text:
How to decline a postdoc interview if there is some possible future collaboration?
I am applying for post-doc position. I was invited for two interviews on close dates. I already did the first one and got the job. I am going to accept the offer because the research is very nice, the institution has high publication-records and it is closer to my family. Unfortunately one of the tasks at this post-doc requires close collaboration with the second interviewer. My question is:

how to inform the second interviewer that I got a post-doc position already?
Should I go to the interview anyway, although I know I am going to reject the offer?
Could I say something like:

Dear blablabla, In the past few days I was offered to work somewhere and I think I am going to accept the offer for personal reasons, but in any case, as our research is going to be close I would like to use my "interview-time" for giving a talk and know the research being conducted at your institute better?

Some of my colleagues told me that they have had very bad experience while rejecting job's offers or interview, so please, let's me know if you have been in a similar situation and which way you think is the less "harmful"?

In my experience, all employers realize that good candidates will often have multiple good offers, and choosing one of these good offers isn't a negative evaluation of the others. (And even if it were, so what? We can't control other people's opinions.) It's not utterly impossible that the rejected employer decides to get upset about it, but if that happens, it's not your fault and you'll find a way to deal with it.

If there are strong ties between the research groups, the second group might have heard already that you've accepted the first group's offer. It'll then cause a great deal of confusion all round if you interview for the second one.

Furthermore,  I don't see this as a tricky situation.  Postdocs often accept jobs and turn down others. Nothing unusual and I'd expect no hard feelings.

Don't go -- it's a waste of everyone's time if you go to an interview without any intention of taking the job. People get (rightfully) more upset about you wasting their time than you not wanting a job because you've already found one elsewhere.
Besides, if you will be required to collaborate with the person with whom you were to have your second interview, they (i) may have personal contacts with the research group where you accepted the job, (ii) may already know that you took the first job, and (iii) will need to be among your friends. Simply inform them that you took the first job (and not beat around the bush by saying "somewhere" or "think I am accepting" when you have already accepted). Offering to come anyway for a collaboration or a seminar is fine.

This. If they're close collaborators they probably are realistic enough to realize that there's like to be an overlap in the pool of candidates they're drawing upon.

Flexo gives exactly the reason I thought of for Lucia to not worry about this, after handling it simply as Wolfgang Bangerth stated.

You're over-thinking this. Tell the second interviewer what you just told us: you've already accepted a job at the other institution because being closer to your family and so on made you prefer to be closer to be there.
Don't say that you want to use your "interview time" to give them a presentation. That feels like you're saying, "You agreed to spend time with me for reason X. Now the reason has changed to Y but I feel you're obliged to give me the time anyway." Honestly, interviewing people requires enough concentration that I'd much rather take an hour off if a candidate cancelled, rather than sitting through yet another talk.
However, given that you will be working with these people anyway, it would be completely appropriate to offer to visit the institution at a time that's convenient for everyone. Bear in mind, though, that the "convenient time" might just be, "Well, you'll be visiting anyway as part of your new job so we'll just meet you then."

Using "interview time" anyway may be appropriate if non-refundable flights/accommodation have already been booked. Less "give a presentation", though, and more "meet with people and setup the collaboration". But ideally you'd wait until you're established at the new postdoc: too little will be accomplished on a too-early visit that it may be better just eating the non-refundable costs. -- If you do go, you or your new boss (not the 2nd interviewer) probably should pay for any additional costs the 2nd interviewer hasn't already paid for.

@R.M. Good point about non-refundable costs.

I recommend honesty. Call well before the interview and explain what happened.
If they'd still like a shot at selling you, I'd go and feel utterly guiltless for wasting their time. Otherwise, you saved everybody a couple hours.
Either way, this will make you seem bold, thoughtful, and honest. Not a bad beginning to a relationship, working or otherwise. If there is friction after that, it was not your doing.


text:
Social science/humanities PhD in UK: Take partially funded PhD, or work for a year and reapply for full funding?
First, I am aware that there are already several posts about self-funding a PhD. I'm posting this question, however, for the following reasons:

Many threads are mostly about US schools, whereas the PhD I'm considering is in the UK.
Also it is sometimes unclear what exactly counts as 'self-funding' - if I can teach to earn some income, am I still self-funded? Again, I understand that in North America, normally an offer of admittance includes a TA contract in some form, while this is not the case in the UK. So an unfunded offer in the US might look quite different from in the UK. Also, I do have funding to pay the full tuition fees and teaching is available, so at least I won't go into debts.
Many questions are about PhDs in science and engineering, while my field is in social sciences/humanities.
A lot of questions were about how a self-funded PhD is perceived both by funded peers and after completion in the job market. This however is not my main concern.
I have to decide between a job offer and a PhD, rather than between two different PhDs one funded and another unfunded, for example.

