quite relevant although I believe there is a difference. Said question focuses on changing a discipline from field of engineering to another while I'm planning to switch from medicine to an engineering field.

"soon I will get a Medical Doctor's degree (which technically is a Master's degree)" - I wonder what country this is based on? Certainly in the United States I would not consider a MD to be anything "technically" like a master's degree. It's a professional degree, on an entirely separate track.

As an aside, if you're interested in the engineering side but want to stay adjacent to medicine, you could look at biomedical engineering programs to be closer to engineering, or bioinformatics or computational biology if you want to be closer to computer science.

@BryanKrause In this case Poland but generally almost anywhere in Europe and as far as I know in any country in the Bologna Process zone. Actually it was a little surprising to me while reading the Wikipedia article on MD title it wasn't the case for every country.

@BryanKrause Europe is similar to this. You get a "Master" in medicine and then either get a fast track PhD (Most do) or go work as a doctor immediately. I only know one person who did the latter

@JantekMikulski The UK is in the Bologna zone, but medicine is a bachelors degree.

This is a US only answer. There is nothing, in principle, that would prevent you from applying for an engineering doctorate with your degrees. In practice, however, you would be considered along with others according to the appropriateness of the preparation you have for starting the degree. So, the issue might be whether you have the proper math and science (beyond biology) background.
In the US, most doctoral applicants only hold a bachelors and a masters is very seldom required. But some relationship between past and future studies is expected. There is an opportunity for advanced coursework at the start of a doctoral program and it is normally needed by most students to prepare them for comprehensive exams.
You will need an attractive application, including letters of recommendation, that will speak to your likely success in engineering studies. That may be easy for you or not.
For Biomedical Engineering the path might be smooth, though there are fewer such programs.
The situation in some EU countries will be very different. Germany, for example, tends to be more strict about prior preparation.

Also see: How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in Country X?


text:
Struggling with PhD in Switzerland: should I transfer to a more favorable climate?
I started my PhD studentship in a very prestigious university in Switzerland in Summer 2023. Initially, it was all good, however, later things started to go wrong.
Switzerland has been way too cold for me. Extremely cold. I did not think cold would be as bad, but this winter - I have barely survived. I tried to take up as much "work from home", and attend all meetings online. Unfortunately that led to a loss in productivity. My advisor is still happy with my work, but I could do so much more. Plus I have had no social life as I couldn't go out.
I've been miserable. Now that it's summer, I have about 4 months before everything starts going wrong again. I was thinking to try for a PhD in a university in a hotter climate but its quite hard to find a mix of good salary, good university, good advisor with convergence of interests as much as I have currently.
I don't want my advisor to think that I might leave the program soon, unless I've made up my mind and have some plan on what to do next. Plus other PhD programs and even employers will have serious questions about me leaving a PhD program midway. What are my options? How do I decide what to do and how do I prepare for the future?

Why is it that you "still can't go out"? Is there some medical issue at play here?

@cag51 For me, going out mainly denotes morning walks with friends. But <10* C is still  cold so I skip a few times. No specific medical issues, its already cold and wind makes the cold harsher.

What sort of clothing are you wearing at 10C and below? Colder weather definitely takes some getting used to but if you haven't experienced it I think it's more likely you're not dressing correctly for the weather. You may need to dress more warmly then people around who are more used to it. Do you wear a hat? Gloves?

@jacinto Hiding from the cold will make acclimatisation slower and harder. Also: make sure you get enough vitamin D.

I know people who came from hot climates to study in Zurich and who passionately hate Swiss winters. I myself don't appreciate the winter in Zurich or in Switzerland in general. But you get used to it. Get clothes that work for you. Make sure to get enough light (go outside at noon, excursions to higher places where there is sun, buy cheap sun lamp). Get some exercise (in Zurich nothing beats ASVZ). For clothing, in the extreme case you can wear ski-jacket, ski over-pants, padded insulated boots, hat, gloves and a scarf that you can pull up over your nose.

Electrically heated gloves, jackets and vests exist nowadays, can be ordered on most online stores, and may help a lot if a regular long coat isn't enough. I'd argue there's simply no reason to feel cold nowadays if you don't want to.

Could you move to Ticino and work remotely, getting into Zürich only several times per month?  In January, Lugano has 124 sunshine hours and a mean daytime temperature of 7°C.  Zürich has 60 sunshine hours and 3.5°C.  Lugano does get more rain, but it falls on a smaller number of days.  Ticino is a very expensive place to live, but then again, so is Zürich.

You just need to get used to it.  When I moved to the Middle East in the summer I thought I couldn't handle the heat, but after practice moving around and walking around in it you just get used to it.

@gerrit Thank you. Yes I could certainly explore that. My in-person meetings are mainly once per week and I could commute if possible.

Beware that colder countries in Europe are better prepared for winter than south European countries. If you dress properly, winters are better in Scandinavia than in warmer countries because when you are at home you can just wear t-shirts due to good insulation, heating and lower energy prices. If you moved to my home town in Brazil you would need to use heavy clothing indoors, temperatures go bellow 0C and there is no heating. Portugal has a similar issue. So if you decide to move to a warmer country, be careful.

As a Canadian, cold climates are easy to deal with- you just dress adequately. Your face may feel cold, but you get used to that and it is invigorating (at least down to -15°C or so, which is much colder than Zurich usually gets). If you are afraid of the cold you tense up and feel even colder. Relax and the limbs warm up with circulation. Hot climates, on the other hand, can only be dealt with similarly to  an extent limited by law and decency, so acclimatization is the only option.

As a Finn I will say the following. Colder climate is not a problem if you dress up properly (multiple layers). The houses and flats are properly heated (air-conditioning is rare OTOH), so the temperatures indoors are comfortable all year around. However, some people cannot handle the darker days in the Winter. That is a reasonably well studied problem. One bright grad student (from Souther Europe) at our department had to move out as she just couldn't handle it. If you work indoors 8-to-4 all of December+January, you won't see the sun at all. Get out!

(cont'd) The last point is the one I really wanted to make. The dark season is known to make many people feel miserable. More so than the colder weather even though the two come together.

@JyrkiLahtonen There are limits... on the website of the Salekhard tourist office it says that whoever said that "there is no bad weather, only bad clothes" has not been to Salekhard (personally, I find that at temperatures below -35°C, it becomes difficult to dress appropriately for outside activities), and I don't agree with people saying a humid 3°C feels worse.

No argument there @gerrit :-) People coming to my hometown do claim that the worst we get (approximately -20 degrees centigrade+humidity from the Baltic Sea) is worse than -35 degrees inland. But I also remember the fellow grad students (from warmer climates) at Notre Dame having difficulties in the winter simply because they didn't understand the need for extra layers.

"Now that it's summer" is your PhD in astronomy?

If OP's institution has other people from warmer country, I would encourage OP to talk to them

I think the question is asking for academic advice, not personal advice.
In my opinion, in the long run it is better for you to finish your PhD quickly rather than switching to another university.  Delays to finishing your degree are very expensive.
You can look for other places you can work during the coldest part of the year.  Maybe there is a research institution in a tropical or southern hemisphere region you can visit inexpensively.  A reasonable advisor will think getting international experience is a good thing and can help you plan a trip that will advance your career.

thank you for this! yes, this is certainly something I can try. I can also use up all of my vacation days during the winter.

I do not mean to minimize the challenges you report, but I do not think cold weather in itself is sufficient reason to rearrange your plans.
Three suggestions.

Consider practical solutions. Do you have warm enough clothing? If you've never lived in a cold climate, you might not know what to buy. Do as the locals do.
Consider medical explanations. While I do not want to try to diagnose you, the obvious explanation is seasonal affective disorder.
Consider other sources of unhappiness. Again, I do not want to play internet psychiatrist, but I do wonder if your complaints about the weather might be displaced from another source.

If you're convinced that none of the above are relevant, then my advice is that this is something to get through. Go to the office every day, even when it's cold. Personally, I do not like getting up early, or flying in cramped economy seats, or taking certain mandatory trainings. But we must sometimes do things we'd rather not. If everything in your life is perfect except for the weather, I rather doubt that you'll find a more perfect situation elsewhere, and it's likely that transferring schools will delay your progress.

"Do as the locals do."  My temperature perception is very different from average.  In my experience, this is absolutely the wrong way to dress for the weather.  Perhaps the asker also has unusual temperature perception.

Descartes, if I remember correctly, could not get used to the cold when he moved to Sweden, similarly Fourier in France when he returned to Egypt. It might indeed be that OP can not get used to the weather in Switzerland. As European, I find most of lowland Switzerland reasonably moderate, much nicer in winter than Scandinvia (and, in fact, as I once found, Paris!), but someone from a warmer climate may not. Maybe study in Florida, South California, Australia?

At my old midwestern USA school, Freshman international students who had never seen snow shivered horribly in October, then someone explains what a Winter coat is and how to buy one, but all Winter outdoors they look as if they're always leaving a recent car crash; and the next Winter they've adapted. "Frozen equatorial Freshperson" was like a meme.