I am not wealthy, but I can manage by combining teaching with family support for the next 3-4 years. The average income from teaching for TAs in the UK was about £400 per month in 2012, so while it might be slightly more than that now, it's certainly not great. It's just enough to survive on (combined with family help). The university I was accepted at is a non-Oxbridge Russell group university. My potential supervisor has been very happy to help me with scholarship applications and answer my questions. Also the fit in terms of research interests is great.
I also have a decent job offer in the public sector in the UK. I could take the offer and quit in October to start the PhD, but I'd rather not do that because it'd be somewhat unethical to take the offer knowing that I'll quit in a few months. The job itself is unrelated to my academic interests, nor is there any way I can come back to academia through this job. Of course, I could stay in this job and reapply for full-funding although there is no guarantee that I'll get any funding at all, even the tuition waiver I have, next time. In any case, if I accepted this job offer, it wouldn't be because I am enthusiastic about the job itself; it'd simply be so I can make a living until I can do a PhD. My career goals might change and new opportunities might arise, but for now I am set on staying, or at least trying to stay, in academia.
What advice would you give to someone in my situation? What I tell myself is that I'm relatively young (early 20s), so investing in my goals at this point in my life is not terribly foolish. I would have felt a bit differently if I was, say, 30. But I do feel a little foolish to turn down the job offer. After all, a year of work experience can't be that bad even though the work itself is not terribly interesting. Should I take it, turn down the funding offer, and reapply?
Edit: My question is: Assuming that my goal is to stay in academia, should I take the partial funding offer and do the PhD this year, or decline this funding, take the job offer, and reapply until I get full funding?

What makes you think your chances of getting full funding will be better next year?

Hi Dawn, I don't in fact think so, and that's one of the reasons for taking the partial funding offer. This however was the first time I applied for PhD funding, and I got to learn how to write a  research proposal that has a chance of securing funding. So probably my chances are slightly better next year.

"self-funding" just means you're responsible for paying that part, whether it's fees or your day-to-day living costs. They don't care whether that's from part-time work or previously earned money, or from getting one of the other scholarships you're applying for.

I will add as a caveat they may ask for proof of your ability to self fund, but since you say you have savings / family support and the dept itself is offering teaching hours this shouldn't be an issue

PhD funding in the art/social sciences/humanities is difficult to obtain in the UK, getting full funding will be eye of the needle stuff from what I get told
I've never seen a CV where the phd funding source was asked for, I don't mention it (EPSRC) on mine
Can't make that choice for you. I can say I gave up a job for a phd (less money) and my circumstances sound similar - i.e. young and no family to support.

One question I have is what is the situation with tuition fees? At one point you mention having a tuition fee waiver - is that a full waiver or part? It makes a difference, if you had a full phd scholarship in the uk you'd expect your tuition fees paid and a 15K annual stipend. If you're say 50% funded, you'll get a 7.5k stipend which is tight (depending on where your university is, I did mine 20 years ago and the full stipend was then only 5K :-( ). Anyways, if the tuition fee waiver is only partial, they will expect you to pay half of it, that would be typically around half of 4K (2k). If that comes out of your half stipend, you're down to 5.5k - or what I was struggling on 20 years ago. Your 400 a month for teaching might buoy you up a bit, but bear in mind this will be term-time only. So this is the economic question. If you can afford that, then it's down to where you really feel you want to be - getting a phd or working. Don't overlook the fact social life is usually better at university - a big part of what made me go back.
Also re: the job, if your part-funded phd would start in october, well you'd be handing your notice in as soon as you arrived if it's a typical 3 month notice period. I'll hazard a guess though that they have a probationary period for new starters (most places do) so they could wash their hands of you at next to no notice at any time in the next 6 months or so. And guess what, you can do the same. My attitude is, if that's the case you might as well take the 3 months earnings.

Hi mgraham, thanks for your suggestions. I don't have to pay any fees but there's no stipend either. You are probably right about the job - I could have just quit after the first 3 months and this might have been acceptable since it's a probational period and I could simply say that it was not what I was looking for - but I had to give my response yesterday and I said no. I wasn't exactly hoping that people would make the decision for me, but listening to other people's perspectives helps!

ah, so you're doing the phd this year then?

Yes, that's what I decided. The prospect of waiting for another year and reapplying put me off taking the job. Applying for PhD funding was itself a full-time thing and I realised I don't want to repeat the experience!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
how to deal with incorrect speaker introduction at conference
At some conferences I attend(ed), plenary speakers are introduced with more than just name an title of the talk, but also a short CV by the session convenor.
While I don't know how these intros are compiled (do organisers run background checks on the speakers? do speakers provide the summary themselves?) it may happen that the presented information (roles the speaker holds / held) are incorrect. (Misunderstandings between the convenor and their sources, not full awareness of subtle seeming terminology differences, …)
I expect mostly nobody cares about the details in such a speaker introduction, but there may be cases where the speaker gets a role attributed which they didn't hold and the award of the role was disputed or a politically delicate topic.
I'm wondering, what is the correct way to deal with such an incorrect introduction (assuming the speaker didn't deliberately provide false information)? Should one embarrass the convenor by correcting them before starting the presentation or let it slide and off-stage apologize to those in the audience who will feel offended because the convenor attributed their reputation to the speaker?

The way you've written this it sounds hypothetical. Whose point of view are you asking from?

i'm wondering about all involved, but i think only the speaker has a chance to do anything (they have the word / microphone; if anybody in the audience would stand up and shout to correct the convenor that would probably be regarded unprofessional. similar for raising it as a comment after the talk)

"I don't know how these intros are compiled"
The conference organisers will request a bio from the speaker. In my experience, the session convenor will simply read this out. A good session convenor will ask the speaker to help them pick out the most interesting/relevant things and double check everything ahead of the session. This more or less minimises the risk of an incorrect introduction.

In case your name is pronounced wrong, just let it slip. You cannot expect someone to know all of the correct pronunciations of strangers' names.
As for the title, I would recommend to only speak up when you are introduced with a status higher than your real one. A side remark like "Oh, and I do not actually hold a PhD" should be enough to clear the confusion and to show people you are not adorning yourself with borrowed plumes (taking false credit). Any further would probably unnecessarily embarrass the speaker.

I was more thinking about awards the speaker supposedly received or jobs of recognition ("is in charge of leading the XYZ project" - with the actual project leader in the audience). (People in my experience don't get addressed by their title anyway, so their PhD only comes up in introductions like "did their PhD in 2006 in the group of  on " I would hope this is hard to get wrong by the convenor.)

@pseyfert If I were incorrectly introduced as being in charge of leading the XYZ project, I'd probably say something like "Although I work on the XYZ project, I'm fortunately not in charge of leading it. That burd--, I mean honor, belongs to John Doe."

Your name and affiliation should be on the title slide and conference program.  This should provide the necessary information.
I strongly disagree with the other answer about pronunciation of your name.  While it's true that you cannot expect people to be able to pronounce your name, you should not just "let it slip."  Instead, assume that the conference chair will pronounce your name incorrectly or inaudibly.  Have a practice of always introducing yourself at the start of your talk.  You don't need to point out that you were introduced poorly.  Just say your name and affiliation.  This way, all the people in the audience who could not understand the introduction or knew it was wrong will be thrilled that you've let them know who is speaking.  For context, I work in a field where >50% of the time the chair cannot pronounce the speaker's name right.
I agree with the other answer that you do not need to correct your status, but it is acceptable to make a correction if the introducer overstated your rank.

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


text:
What are UK A-levels worth in the USA?
Background: I was born and raised in the United Kingdom and have a number of GCSEs and A-Levels. I am now living in the United States (by marriage/green card), and am looking to apply for jobs. Some of the jobs that have just caught my eye was Tutoring either Writing or Study Skills, at a community college. One job has the following requirement:

Documented two-year degree from a regionally accredited institution or its equivalent (junior level status at a college or university)

So, I am wondering, could my A-levels could be considered the equivalent of a US Associates degree?. I realise this is somewhat ambitious (especially as I only have two A-levels and a one-year BTEC roughly equivalent to an AS; but I do have other educational work experience)
I am aware there is no official rulebook for equivalency, the US Department of Education states it (source), but I am hoping there may be some unofficial but persuasive equivalency out there - like an agreement made by all the Russell Group universities or their US equivalent, or a court case, or something else quite decisive.
A summary of my reasoning and research so far is as follows:
Arguments For A-Level = Associates

The University of Michigan will accept Freshmen who only have 5 GCSE's (source), putting the beginning of A-levels on par with beginning a Bachelor's as a Freshman. (However they add that "IF A-levels are being taken", give predicted grades...)