It might very well be that this does not apply as much to Switzerland as it does to Germany because even being neighboring countries, the geography and climate is quite different (at least compared to northern Germany). In Germany a lot of incoming students from warmer regions (South America, India, ...) struggle over the winter with Vitamin D deficiancy. Maybe supplementing Vitamin D can already go a long way.

@Jacinto ttnick raised a really important point with Vitamin D. Deficency of this often induces depression, which can greatly amplify the resentment you feel towards the Swiss winter. If you think this may have happened, try supplements next winter and see if it helps.

Beyond doing what the locals do, you can also just google how to dress for cold weather. That might sound obvious, but if you don't realise it's a specific skill you might not think of it.

I grow up in Costa Rica and moved to Vancouver for my undergraduate degree. Those first winters killed me. Now I live in Germany and, even though I've learned to cope better with winter, I still find it depressing as hell. That's just the effect that the lack of sunlight has on you.
The best thing you can do is buy a sun lamp and find some form of exercise you enjoy that you can do during the winter. Good luck and remember that you're not alone!

Ah, I grew up in the Prairies of Canada, and Vancouver is like a tropical paradise by comparison...

Having completed a PhD in Switzerland myself, I sympathize with your complaints about the Swiss climate in the winter months, especially in fog holes such as Neuchâtel or Zürich.  In addition to some of the excellent suggestions in the other responses, I would recommend exploring grants for mobility schemes to visit other institutions or project partners with more amenable climate. This might not be a permanent solution, but would allow you to continue your doctoral program in Switzerland (with all the prestige that entails) while escaping the cold, and improve your CV in the process.
If you are employed in a Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) project, you might be interested in looking into SNSF Mobility grants. Showing initiative by applying to grants is always a good idea. If you are employed by an international EU consortium project or doctoral network, then these often have funds set aside for secondments. In my experience, many professors in Switzerland also have quite comfortable funding, and might be able to fund such research visits on their own if the other options are not feasible and you can make a strong case for its scientific relevance.

I live in cold climate and have a friend coming from a warm climate. He keeps complaining and at the same time wears thin jacket over a shirt when it is -10 C. Are you sure you are not making the same mistake? I wear a shirt, longsleeve, sweater and a proper winter coat. If it is windy, I add a scarf necessarily.
Also, if you modify your question based on what you wear, we could give better answers.

This is a very unusual question, you're in a field of study you enjoy, in a prestigious school in Switzerland and your supervisor is supportive. That's like the jackpot of postgraduate opportunities, yet you're fixated on the weather and even considering leaving because of it?
Have you actually tried to deal with the cold? Layering, wearing an appropriate coat, socks, hat, and gloves. All of these make a huge difference.
I don't think it is worth giving up such an incredible opportunity because of the weather but I wish you the best of luck regardless.

If it's a matter of feeling cold there are a number of things that you can try. If it's the general perception of coldness then these may or may not help.

A Polypropylene "thermal" layer next to the skin can make an immense difference.
Polyester (PE) may work about as well thermally, but PP wicks moisture vapour away from your skin better, so that you don't feel as clammy.

As many Polyester layers as it takes can be worn. Without appearing overdressed this could include a shirt, sweater and jacket. Each layer is a good insulator in its own right, and also traps a layer of stationary air to add to the insulating effect. You can get different weights of PE clothing - I'd imagine that Swiss stores offer a good range.

Warm feet help immensely. You can get specifically insulating socks in various materials. Similarly, footwear can be chosen to target warmth. Long ago silk socks were a thing - they may not now be readily available. They have the additional advantage of being thin, allowing them to be worn inside a second pair of other materials. A google search suggests that they are still available online.

Along with warm feet, a warm head also makes an immense difference. Even a light woolen hat works wonders, and there will no doubt be available hats that match current Swiss standards for acceptable dress.

Gloves also make a substantial difference. Silk gloves are thin and allow operation of most equipment and can be very inobvious. There are of course a wide range of other gloves available. I tend to favour fingerless gloves, but have reached an age where cosmetic appearance is not a major factor :-) .

By now you should be getting seriously warm. If that's not enough adding a scarf will help. This can be warn only around the neck or handing down ready for use or across the face en extremis.

If all else fails !!! :-)
Long ago I rode motorcycles in inclement conditions, although not as cold as Switzerland. I bought a pocket warmer / hand warmer that used white gas (petrol without additives) and a platinum wire coil catalytic converter to produce a useful amount of heat. I hade this more useful by wedging the case door open somewhat to increase the air flow rate. I would tuck this under my belt before I put my outer protective jacket on. Super toasty.
A web search using pocketr heater shows that many brands are still available - you'd want the refillable rtype and not the oe-times ones.
You can now buy electrically heated rechargeable units. They are liable to have less energy per charge than fuel based ones but would be more convenient.
The New York times tested 23 hand warmers and say that the Celestron is the best electrically heated one (and includes a torch and phone charger) and that the Zippo  12 hour refillable is the best fuel based one.

And, to answer the question - do try very hard to adapt to the cold.
The mix of good salary, good university, good advisor with convergence of interests plus the superb Swiss experience would be very hard to beat.
I recommend Lauterbrunnen - all year round, but certainly in warm weather. Schilthorn (shades of 007) but only if the weather is excellent.

Lake Geneva, ... and much much more.

Excellent weather in Lauterbrunnen?  When pigs can fly ;-)

@gerrit it was lovely weather on the day that I took those two photos plus many more. Sadly I missed seeing the flying pigs. Trummelbachfalle was scary and awesomely fantastic.

@gerrit whoops - one photo. Other is of course not at Lauterbrunnen.

JHmmm. 2 days on, a downvote. I wonder what anyone would think this is not useful.

I live in Zurich.
Although Zurich is in Switzerland, it's relatively far from the alps and therefore it doesn't get as cold in winter as other cities closer to the mountains.
Here are my recommendations to keep warm in winter.

Get some warm and waterproof shoes and nice warm socks. The easiest way to get cold is to get your feet wet, so your first objective is to make sure your feet keep dry no matter the weather

Invest in a good jacket. A good jacket will last you forever and will keep you warm and dry.

You can wear thermal leggings and thermal t-shirt under your regular clothes.

Cover your head with a good warm hat that also covers your ears, and put some good gloves in your hands.

In sport shops they sell chemical warm bags. They have a couple of chemical components that when in contact to each other they generate heat. And some of this bags are reusable. Have always one with you in case you did not take enough clothes.

Good clothes are a bit expensive, but if you are are smart you can get good clothes at good prices:

Some sport shops have outlets, where they sell clothes from previous seasons at big discounts, and they are equally effective as the new trendy season ones.

When the winter season ends, regular shops make big discounts for the items they didn't sell. That's a very good moment to buy winter clothes for the next year.

You can also buy second hand clothes, there are some shops that sell second hand clothes. In Switzerland we use the website www.tutti.ch to sell second hand stuff, including clothes. You can find very good deals there.

So to sum up: You can get good clothes without spending a fortune that will help you not feel cold in winter and will allow you to enjoy not only the city but the magnificent landscapes of this beautiful country.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What title should I use to greet both a professor and an associate professor in an email?
I am wondering how to write email to both a professor and an assistant professor in the same email.
Shall I use "Dear Professor … and …" or "Dear Professor … and Assistant Professor … "?
I have found this existing question, which says that I should use "Dear Professor …" for assistant professors.
However, I am wondering if it is appropriate to use "Dear Professor … and …"?
I am in Japan, but writing in English as the assistant professor does not speak Japanese well.

Please avoid writing answers in comments. Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion or containing answers will be removed.

Sure glad researchers are spending their mental energy on the important things...

You will be on the safe side if you write "Dear Professors Smith and Miller". They are both professors, and the fact that they have different rank is unimportant in the address. If one is junior to the other, put the senior one's name first.
In general, talk to how others (older) students do that. You have a support network for these sorts of questions around you. Use it!

@Trunk Then ask them how they addressed the professors at the beginning, rather than right now. This isn't rocket science.

@Trunk You can't escalate every problem to the boss's boss. You're making life too complicated if you say that "ask older graduate students" is bad advice.

@Trunk agreed. I'm that grad student.

@Trunk If they're allowed to "get away with it", how do we know there's even an issue in the first place?

@Trunk yes, the title prof needs to be earned, not given based on what the university tells you. You start with first name basis and then progress to "prof' or "sir" or whatever you feel is right. I've done multiple studies and at least in the netherlands this is always hte common case. And it's easy to spot the weird expat who doesn't care from a mile by this so called 'proper' behaviour. (As well as by their attire, with a jacket and shirts instead of a normal tshirt or polo)

In the UK, the title 'Professor' has historically been reserved for full professors, with lecturers (assistant professors), senior lecturers (associate professors), and readers generally addressed as Dr. However, the current University of Oxford Style Guide now notes that Associate Professors "may, if they wish, use the title of ‘Professor’, or they may keep their previous title of ‘Dr’. This demonstrates how non-uniform it is! It really does seem to depend on what country you are in, and even what university you're at! But I personally would address full professors as Professor, and everyone else as Dr. (In some places in Europe, though, everyone is called 'Professor', and I've noticed that in some places in North America, professors often prefer their Dr title!)