Arguments For A-Level = High School

A-Levels are completed at 18 years old, the same as the US High School Diploma

Arguments For A-Level = Something In Between High School and Associate's

UCAS in 2013 listed the US High School Diploma as being equivalent to GCSEs, but gives UCAS points for US Advanced Placement Tests anywhere between 20 and 120 points (on the old UCAs system, 120 was one A-level at A grade, source), without giving points for Associate Degrees (presumably because they are too high?) (source from University of the Arts, London)
Various students have stated that their institutes have treated A-Levels as being equivalent to US Advanced Placement courses (anecdotal sources)
Chavagnes Private School (UK) states without source that UCAS treat AP as A-level; and also mention that a student with A-levels could expect to find themselves discounted for some of the first year's work of a 'university'. (source)
A US Associate's Degree is listed as being equivalent to a UK HNC, that is, equivalent to the first year of a UK Bachelor's Degree. (source from an e-learning provider) That is, above A-levels, but not by much.

 I have asked my American wife, who completed two AP's while in high school, what the different grades and groups for the Advanced Placements, given in the UCAS document, actually mean, and she doesn't know.
If there is any more evidence I can use in addition to the above fragments, especially statements by a university like my one from Michigan, I would be very grateful for them to be provided.

I don't know why you cite the UMich policy as "Arguments For A-Level = Associates" - the page you linked to says: "Students who are pursuing or who have completed A-Level exams will generally be awarded advanced standing ranging between six and ten credit hours for certain advanced level examinations completed with a grade of “D” or better." That's far from an associates degree (it's similar to what they would award for APs).   Everything you cited basically says "A-levels are treated like APs, which are not equivalent to an associates degree".

Ah, I see. I cited it due to it's section on GCSE's as I mentioned. As I didn't understand the points stuff, I ignored it. (As I didn't understand, that's why I came here looking for more expertise). EDIT: am unable to edit the main post, the "save" button does not work.

The short answer is no, you cannot use A-levels to establish equivalency to a junior college degree.
A junior college degree, or having junior status at a four-year university, is equivalent to two full years of study at the college level (typically about twenty classes). Three A-level courses, if they're treated as the equivalent of AP courses, would likely equate to less than two semesters of study.

Just need to check: you are (A) considering United Kingdom GCE Advanced Levels; and (B) that 3-4 of them (nobody does 5 - even 4 is discouraged) do take two years to complete?

@RobStening: I've edited my answer. If the A-levels are treated as the equivalent of AP's, and you take three, then the most you're likely to get is 16 to 24 credit hours, which is far less than two semesters of study (typically 30) let alone two years (typically 60 credits).

The problem is, they seem to be the equivalent of AP's in difficulty, not in size: the UCAS points table lists only the highest grade of one group as being equal to an A-level; all other variants of the AP are worth less. Some AP Tests are only worth one-sixth of an A-level in UCAS Points. So, really, I need a source which is able to give more detail on this.

@RobStening, I did five. Well, four A and two A/S. Although there's at least an A/S worth of overlap between physics and the mechanics components of maths/further maths, so it wasn't as much material as five unrelated A-levels.

@PeterTaylor, if you did that all in two or even three years, that's impressive, and exceptional. If I were to quibble I would say two AS aren't the same as an A2 version; some universities wouldn't even count AS's when I applied (2013); that plus the overlap of maths and physics (which my brother did) would probably make that only about 4.3 A-levels. ---Anyway--- This answer is still unsatisfactory, with US-specific terms not qualified (Classes and 'College Level'); aside from the level (difficulty/verticality?) of A-levels, I still lack clarity as to the 'size' equivalency- see above on APs

@RobStening: If you take a look at Michigan's AP credit policies, you'll see it's very difficult to reach 60 credits via placement exams. It would be even more difficult to argue three A-levels equals 60 college credits. (I don't see the A-levels going any further than freshman-level curriculum in those subjects, so I don't see them being worth more than one or two classes' worth of credit per exam.)

@Aeismail, except by the UCAS conversion, three A-levels could be worth as much as eighteen AP (AP's being a minimum of 20 points and a good A-level is 120) ... or of course just three (AP's being a maximum of 120)... or somewhere in-between. Of course it is somewhere in between, but it's the exact shade of in-between I'm looking for an official or institutional source for.

Here's Cornell's take on placement. No single A-level gets more than 8 credits. I suspect most universities will be similar.

@aeismail That's a good find, thanks. It's unfortunate their rates are anywhere from 3 to 8, when in theory A2's are all of equal weight. And their grades are weird: Chemistry is worth half as much with a B grade, whereas Maths is worth the same with A, B or C. ... But that's me having beef with Cornell, not with you, and it's a useful source, so thanks again :)

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


text:
Dealing with unprofessional/erroneous textbook and exams?
Background
I am a Permanent Resident living in the USA (CO) and studying part-time at a Christian distance-learning institution which is accredited in the USA and based in Missouri. The course is a BA in Bible & Theology. I read widely in law, history, and theology. I have physical and cognitive disabilities which severely affect my ability to perform well in timed exams, but am bright academically and consistently top-grade at coursework.
The Textbooks
Each class/module has its own textbook written by the faculty member. I have signed up for two of these classes, got the two books, and both are consistently ignorant, partisan, and unprofessional. They do not cite any references within their text yet are happy to frequently contradict well-established scholarship - even other books set by the university! This question would be far too long if I gave detailed examples, so please just trust me when I say that these textbooks are bad.
The Exams
A huge chunk of the class's grade comes from a multiple-choice test at the end of each module. These are meant to be just like the practice tests in the textbooks - which are awful. Many answers are extremely subjective, often the correct answer is the author's opinion. Sometimes none of them are really correct. Many times I have got a practice question "wrong", even though I have good scholarship on my side (again, including other books set by the university). It's all extremely unprofessional. Fact-checking the textbook constantly is also exhausting.
In other words, to pass the course, I will have to memorize and regurgitate answers that I know are disputable or even demonstrably wrong. I will have to un-learn the good scholarship I have read in my spare time (a lot), and replace it with junk from the textbooks I can parrot. In the exams, I will be trying to remember, "wait, is that the right answer? Or is that what the textbook said?"
The bottom line is: I do not wish to take multiple-choice exams based on these awful textbooks.
So, what are my options?
I see the possibilities as follows:

Ask the university to completely re-write their dozens of textbooks and exams according to proper scholarship. (Unlikely to happen, I think...)
Ask the university to allow me to write additional coursework essays instead of taking a multiple-choice exam. (This would be appropriate for my medical needs anyway. Perhaps I could try this without mentioning their bad textbooks?)
Attempt the exams, writing a note explaining whenever question/answer premise is wrong, (e.g. "None of the above are correct answers. Markan chronology is based on Mark's splitting the book in half between Galilee and Judea, whereas the other gospels explicitly describe a multitude of travels between these locations. See 'Jesus The Messiah' by Robert Stein"). However, I am sure this will be ignored; I think the marking is done by computers anyway; and that means I'll take too long and may not finish the paper. Not good.
Attempt the exams, keeping a copy of my answer sheet (this is allowed). If I get a bad grade, ask to see the mark scheme (not sure if this is allowed), and dispute any answers which contradict good scholarship, demanding those questions are removed from my mark and the percentage recalculated, and that the mark scheme is rewritten to remove the bad questions for future students. I think this would only happen with a 100% demonstrable case where there is no dispute outside of the textbook's divergent opinion. (There are some of these, but mostly it's just 90% demonstrable)...
Report the university to their relevant accreditation authority and hope they force (1) or (2).
Leave the university demanding a refund due to the bad scholarship in the textbooks. (Partial refunds are available in the early parts of a course, but I'm past those dates now). If no refund, go to the accreditation and see if they'll force them to give refund. (It's only triple figures, but that's substantial in my financial situation).

I would like feedback on the feasibility of options 1-5. Has anyone had a similar experience? I think #2 is my best bet, probably - has anyone been granted this concession at degree level? (Is there even a legal precedent I can cite?) (I have, in lower education, in the UK). If it comes down to #6, what are my legal rights to a refund if the quality of the education is demonstrably bad?

Ah, well, the orientation essay allowed me to discuss my views on biblical infallibility and inspiration. (My view: Jesus is 'legit', so when he called OT sections inspired, they are. I'm open to that idea that inspired work could include some fictitious narrative devices, e.g. the flood. 5% of the NT letters claim Divine Command and 5% say "This is my opinion". Is the remaining 90% inspired or not? Debateable...) That's my view: some of it's debateable. However, the class textbooks now would not describe anything as "debateable", it's their way or the highway. That's what's unprofessional.