Make sure to draw a distinction between title and form of address. That is, what someone puts on their business cards is not necessarily the same as how you directly address them. "Professor vs lecturer" is a good example of this, as is "captain vs commander" or "doctor vs engineer".

Assuming you're in the UK:
If you know them: "Hi Bob and Dave".
If you don't know them and want to be formal: "Dear Dr X and Dr Y".
If you don't know them and want to be more casual: "Hi everyone".
If you want to play it safe: "Good afternoon/evening/morning".
Honestly, unless you're writing to someone very stuck-up, nobody is going to care or even notice if you just use their first name. If in doubt you can easily avoid names and titles.

If you don't know them you can also say "Dear Bob X and Dave Y". I don't think you can ever go wrong with that.

@N.Virgo - Personally, I think full naming someone sounds awkward. It might just be a me thing though

@ScottishTapWater I agree - about the only time I've seen my full name in a salutation is in an auto-generated form letter or spam.

@ScottishTapWater you're probably right actually, I just got used to it because I have a lot of communications with academics where I don't necessarily know their title. In my experience most people sign off with their first name in their reply and then I use that from then on.

Really depends on the country and even the people you are talking to (in countries like Canada and the US, profs come from all over the place).
Little anecdote: ten or so years ago, I was department head and had to obtain references for short-listed candidates to an assistant prof position (we hadn't started using mathjobs yet). One of the names rang a bell, but I couldn't quite place it. I sent my emails without paying any more attention. "Dear First Name, X has given your name as a reference and I am writing to request a letter". Emails come back with letters and I realised at that point that the reason the name rang a bell is that it was a Fields medalist (with an email from a different uni than his "canonical " one, hence my confusion). I was happy, because in hindsight, I probably would have agonised a long time on how to start my letter. He replied using my first name and didn't seem one bit annoyed that I wasn't more formal.
In short: don't overthink it. Most profs don't really care.
For a first contact, you can always play it safe and use "Professors X and Y" and see what they use in their answer.

More of a comment than an answer, but I think it's worth pointing out a couple of general rules of thumb.

Academics are routinely referred to with a wrong honorific. I'm often addressed as Prof. (which I am not), Dr., Mr., or by first name. There's not a lot of risk of annoying someone this way, we're too used to it. The worst I would realistically expect is a chuckle or a raised eyebrow.

When in doubt, it's always safe to err on the side of being more deferential. If you mistakenly address someone as Prof., they won't mind, especially if they're an assistant professor. It's almost always fine to use Dr. - that's a title that academics will almost universally have, and is a more clear-cut distinction than professor. Most people won't mind using first names, but some might, so it's best to exercise caution.

I think it's important to note that while it's very much true that academics are routinely referred to with the wrong honorific, standard practice is to correct the misunderstanding when the honorific implies an elevated station to which one does not actually enjoy. I am not sure how widely this custom is still observed, but as someone who has worked in higher education since 2004, I've done my best to correct any inflated titles -- as it disrespects those we actually earned such promotions. Many institutions (Harvard, for example) have very explicit in-house literature around this.

Dear colleagues,
That seems intuitive. accurate, appropriate, and warm.

In the United States, you should never address anyone as "assistant professor" or "associate professor."  To do so is simply rude.  Anyone whose title contains "professor" gets the courtesy title of Professor; even instructional faculty whose title is something like "instructor" can typically be addressed this way.

Assuming they are both Doctors, "Dear Dr. A and Dr. B" or "Dear Drs. A & B" should suffice.

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


text:
It feels like I have no chance to get into a physics phd program
I am a math major in the US who has done quite a lot of theory without any publications. My math grades are somewhat good but not As. I have always done research alone as my university did not have a High Energy physics program. I tried to work with professors at a nearby university many times during my 4 years in undergrad to no avail.
My problem is as follows: First, being an independent researcher, I have no one to write me any letters of rec. All the math professors I did do research with (1) is retired and I can't get a hold of him. Also, having no supervisor means I can't get Endorsed on Arxiv.org. I tried emailing professors I have taken classes with or researchers I have exchanged emails with and I am getting ghosted by everyone. There was a professor that promised he would take a look at my paper and provide feedback. I sent in the draft, and it's been around 1.5 months and nothing... I am not in town so I can't go to him personally. I also have been emailing him weekly and still nothing...
Then there is my current paper I am trying to finish before Dec when grad school applications are due. (As I figure the only way to show I am ready for grad school is to finish this as every other thing about doesn't prove I am "ready")
I have done research in High-energy theory. In my current paper, I am using Moduli space deformation that generates Gugino condensation and deforming G-structures with a non-vanishing first Chern class. The Torsion induced in G-structures that are non-integrable are almost all Kahler Manifolds described by Gromov-Witten invariants. I will show that ideas linked to complexity and other areas can possibly:

Shed light in mechanisms that break EW symmetry and SUSY in the soft sector

satisfy complex Einstein's equations for complex metrics and describe the role of "non-allowed" ones.

Describe the roles G2 structures have on physical observables and the role of "time in QG"
I hope that even though I am no expert in this field, I can use what I understand to contribute in any meaningful way.

Anyway, even if I finish it, I can't publish as I can't get an endorsement.
So... to cap it all off, I feel like I just have never (not for the lack of trying) gotten any chance to succeed in academia and I STILL feel like that is the case. I can't get any letters nor can I publish. I just wish I had some chance, any chance to increase my odds. How can it be not matter what I do, I can never succeed? (That is what a few professors who are currently ghosting me said)

In the last paragraph: your professors (plural) told you that "no matter what you do, you will never succeed"? That seems like a very strange thing for professors to say.

What happened last time you applied to a PhD program, what sort of feedback? PhD programs can be highly selective, that’s simply a fact.

No, unfortunately, US programs don't offer feedback.

Odd, I received honest but painful feedback back in the day. It certainly redirected the career path I had in mind at the time, all for the best. I suppose I’m starting to question this question. Good luck!

This question is similar to: How are Ph.D. applications evaluated in the US, particularly for weak or borderline students? Am I likely to get into school X?. If you believe it’s different, please [edit] the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem.

Gugino condensation Do you mean gaugino?

done quite a lot of theory What does that mean? Have you taken standard undergraduate physics courses? If not, how do you expect to pass graduate-level physics courses and then your qualifying exams?

Undergraduates aren’t expected to be researchers. (Or they weren’t when I was an undergrad.) That’s what Ph.D. programs are for. A typical undergrad thesis in physics usually just demonstrates that one has studied some interesting topic and understood it reasonably well.

I sent in the draft, and it's been around 1.5 months and nothing. If that happened to me, I would interpret it as meaning that the professor didn’t see any merit in my paper, but finds it too awkward to tell me that.

The other answers have explained why you're having problems. You don't have a physics degree, your math grades are mostly not As, and whether your research is good is simply unknowable (the only way to tell is for an expert to slog through your papers, and vanishingly few will be willing to do so).
What I want to focus on is the other side: how do you fix it? Finishing your paper is probably not the right answer. As you say, you have no way of publishing the paper (even to the arXiv), and even if you managed to get it to the arXiv, it is unlikely to do you any good, since few experts will be willing to even evaluate it.
If you have not taken the standard upper-level physics courses (E&M, thermo, quantum, etc.), you will need to do so. You might be able to do this as part of a master's program, but if not, you may have to take these courses as a non-matriculated student. Once you have taken these courses and gotten good grades, your application will be a lot stronger. I realize taking these courses may be expensive, but if this is truly your dream, and you're not willing to consider other career paths, you may have to make sacrifices for it.
Once you have taken these courses, you can try applying again for PhD programs (don't neglect the less competitive schools; attending a lower-ranked school is fine so long as there is a suitable advisor for you). In parallel, I would also apply for master's programs. The former is probably better financially, while the latter has the advantage that if you are successful as a master's student, you can apply to more prestigious PhD programs. If you still think your current research ideas are viable, you can show them to your master's advisor. If they think your work is good, they can help you publish. And then you might be able to apply to the best graduate schools. Good luck.

I know of a few physics masters programs that focus on getting an undergraduate who did not major in physics ready for a physics PhD. But a middling math major without a strong background (demonstrated in courses) in physics is just not the way to get into a high energy physics PhD program.

I can offer some advice, but I'll assume you are interested in doctoral study in the US. For this and more generally, see the various answers to the canonical question on doctoral admissions.
First, note that published research is not generally (some exceptions) required for doctoral admissions in the US. Nor is it generally required that you come with a specific research problem. You don't need to choose a supervisor prior to admission. Note that changing fields from undergraduate to doctoral level is common and math -> physics is generally fine if you have had some physics courses in the undergrad, especially more than the minimum required for a math major.
Next, many, perhaps most R1 institutions in the US will have a good physics doctoral program and likely will have a few faculty with high-energy experience, and maybe even a working group. However, the first task, typically, is to take certain advanced courses to prepare for the very common qualifying exams. There might be (probably is) opportunity for a few extra courses, perhaps in HEP. But you will need to explore the offerings of places you apply to.
One applies to a department and one chooses a specialty later. I applied in math and would have been happy in either analysis or topology, but didn't need to specify even that for admission.
So, the first task is to get in the door, then pass exams, then comes the research with a specific advisor. And, some flexibility is needed in choice of problems, since the advisor must be "on-board" with any proposal.
Some things worry me about what you write here. You may be subverting yourself, actually. Sending weekly unanswered emails will get you tagged as a crank. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between genius and crankiness. You may be too focused on things that aren't essential at this point. You need a good GPA and good letters of recommendation for entry.
An arXiv paper may mean nothing if it is unvetted. And papers take a long time to get published formally.
Some of the things you are attacking are very difficult without guidance and help (and possibly collaboration). This can lead to serious errors that you may have no way of recognizing, though I can't claim that is true in your case. But it could partly explain getting ghosted.
I do suggest, however, that you need an effective path to doctoral admission and what you write doesn't seem like it is anywhere near optimal for US programs. It might be in Germany and a few places, but those places also have very different and more focused undergraduate programs.
Finally, even with a fairly general physics doctorate, one can change focus later and will have resources to do so if you develop collaborative relationships.

I'm not a crank, I can't be a crank I never crank. YOU NEVER SEE ME WITH A CRANK!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Glad you cleared that up.

Goodness knows what the media would say if they found out... OR THE SPACE PEOPLE (they are everywhere watching us)

Yep, I'm one of them, actually. Beware.

I always knew the dogs were from Outerspace. Checkmate..

but in all seriousness, I can't change my GPA (I graduated) and nothing else seems to be worth it as I can't get any letter of rec. It seems like all I can do now.

@BurakGuner: Nice, that pretty much settles things for me with this post. If nothing else you’ve experienced, and played with, the kindness and considerateness of others. Best of luck in your future endeavors elsewhere!

Research is really difficult. It's not like coursework, you can be very good at coursework and yet not be any good at research.
Except for a few rare geniuses, people learn how to do research from others who have more experience. Running through your post, you describe yourself as an "independent researcher" and mentioned areas that you've studied, but you also describe not having had anyone to learn from.
PhD admissions are not about giving a spot to everyone who might possibly be qualified, the admissions process distributes a limited number of funded opportunities to a selected group that is smaller than the number of qualified applicants. You are competing with all the other candidates. Some will have publications; others will not but will have letters from seasoned professors that describe their potential in research from firsthand experience.
If you don't have these things, why should you be chosen over them? It's not that you haven't been given a chance, it's that you've made several choices along the way that made your path far more difficult. You've attended an institution without a research focus in your area of interest. You've tried to get mentorship from professors whose job it is to mentor students at their institution, not yours. You've chosen to go it alone as an "independent researcher" without any guidance or feedback to know if any of the steps you are taking have any value.
I can't tell if your work has had any value, but the story you tell does not really inspire confidence. I do think from your description that you have a low probability of acceptance. Some people either consider it rude to offer honest strong negative feedback or fear a student's reaction if they do; it's possible that what you are perceiving as "ghosting" reflects these professors not being able to support you. If they say you are unlikely to succeed, I would not describe that as "ghosting": they're just politely telling you "no".

Actually, I did attend their university for a year, but I was considered out of state and had to switch to another university (the one I mentioned). So it was not my choice. also, you seem to say Independent research does not qualify me, but all research is done individually. You can't "teach" someone how to do research just as you can't teach someone how to imagine it just is.

@BurakGuner By "had to switch" do you mean "switched to save on tuition"? A PhD program is a program to teach students to do research. If you don't believe that's possible, it does not seem like you're a good fit to join a PhD program.

Please. if you want to ridicule me prove my ideas wrong don't attack me.

@BurakGuner What do you perceive as an attack? You've explained that you do not think research can be taught. Why would you then be interested in a research training program?

Graduate admissions without support from at least one academic is nearly a futile effort.
Step one is therefore to get mentorship from an academic. Given your circumstances, your odds are not good. You are probably best served by getting help from professors at your alma mater. Even if you graduated decades ago and the professors who taught you are no longer there, as long as the university still exists, there'll be professors who can help you.
There is also no requirement that you get "endorsement" to publish. You can always submit your paper to a journal, it's just a matter of passing the peer review process.
One undercurrent however is that you don't look like your work has merit, based solely on the fact that lots of people have talked to you and then ghosted you. As present, I would guess that even if you submit your paper to a journal, odds are you'll be desk rejected.
If you are serious about doing graduate studies, you'll need to be ready to take feedback, even if the feedback is [no] matter what [you] do, [you] can never succeed. Silver lining is that nobody is going to say that without due consideration, so they almost surely have given you feedback already, you just have to take it. What exactly did these people tell you before they broke off communications? I suggest reading it again and paying close attention.


text:
Is it “too much” if I ask to meet with my PI and ask her to sign my copy of her dissertation?
I got into an internship with my PI this summer. She accepted me.  I’m so thrilled, I’m loving it, but today was the first day she actually came in, as she is usually at her other lab in NY. I mean, she glanced over at me and my mentor for like half a second because she was going by in a hurry and even with that I almost fainted.  When I meet her for real one on one I’m gonna die. I’m ready to go to heaven.
But seriously… This is my idol, my #1. I don’t even think she knows how much I value her and know her work by heart. If you asked me to write a summary of all her research I could give you at least 20 pages, probably more.
Anyways, as a professor do you think this is too much or over the top? What would you think if a student was like this about you? Is it too much if I ask her if I can meet her one on one or about autographing her dissertation?

Maybe I'm just getting old, but all the emoji in a question on a professional site seems a bit over the top to me.

To consolidate some further discussion about the emojis: the consensus seems to be that they are pertinent in this case, and so we will leave them.

I've given signed copies of my thesis to my PhD adviser and to friends and colleagues who helped me with it as a token of gratitude. Signing books is also common. I see nothing wrong with you asking her to sign your copy.
As others have pointed out, you have to figure out a way to have a professional relationship with your adviser. Whatever her status in your (research) community, to you she is a professional contact with whom you have to productively interact. In your specific context, you aren't some screaming fan at a K-Pop concert, but you're the stage hand making sure that the microphone is working or the person at the back of the stage singing backing vocals -- a professional who is necessary to keep the show running. You've got to keep your cool to make sure it does.

What would you think if a student was like this about you?

Extremely uncomfortable. This is absolutely subjective; others may find this behavior flattering or appreciate the enthusiasm, but a non-negligible set of people will become cautious.
By and large, one expects a certain level of maturity and professionalism amongst research colleagues. Both those qualities imply moderation of emotions and appropriate expression. Bear in mind that gushing is communication; communication can make or break a researcher.
This is not only about academic mores and conduct; maturity is critical in research because work must be done dispassionately. Negative results must be accepted as readily as positive results, findings that reject your initial hypothesis must be clearly reported, and competition with research rivals must be above board, no matter the temptation. Each of these (and many more) can get difficult when one is emotionally driven. You must take care not to cultivate qualities that could impede your own research career.
As to the primary question; getting a dissertation copy autographed is no big deal under usual circumstances. Your adulation of this person makes the circumstances somewhat unusual, and the verbal/non-verbal cues you may give off could lead to uneasiness.
As others have said, your passion and enthusiasm are commendable. It's just that there is also a case for dispassion and stoicism in this domain.

Wait to ask her until you've worked with her and know better how she might respond. Perhaps that's when your summer internship ends in a few months. In the meanwhile, don't faint at your first meeting. It's unprofessional.

It never hurts to ask. I would not ask for a meeting for the sole purpose of getting an autograph, but it's perfectly reasonable to email a professor (especially one you're interning with) and ask whether they have time to meet with you and discuss research ideas. If at some point in the meeting you ask for an autograph, it's not too weird in my opinion (though it really is personal - some people might find it weird). I would suggest having the autograph bit at the end, so that it won't set the tone for the entire meeting.


text:
We are applying for Australia and my wife wants to pursue her diploma?
My wife and I want to go to Australia. She wants to pursue her diploma in hotel management and so we are on the verge of writing our SOP. Should I state that she is single or married, as we heard that there is a chance of cancellation of the visa if the diploma student is declared married?

You should never give false information on such a document. Governments are not tolerant of this and consequences can be serious. To give different decisions based on a woman's marital status would also probably be a violation of human rights in Australia and many other territories.

Thank you sir, but i mean to says that will married woman can get a student visa on Australia on Diploma in Hotel Management

Other than as a spouse, what is your role here? Why do you say "our SOP", not "her SOP"? An SOP is for an individual.

How will you go to Australia? Since only she is applying.

@quantum Dependents can also come as part of the visa process.

Voting to close. From what I can tell, the question is "should I lie on my visa application?" When phrased like this, I hope the answer is obvious; moreover, we have no particular expertise to offer when it comes to visa-related issues.

Tell the truth, it's that simple. It is not in any aspect more complicated than that.

You must tell the truth, because if you don't, any visas issued can be cancelled. When you fill the visa application form, there'll usually be a box that goes "I declare that all information contained in this application are true to the best of my knowledge. I understand that false declaration may lead to consequences up to and including the cancellation of your visa". There is probably a similar box in the university's application form. You are supposed to tick it to say you understand.
If you lie about your marital status and are discovered, then you can expect some pretty severe legal consequences, and you can expect to be expelled from the university.


text:
Should universities waste time giving PhDs to people that don't intend on "using" it?
Considering how hard it is to get a PhD done due to limited resources, I was puzzled by reading about a guy in his 80s getting a doctorate. He made it clear that he has no intention to work so why would a university waste time on somebody like that?
The purpose of a PhD is to produce scientists capable of and motivated to make contributions to science. It is NOT to satisfy one's ego and pursue meaningless dreams.
Shouldn't the university instead educate someone who would actually use this degree?
https://6park.news/massachusetts/manfred-steiner-achieves-his-dream-of-becoming-a-physicist-at-89.html
Just to clarify: the age is irrelevant: if a 30-year-old said they want to collect a PhD as a trophy but never use it for practical needs then I think such a person should never get one, either.

Whats stopping me (24 years old) from getting a PHD and then not working in that field?

The question is loaded, if you wonder where the downvotes are coming from.

@Michael If you say that a PhD is a trophy you want to collect so you can brag about it but you don't have a PRACTICAL use for it, then the university should not give it to you. Age is irrelevant.

So me personally I think that someone with your attitude should never get a PhD. Ageism should be an automatical exclusion.

@Peter Dr. Steiner said "I’m not looking for a paid job. I’m over that." He did not say he will not use the knowledge obtained from physics PhD.

@Peter I am unsure what you would consider "using" a PhD - many people use such a title to obtain higher paying jobs (without doing any research after) - would you consider this a misuse of the PhD as well? In short: do you think  universities should only take on PhD students intending to pursue a scientific carreer?

@Sursule No, I would consider it a good use if it gives you employment opportunities.

It is an interesting question, especially if one refocus it on the country resources and not on the PhD candidate. It depends on many variables, that is sure.  Perhaps the example is unfortunate, but the question is reasonable. However, in my country the openings are so few that the problem does not even exist. Opposite, we have the problem of a public system educating students from primary school to master or PhD and a country not able to absorb them at the end, not in Academia nor in the industry.

Could you provide more context on your assertion concerning the purpose of the PhD. I reckon that for programmes, which are publicly funded, the purpose should broadly align with the wider funding objectives and may correspond to producing scientific outputs or some wider societal benefits. How about PhD programme funded or part-funded by private business? If a private company decides to fund a PhD programmes in hope of benefiting from potential discoveries who is there to stop them? I reckon that type of funding could come with some "strings" attached but that's a different conversation.

It is not a waste of time. The PhD research itself has value, including presentations he might give about it, and in other ways.
The question is insulting to a person in his late 80s who has made a highly impressive achievement.

From personal knowledge, George Marsaglia did some excellent mathematical work when he was 86. Probably better than many in their twenties.

@gnasher729 in his late 80s he was a retired professor not a PhD student, I guess.

I would not say that universities (or rather the people working there, and in this case supervisors and professors) waste time on PhDs. For them, supervising a PhD can be very little work, and in case of more theoretical research topics not very much ressources either (the books in the library are there no matter the number of PhD students). On the other hand, no matter what the PhD student intents on doing afterwards, the produced research will result in a higher scientific output and more publications - beneficial for profs and universities.
As long as those kind of PhD students don't take paid positions, scarce resources or scholarships away from others while doing their PhD (and I highly doubt that a retired doctor is requiring funding to to a PhD), and a professor has enough time on their hand to supervise, there is really nothing bad that comes out of it.


text:
Question about research procedure
It is a well known fact that to be a good researcher, one needs to read a fair amount of technical papers. I am primarily interested in mathematical sciences. My questions are the following:

How do professional researchers keep track of the papers they read?
Do they print out the papers and keep them in a box? Or do they just take notes of names of the papers for future reference?

Do people finish a particular paper in a single go or do they just leave it if they dont get it initially and keep coming back in the future with a more mature understanding?

Is it advisable to put a target in front of me to read a certain number of papers say, in a month? If yes how do you systematically manage your time to read papers?

Thanks in advance.

There's 4 close-votes on this question right now. It's hard to know exactly why, but asking multiple questions in one post can often lead to close votes with the "needs more focus" reason.

I have not much of an idea what others do, but I tell you what I do. I have a list of maybe 15 journals that are likely to have stuff that is relevant to me, and I run through all their issues regularly and have a quick look at all papers that interest me. I have a big file in which I write 1-3 lines (really just keywords) about all these papers. Most important is that I do it so that I can later find the paper in the file with the right keyword(s), and then am able to find it on the web from the information given in my file (of course this assumes that I have web access to the paper when I need it, which to some extent depends on the subscriptions of my institution). Occasionally I'm interested enough to read (and/or save) a whole paper, but in most cases I just try to roughly get what is done there, potentially new interesting ideas etc. I'm to some extent spontaneous regarding how deeply I go into a paper. Then later I sometimes go back and spend more time on one of these papers if for some reason it becomes more relevant to me. I also add papers in other journals or on arxiv and the like if I become aware of them, for example by following references.
Unfortunately all this takes a huge amount of time and I have become more selective (I had more journals at some point in the past, and I also know some people look up arxiv every day which is surely not wrong but I don't have the time to do that) and also on average more superficial when reading. I take some advantage from having done this now for over 20 years, and having some good training in extracting something of interest from papers in very short time. I should maybe also add that I am a statistician, and although we do some proper mathematics, many statistics papers are easier to grasp without going all too deep into technicalities, proof details etc.


text:
Does it make sense to send fanmail to scientists whose works I enjoyed? How to make it make sense?
While writing my PhD I've come across some writings that were OUTSTANDINGLY well written, handy and helpful.
Obviously I cited them, but as I understand, thesis citations aren't counted by various bibliometry tools. Also, in my opinion, a single citation doesn't show how much I enjoyed a paper.
Can I just send fanmail to the authors of such papers? I know that academics rarely get appreciation that they deserve. I doubt that we have prospects for any real collaboration, so I don't have any immediate interest in sending such fanmail. But maybe I can write it in a way that will be more beneficial than just pleasing someone?
To sum up:

Is sending fanmail to a respected author a good idea?
How to send fanmail in order to make it at least somewhat useful to anyone?

Why did you cite them? You cite things that you need/use in your work, not things you (just) like.

I regularly get invitations to connect on LinkedIn and similar. Most of the boilerplate invitations I immediately delete. If someone invests a few words saying they enjoyed a paper of mine (or an SE post), I will be much more likely to accept. And yes, reading that a paper or SE post was helpful to someone is nice to hear - as a semi-academic, one often wonders whether one's papers are only ever read by three reviewers.

Yes! Send fanmail! :)
The professional academic math milieu does seem a bit "cold"... yes. True, there's no requirement of warm-and-fuzziness to be a math prof, but I myself do think that we toooo often forget/fail to tell people when we think their work/writing is amazing. I still do recall the few occasions when someone told me that some talk I gave was "stunning"... Sure, maybe I don't uniformly achieve that standard. :)
I do occasionally send email to people, some of whom I know, but by no means all, thanking them for writing something, and saying how much I enjoyed it. In some cases, people did respond, not only politely thanking me, but also saying that they had no idea what the reception of the paper/book was, since they'd heard back nothing at all. The feeling of "talking into the void"?!? That's a sad state.
I do also greatly enjoy getting a bit of fanmail now and then, confirming that all the stuff I put on-line is actually helpful/fun. :)

@Trunk  :) :) ...

TL;DR: Everybody likes it if one appreciates their work. As long as you write honestly, informatively, and without further agenda, this is welcome and helpful. Don't worry about making it useful beyond the personal appreciation.
Scientists do their work because they like it and/or feel the need to do science - they do not (and should not) expect thanks beyond citations, invitations to talks, tenure, i.e. collecting the usual experience points of the academic dungeons and dragons game which can be turned into tangible uplevelling.
That being said, someone who expresses their real appreciation their work because it is particularly well done, or even just well written, is a welcome and unusual surprise.
If you write, don't be generic. Explain what in the paper was helpful, how, and why. State whether it was the writing of the paper, the organization of the material or whatever else that made it so useful to you.
The reason for that is that, not only does it show that you had a particular reason for praising the paper (rather than trying to ingratiate yourself), but it also helps the author understand what features of the paper were useful so that they can try and keep improving their future work (or keep doing it, at least) in that direction.
Additionally, note that they may have been criticized by a reviewer before for precisely those things that you liked about the paper (this happens more often than one would like; one reason why peer review is more often than not a lottery, especially in competitive venues); with only the reviewer's comment in mind they might be tempted in future not to write things this way - you would show them that there are readers that may actually profit from this style of presentation. While this does not resolve the authors' dilemma in what audience to write for, it gives them additional information to operate with in the future.
What not to do:

if your priority is to write about how much you enjoyed the paper, do this, but do not carry a secondary agenda beyond a friendly thanks/compliment/feedback to the author.
If you primarily want a collaboration, write a mail suggesting initiating a conversation or collaboration, only citing the paper as an inspiration for you to initiate this contact. That's fine. What's not recommended is to write effusively about the "great paper" only to insert some possibility of future collaboration. This looks weird and, to be honest, sycophantic [here I agree with Buffy], if not creepily indirect.
Your mail should reflect what you want. Don't mix agendas.

Don't bother thinking about how to make the letter formally valuable. If you are not in an academically advanced position to write a reference to the author, you probably don't have the clout to do so, anyway - and that's not a bad thing, you'll have to do enough of these at some point, anyway. By feeding back that you enjoyed the paper, and why, you have done your part to help the author continue to do good work. And, in the end, that's what really counts.

[Thanks to Bryan Krause for this one:] do not expect a response. You may receive one, but should understand from the outset that your mail is likely to be a one-sided communication, at least on the immediate level. If you did your due diligence in highlighting what you liked about the work, you still have done your best in making the day nicer to the author of the paper and signalling what achievements you'd enjoy seeing repeated in the future.

I think this is already implicit in your answer, but just to make it more explicit: don't expect a response. If you're writing a thank you mail to get a response, you're not thanking genuinely, you're doing something else.

My first reaction is that it makes you seem like a sycophant (A person who attempts to gain advantage by flattering influential people or behaving in a servile manner: Webster). Especially since you mention "useful" and beneficial. This isn't Twitter (or its successor).
I can't envision an academic bragging about how many "likes" they got on their recent scholarly paper. Maybe for a laugh.
If you meet someone at a conference, though, you could say that you've gained a lot from their work. But email is just noise when it doesn't have things of substance. I'd recommend against it.

It's very rare that I fundamentally disagree with you, but my response will be diametrically opposite this time.

I am very sorry, but complimenting each other and being nice to each other is what people do and enjoy. A place where this is seen as dishonest flattering or noise must be a very cold one.

The only addition I can provide is that I wouldn't have been accepted to my fully funded PhD programme if I hadn't reached out via some "fan mail".

Speaking as a nobody (a grad student, and not a very good one at that) who has gotten some "fanmail" in the past (one from a StackExchange user who was particularly grateful for a comment I left, one from a professor (who happens to also browse AcademiaSE fairly often...), some from friends), all of which I have saved away as treasures, I think that writing some kind words to someone to indicate that you sincerely appreciate some work of theirs (especially if you point out particular aspects that stand out to you!) would mean the world to them.
Perhaps for more senior and/or eminent members of the community, such fawning would truly be "noise", since it could be that they have already received enough of it in their life that they just don't want any more; but for more junior researchers who are just getting started, or even students, your "fanmail" may very well be the only positive affirmation they ever receive about something that "cost" them a great deal of blood sweat and tears.
As for anxiety about what is "acceptable" in a "fanmail", personally my views are along the lines of this following Tumblr comic.

Of course, the advice given in previous answers are good (write about specific things you enjoyed, etc.), but at the end of the day, sincere and kind words are sincere and kind words.
Also, I would advise you not to expect anything in return, though people are probably often polite enough to send a thank-you message in return. Some people may not know how to respond to praise, and/or have anxiety over responding awkwardly (especially in the situation of a more senior researcher writing "fanmail" to a more junior researcher), so try not take it personally if you don't get any reply, or the reply takes a long time. (There are of course infinitely many other reasons someone may not respond to a "fanmail"; in any case, try not to take it personally.)


text:
How to search for a PhD student opening in Japan?
I noticed that the Japanese universities almost never advertise for open PhD student positions on the websites such as phdportal.com or academicpositions.com or researchgate.
I tried to check some Japanese websites, but they assume that the visitor knows the Japanese language, which is not my case.
However I really want to see how are the opportunities in this beautiful country.
Maybe I should search on more websites, than the ones I mentioned at the beginning?

to my knowledge they are very restrictive concerning outsiders, not only in academia...best options i know are scholarships they have arranged with other countries. Wondering if they are also so restrictive concerning post-docs. But without speaking Japanese you will have a hard time doing PhD there, the english of most japanese PhD students I met at conferences is significantly below average. On the other side some of the best robotics journals worldwide are in Japanese. I think you can say it's a bit of a strange place without offending Japan, I find the culture also very interesting...

Technically, any lab that is willing to take a student can have an opening. No real restrictions there. Financial support is a different question, but most of those are coming from outside (ie once one is interested in the position, apply for a scholarship). Research grants generally do not cover graduate students' salaries. So not much sense to advertise specific Ph.D. positions.

The best option if you can get accepted is through a MEXT scolarship. Usually, the application process is detailed on the website of the Japanese embassy of your country. Of course there are other scholarships but this one is the most advantageous.
If you can self-finance, you may want to try to enroll as a "Kenkyusei" (research student) for 1/2 years. Being a kenkyusei allows you to do some research under the supervision of a professor (ideally the one who would advise you as a Phd), taking Japanese classes and more broadly getting adjusted to your new environment while preparing for the university's Phd entrance exam. The application process for kenkyusei should be detailed on universitys' website.


text:
Can I complete a PhD in a university abroad as an external doctorate student?
I have been through a 4-year PhD program at my home university. In these 4 years, I have performed several research projects, authored several articles and passed qualification exams. After that, I left for a 3-year academic leave, and found myself ineligible to return to my home university to complete my PhD. I have an option of becoming an external doctorate student at my home university, which will require me to re-take qualification exams to complete my PhD and earn a PhD degree.
However, I am also considering becoming an external graduate student in another country, if this is possible. By saying "external graduate student", I mean a program where non-affiliated scholars might come to a university, present the evidence of their expertise in the field (research articles and a thesis / dissertation), take qualification exams and earn a PhD degree.
Is this an accepted practice in European countries? Are there rules allowing or precluding foreign students from taking these positions?

Yes, in Europe it is possible, but be ready to contact many professors.
The ideal path is to get a PhD with a cumulative thesis, where you "collate" your paper, write a nice frame around them as introduction/conclusion and then you discuss it in front of a comitee.
You must however wade through doctoral's program rules, often written in local language, so it is a long journey. At best, you get in touch with secretaries and official persons in the universities, they may be able to provide details or not.
Rules regarding eligibilty of papers and their format (must they have an internal co-author? the advisor? do they need a translation of the abstract in the local language?) are decided at the each university, so no general answer can be given.
Europe is a continent, I bring here some sparse facts about one of the countries, Germany.
In Germany you would aim at a „kumulative Dissertation“, the example of the rules are here:
Promotionsordnung (from the University of Mainz)
and although there are 122 pages in the documents, the relevant ones are just the first 22, many things are in common among german institutions. In the remaining 100 pages, there are specific rules for almost each faculty.
It may be worthwhile to get in touch with the german exchange service DAAD, they may help you (I guess you do not need a full funding for your PhD's closing, but nonetheless having some sort of stipendium would open you more doors in German universities).

In Germany, PhD admission and PhDs in general are handeled differently than lets say in the US: the only thing you need is a professor to supervise you (and the approval of their department, which is normally a given if you fullfill the basics: MA, good grades and a topic fitting the department your supervising professor works at). Look at this canonical question for more info.
So you could try to find a prof in your field and try to convince them to take you on as a PhD student by presenting your previous work during from the 4 year program. If you are purely looking for supervision (and even have done a large share of the work towards the PhD already) and not for funding as well, chances are that somebody might agree if the quality of your work so far is high enough.


text:
What is the meaning of "review is overdue"?
I have a status for my paper " a review is overdue"  after 20 days of reviewing my paper, however it is mentioned in the web site that review takes 1 month. What does this means?

This means a review is overdue: the editor invited a reviewer with a given deadline, which has passed. It seems the editor's deadline was only ~20 days. That's pretty fast, but since the website is claiming that review takes one month, it might be necessary.
The good news is the journal treats its authors well; many journals simply report your paper is "under review" and leave it at that until the decision is made. The bad news is, if the reviewer doesn't submit a review, your paper might take another month (or more) to process if the editor elects to invite more reviewers.
In any case there's nothing to do except wait.

Normally there are several reviews that an editor will request and then gather so that a decision can be made. The decision itself will take some time. Most likely, the editor asked for a review, setting a deadline, and the reviewer didn't meet the deadline and so this is the response. The deadline set by the editor would be some days, at least, before the expected end of the review period.
On the other hand, stating that review takes a month is, for most journals, just a guess rather than a hard limit.
In effect, it is an internal thing, not something you need to take action on.


text:
Is there any evidence of a benefit to distributing documents to students vs taking notes?
Suppose you teach a course in which you display slides. Two approaches exists:

distribute the slides (or any document that summarizes the content of the slides);
rely on students to take notes.

[EDIT: When I say "distribute the slides", it does not imply that taking additional notes is forbidden. It simply means that the documents are available for students if they need them. The question is whether this policy encourage student to rely more on the slides than they should (reasoning "I can read the course whenever I want, so I don't need to listen carefully in class").]
Is there any evidence of which is better. I am searching for evidence that could solve the following situations (list not exhaustive) without relying on personnal taste/preferences:

you don't have a lot of experience in teaching and you want to build an opinion on the subject
you share a class with an other professor, and one of you think slides should be distributed, the other not

Suppose that there is no problem of copyright, etc.. Class level may be a parameter (e.g. undergrad vs grad).

The question here is related, but no answer seem to provide evidence other than experience or testimony, which are not strong evidences. A study from education sciences, pedagogy or something similar would be much better. I suppose such study exist, yet I can't find such a study on google scholar or similar sites.

Suppose you teach a course in which you display slides. Two approaches exist. Actually, there's a third: distribute the slides and rely on students to take notes, which I consider to be better, but I don't have evidence from the literature.

Regarding, you share a class with an other professor, and one of you think slides should be distributed, the other not, each professor can teach the class the way they prefer.

@user2768 The way I read the question, "rely on students to take notes" implicitly includes "and do not distribute the slides". In the context of your suggestion, what is the difference between the two approaches "distribute the slides" and "distribute the slides and rely on students to take notes"?

@FedericoPoloni We've both read A or B, but not both. The OP presumably agrees, given they refer to two approaches. As to your question, what is the difference? I'm proposing A and B, which seemingly has not been considered.

@user2768 The third approach you propose is, if I understand correctly what you mean, included in the "distribute slides" approach, in the sens that a prof can not forbid a student to take notes and ignore the distributed documents. The question is more whether the (supposed) downside of distributing documents (e.g. encourage "laziness" of students, etc) are compensed by the benefits (e.g. more material available outside classroom, etc.).

@Bromind I now understand your intent. That's not what I understood upon reading, but my reading is based on prior experience. In particular, I have experienced professors who forbid note taking. Having understood, I suspect distributing documents doesn't encourage laziness amongst good students, since they'll use their notes, printed slides, and recommended textbooks, whereas not-so-good students won't use all of those resources, but that's just my opinion (which is out of scope).

I'm going to guess that there is no strategy that is "best" for every student. I'm also going to guess that the answers will include some variation on "It didn't work for me!"

@user2768 Let me rephrase: what is, in real-world observable terms, the difference between the two approaches "distribute the slides" and "distribute the slides and rely on students to take notes" that you consider in your comment?

@FedericoPoloni The latter implies the former, but the inverse doesn't hold. (In real-world observable terms: Note taking can be observed in the latter.) That said, perhaps read the OP's comment and my response.

There is contradictory evidence I think on whether for the general student, providing materials is beneficial or not.
For example, a study finding a benefit in providing notes:
Raver, S. A., & Maydosz, A. S. (2010). Impact of the provision and timing of instructor-provided notes on university students’ learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(3), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787410379682
A study finding that providing notes is detrimental:
Weatherly, J. N., Grabe, M., & Arthur, E. I. L. (2003). Providing Introductory Psychology Students Access to Lecture Slides via Blackboard 5: A Negative Impact on Performance. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 31(4), 463–474. https://doi.org/10.2190/KRW7-QHFY-AY3M-FFJC
Lots more on google scholar.
However, i think it is better established that providing notes is beneficial to those with various specific learning difficulties (SpLD) like dyslexia and dyspraxia (although I don't have the evidence to hand) and we are required to provide materials to this group of students. Given the large number of such students in a modern classroom, and the effort it would require to distribute materials to only this group, it is easy just to give it to everyone.
I tend to provide my slides, before the lecture, but  - my slides contain little to no text, meaning some notes must be taken. I also draw a lot of diagrams during the lecture, that are represented as blank slides in the pre-lecture notes.
After the lecture I provide the slides with the blanks filled in, and my speaker notes.

Anecdotal evidence, but based on learning theory.
There is no reason it can't be both. Actually it should be both. If you distribute your notes ahead of time, either electronically or on paper, the students can actually use those notes, when printed, as the basis for their own notes. I other words, the students can mark up your notes with their own annotations.
But if you just give them notes and don't, in some way, require that they take notes themselves, then too many of them will be too passive in the classroom, thinking they can rely on memory alone or that the distributed notes will always be available to them. In fact, long term memory and making knowledge useful requires more.
On the other hand, if you could, but don't, distribute notes then some students will spend most of their effort just copying what you show or write without any thinking about it, again lessening the effectiveness that you could achieve.
One technique that I used often was to make sure that students carry a few index cards. They are asked at the end of a class for what they consider the most important (or three most important) ideas from the lecture. The note cards are to jot down ideas as they occur, knowing that the question will come at the end. The cards are also useful for short summaries of key ideas. The cards can then be carried for review as the course proceeds. But the overall strategy of the instructor is to keep the students active during lecture and otherwise so that short term memory moves to long term memory and what is "remembered" is also available for application.
See the post on the Hipster PDA for more on the use of index cards.

I'll note that many students don't really know, yet, how to learn and may have to be taught these techniques. Some haven't yet hit anything that was hard for them. I was "lucky" enough to hit my natural limits early and so had to learn how to learn.
So, don't assume that they will "do the right thing" if you give them the right tools without comment.

I've tried to take notes, but whenever I am writing, I am not listening or thinking. I did very, very much better academically after invention of the digital camera than before.

@PatriciaShanahan, but I'll bet that you reviewed those images and took notes on them, even if not in real time. Or even quick notes as the lecture proceeded rather than just sit and snap. Note cards are good because they are small so you aren't as likely to get bogged down writing. There is an old "joke" that the purpose of lecture is to get the instructor notes into the student notes without going through the mind of either. (And I actually had a course designed with that in mind. Weird)

Most importantly, I was continually thinking during the lectures. For example, if the lecturer was writing a proof on the board, I would be trying to see where it was heading, and what the next line was going to be.

Your suggestion of the hipster PDA seem a good way to merge both. Actually, I (personnaly) tend to distribute the document and encourage taking notes, but I recently debated with an other teacher who prefer not to distribute documents, and none of us could argue with something else than personnal preference, hence the question (which I tried to ask in a neutral way for both possibilities).

Everything I have read about such issues indicates that maximal learning occurs when multiple information channels are engaged. This is what the "see hear do" thing is all about. Multiple channels through the brain give maximum chance of retention.
https://controlstation.com/the-power-of-the-hear-see-do-learning-method/
https://www.amazon.ca/ABC-See-Hear-Do-Learn/dp/099857760X
So any means by which you can get students to have information flowing through multiple channels will help them. If you can get them looking and listening and at the same time writing it out, that's three channels. Hopefully that helps get the information into their heads. For some kinds of lessons it may be valuable to get them at a white-board and writing out the material for themselves, at least some of the time.
Some people can learn by just reading a book. They don't need to have it explained aloud. And they don't need to do the homework problems. They can just understand the material right away. I have met exactly three such people in my life. One of them was the first ever Rhodes scholar in math, and he managed to really screw up the grade curve in my undergrad. Another now gets mentioned in various popular science publications with "the great" in front of his name. And he also screwed up the grade curve in my undergrad.
Most people need to have the information in multiple channels. They need physical action as well as to see it and hear it. Or read it and see the graphs and diagrams and so on. And then to do the homework, hopefully with some struggle involved. If the homework is too easy it does not stick. If it's too hard they can't even do it.
This is part of why most science classes have practical labs. If you learn the abstract stuff but never do any physical "hands on" stuff, you probably are missing something. Oh how I miss the ripple tanks and air tracks from my high school physics labs.
Maybe hand out the notes at the end of the lecture. Maybe with hints that they might not get the notes if they don't pay attention.  Or hints that the notes will have strategic items deliberately left out and the first student to find the missing part gets a reward.

For students with disabilities having the notes ahead of time can be critical. Many deaf students literally cannot "listen" and take notes at the same time since they have to look at the talker to lip read or look at the interpreter. Interpreters can really benefit from having something to follow and at least a few minutes to brush up on terminology. For students with learning disabilities, there are lots of strategies that involve using notes ahead of time.
We were required by our student disabilities office to distribute notes 48 hours before class. This was helpful to me in that it made me prep early. Amazingly, the number of changes I would make to my slides, even new preps, after the fact, was pretty small.

I started my studies in a university in Romania. There were no official course notes. The system relied on students taking notes. If someone missed a class, the other colleagues would provide the notes. Sometimes books would be indicated as references, often going too much in detail into certain aspects. I would have preferred to have complete course materials to work with.
Coming to France, I noticed there was a general practice towards providing course notes. The high quality courses always had nicely typed documents. Since I started teaching my own courses, I wrote and made available all documents: typesetted course, slides, numerical codes, etc.
I find there is no need to hide material from students to make them take notes in class. Those who are interested and eager to learn will take notes even with slides and notes available. Those who are not motivated will find ways to get their hand on the course information anyway.
There is a learning advantage for students if they are writing the course by hand. However, this advantage might be limited to the top students who understand things right away and they fix them even better by writing everything down. It all depends if you go slow enough such that everyone can follow the arguments (which is often too slow for half of the students). If not, then maybe half of the students are one blackboard behind and are just copying things down without understanding. For such students, taking handwritten notes will give no advantage with respect to reading the official course material.
There is also the perception you want to give to the students:

are you willing to be perceived as a professor who does not give course material in order to force students to take detailed notes?

do you want to make all materials available and let the student manage the learning process? They are becoming adults and develop individual learning habits. Some learn throughout the course. Some learn just before exams.


text:
How to fairly assess applications coming from different countries for a master programme in the US/Europe
I am receiving a significant number of applications for a master programme in computer science from Islamic countries. When looking at their BSc curriculum and marks it turns out that a significant proportion (20 to 30%) of the successfully completed courses are subjects like “Correct Islamic thinking”, “Islamic order of the society” and similar which have nothing to do with computer science.
On the one hand one could argue that the applicants do not have sufficient credits to start a master in computer science because they are missing a third of the necessary credits in computer science but on the other hand it was possibly not the students’ choice to take the courses listed above and it would be unfair to score their applications down for reasons that are not their fault. Either way it doesn’t feel quite fair to me. How should one react in such a situation?

In a US degree, it's usual that less than half the credits are in the primary subject of study.  Are you going to ask the same question of a Harvard transcript with courses on Shakespeare, Sociology of Crime, and The Reformation?

In fact, at St. Olaf, no more than one third (rounded up) of the credits for a Bachelor's degree can come from any single subject.

@AlexanderWoo Well the question should state a location. In Europe it's quite normal to have less than 5% of credits in subjects other than the one you are supposedly studying.

I've edited out "Islamic" from the title as it isn't related to those countries, per se, but to the difference in bachelors programs around the world. My undergraduate transcript (US) also shows some religion  courses as I went to a Jesuit-run college where those courses were required. On the other hand, the math courses were excellent and set a firm foundation for pursuing a doctorate. But the bachelors is very different in some other countries. I have a minor in philosophy and also studied history, literature, etc. etc.

If all you care about is the CS courses, why not look at only those courses? Did these students (and other students from the US or Europe) take enough CS courses/have enough CS knowledge to satisfy your requirements?

Anecdotally, my masters program accepted students with BSc degrees from all over the world. Most students from less-developed countries (including all those from predominantly Islamic countries) had no chance of keeping up. A lot of them went back home with either no credits and no degree, or quickly went from 4th/5th year masters courses to 2nd year bachelors courses, so that they could at least learn something. Unfair as it may be that they haven't had the same educational opportunities, instead of guessing at their 'CS credits', evaluate their current level and abilities.

@AlexanderWoo Coming from Germany yes I would. My B.Sc in CS is about 85% Computer science, 12% one other subject (economics in my case) and about 3% other things like organisation and language courses. So yes when someone applies to a Master Degree at a German University I would except them to have a lot of catching up to do in some subjects. And there are measures in place that they can be forced to do some exams that are normally done in the bachelor to proove their competence and knowledge

The solution we have at our (German) university for this is that we require each student to have a certain amount of credits in specific topics (for example at least 10 credits in courses about theoretical computer science, these are topics that are mandatory courses at all German computer science Bachelor programs). If they are missing credits, they are allowed to take Bachelor courses to make up for it, but only to a maximum of 3 courses in total. The university also keeps lists for universities we get a lot of applications from about which courses were accepted etc.
This makes sure that all students have at least a comparable basic knowledge. The more advanced topics in different programs can differ so much (even when they are CS related) that comparing them makes no sense anyway.

"...but only to a maximum of 3 courses in total" - What happens if a student is missing four courses? Are they SOL to ever enroll in your program or do they have to take the fourth class at another institution and/or do a credit by exam or similar alternative credit opportunity?

Then the degree is deemed not sufficient to fulfill the requirements and they cannot enroll without getting a degree that is. The entire process is a bit more complex than I described here but there are only 8 courses in general that people might have to take, so more than 3 means they are missing basically half of the requirements. It normally only happens if they did not study CS but something related (eg electrical engineering) and want to switch for their Masters.

How do you define credits in such cases? Surely different institutions award credits in different ways, right?

Within Europe these things are in theory standardized but for unclear cases we take our 3 year full-time bachelor program with 180 credits as the baseline and then try to convert the amount of work someone did in an x year program to 60 credits each year. The students are expected/allowed to submit their own conversion formulas (because they know their program best) but we of course sanity check them. But in doubt we give the students more credits because this is just meant to create a baseline and its not their fault if they had a completely different system.

You cannot hold the requirements of their universities against applications. For example, in the United States, some 25% of the credits every undergraduate has to take are from the "General University Curriculum", which includes courses on history, civic society, writing, a general science requirement, etc.
Universities in Germany are, in the international norm, outliers in that to get an undergraduate degree, you basically have to only take courses in that field. I studied physics in Germany, and had to take zero courses that weren't either physics, mathematics, or general chemistry. That is not the norm internationally, however.

Physics degrees in the UK aren't any different to German ones.

I am not sure German is an outlier, rather the opposite, in the European context of tertiary education, while it is true that in the US undergrad have a variety of courses.

Fair points. But I still think that the answer is useful as a perspective about at least some other countries.

How different are they really when you consider that most degrees in the UK and Germany are intended to be completed in 3 years?

@user3067860 Do you care about how long did it take an applicant to get their degree or about what skills were they supposed to obtain during their studies?

North America is the outlier.

@Lodinn Exactly my point--it sounds like a lot if you say a degree was 1/4 gen ed, but if it was a 4 year degree then it would be 3 years of degree-related work + 1 year gen ed, vs. 3 years of degree-based work and no gen ed. So just pretend they also took a gap year or something. (Actually I think it's more gen ed than that in the US, but it's still a lot closer to the same hours on degree-related stuff than it sounds like if you say it was only 3/4 degree-based.)

@YuvalFilmus No, that's not true. As the post points out, in Middle Eastern countries you have to take Islamic studies courses. And in China you have to take courses on Communism and the history of the Chinese revolution. It isn't just North America.

I think you are focusing on the wrong aspect. In a purely theoretical world, I expect that a Bachelor degree would provide 100% of the knowledge needed to be introduced to a (certain) Master degree.
However, to cover that 100% of knowledge the Bachelor degree needs something like 40% of its courses. Why? Because the Bachelor should be introductory to many Master degrees, plus should be enough for someone not willing to pursue a Master degree.
Let's say Bachelor in CS (BCS) is required for 3 different Master in CS, in topic A (MaA), B (MaB) and C (MaC). It can be that the Master in CS is only one, and the three topics are sub-tracks.
If the BCS is composed of 180 ECTS, I expect that in reality only about 100-120 ECTS are effectively required by each one of the Ma*.
There will be obviously some overlap in the requirements of the three Masters, so a student completing the 180 ECTS in your system can pursue any of the three Master topic, while the unlucky Kaveh and the unlucky Niloufar may be bound to pursue MaA and MaC, while to pursue MaB they would be required to make up for the missing credits.
In short: ignore the non-core courses, focus on what matters to you. Those students would not have completed their university degree without taking those compulsory or semi-compulsory courses at the persian university. Even if not compulsory, it may be that if you take religious courses you are discharged from the army ... if living in a country that has sustained military involvement, it is a very rational to do (a couple of exams on God instead of being enlisted to shoot someone? yes please) [1]
[1] would you have the same doubts about US students that honourably served in the mighty US Army to get US citizenship and then discounted tuition fees?

In order to properly participate in a masters programme, one requires a certain level of knowledge, ability and/or experience. Of course it is difficult to judge these qualities in another person, especially if you are tasked with judging a large number of people, spread across the globe, in a short period of time.
Credits have been introduced to give some indication of the time a person has spent studying certain subjects. They are by no means standardized, and by no means indicate any level of knowledge or ability. Only when you are familiar with the specific institute that issued these credits, can you infer more details about their qualifications from these credits.
So instead of focusing on their credits from institutes that you are not familiar with, and focusing on their mandatory 'extracurricular' activities, focus on their qualifications. Yes, the list of course names will give you some indication of the topics they are familiar with. But it will tell you very little about their actual level of knowledge, ability or experience. I would advise instead to schedule brief interviews with the most promising candidates to judge their actual qualifications.


text:
Reporting GPAs from the same university
I have graduated with a BS in Computer science degree with 3.6 GPA from  university of X. Then after graduation, I continued taking classes in different program (Biology) but didn't do well and my GPA went down to cGPA of 3.4.  So, the gpa on last page of my transcript (cgpa) is 3.4, but also on the transcript it mentions that I have earned a BS degree in computer science with 3.6 gpa. My question is that if I want to apply to a graduate school in computer science program which GPA I should be reporting? Would it be 3.4 or 3.6?

The application (if in the US) will most likely specify which GPA they are asking, and often it will ask for both separately.

Ideally you should report them both. Online forms might not let you do that, however. If you can only report one, I'd suggest that you list your CS GPA but put a note somewhere detailing the other. You want to give the most complete information so that no one can suggest you have been dishonest.
You will probably have to explain, somewhere, why you abandoned biology for now and simply saying it was because you didn't do so well would, IMO, be a mistake.
However, your university might, independently, give your GPA, in which case you should know how it will be reported by them. If they combine them, then you probably need to do so also, but explain in your application materials the history of it.