From a pragmatic perspective, your option 2 seems like a sensible way forward.

Moderator’s notice: Please refrain from ridiculing the field of study. Note that for whatever it’s worth, there is an entire discipline devoted to analysing the Bible that does not require religious motivation – whether this applies here or not. @RastGasser: Please [edit] any clarifications into your post.

@immibis I suppose the opposite was implied. It's next to impossible for a textbook about the Bible to be considered 100% accurate by everyone.

@Flyto Option 2 does have the advantage of being the least confrontational, as I can attempt it firstly for medical reasons without bringing up textbooks. This may not seem very honest as I have an ulterior motive of sorts, however, it is an adjustment which (a) would negate much of the unfair disadvantage I have purely due to health, and (b) would make my results more realistic for the 'real world' of academia, as coursework far better represents how scholarship is done than multiple-choice tests. Indeed many schools advertise they have no standardised testing as a positive learning point.

I have an MA in religious studies, so maybe I can offer a bit of humanities insight here.
The main question you should be asking yourself is, what will I be doing with this degree? If you are hoping to be recognized as an expert within your Christian denomination, and if this Missouri institution is recognized in your faith community as a prestigious one, and you want to be associated with the institution, then your best option is to talk to them before the exams (your option 2) and try to complete the exams based on their advice. But if you want to gain in knowledge for your own purposes, you should also consider quitting the program entirely (your option 6). Let me explain my reasoning.
Regardless of your educational goals, for your degree to be valuable, it should show that you have mastered something more than just the ability to supply the "right" answer to multiple choice questions. Your instinct to respond to complex questions by giving supplementary explanations and showing your sources and your work is a good one. The top universities in America would welcome such a complex response.
A denominational seminary may be more interested in ensuring that the students know the answers that correspond with their specific teachings about the Bible. If that's the program you are in and that's the sort of degree you want, then you should go with your option 2: write the university a polite letter asking for further information about contradictions and unclear questions on the test.
However, if this degree is not one that would provide you with prestige or respect in Colorado, then the value of the program is more dubious. Ask yourself, what am I trying to get from this degree? Consider that they are preventing you from giving them correct answers on the tests they assign you, and that they do not provide detailed justifications of their own "correct" answers. Because of that, if the university does not give you assistance when you ask politely (option 2), it could be better to go with your option 6 and look for a more rigorous distance program that includes question-and-answer sessions and one-on-one counseling.
Usually you will not be able to get a refund, although it doesn't hurt to ask. If you have a student loan and you can demonstrate that the classes you took were worthless, you may be able to get the loan canceled by filing a false certification/ability to benefit form with the US Department of Education. But there is no guarantee they will cancel the loan.
Options 1, 3, 4, and 5 would probably not be helpful for you to achieve your educational goals. In my opinion a program such as this doesn't want to deal with disputes about exam questions after the fact.
I am not familiar with Christian distance education. I know enough to know that there are many good programs that I am unfamiliar with, and that finding the right program for you depends heavily on your view of the Bible and of Christian tradition and the Church Fathers.

Thank you for your great answer and for tackling both the 'big picture' and denominational aspects. The loan section does not apply to me but it is a good part of this answer which may help future SE searchers.

I doubt there's a wholly satisfying solution here.
Of the options you've listed, #4 is probably the one that is most likely to be viable, but the problem there is that everybody's grades would need to be adjusted if a question is eliminated because it's wrong. However, it will be very difficult to convince the instructor—who presumably set the exam in the first place—to recognize that their answer is objectively "wrong."
However, it should be mentioned that if you have diagnosed impairments that affect your ability to take timed exams, this is something that the school should make reasonable arrangements for you to work around the problem. (Note that if the school is operated by a religious institution, the formal protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act may not apply.) You should contact the appropriate office at the institution with the appropriate documentation outlining your needs and what arrangements are recommended (e.g., extended testing times). This might allow you to use option #2. (Although it would be a tougher argument to ask for essays instead—one could ask "Why can't Rast Gasser just take the same test with more time instead of doing something else?")

Great answer (+1) (as usual for your answers!) but allow me to raise a quibble: I don't agree that if a person has a diagnosed impairment then the university must make "reasonable" arrangements to work around this.  They might well do this, but surely it is at least open to a university to decide that a particular diagnosed impairment does not justify any special arrangements; universities are not slaves to the medical establishment after all.

Firstly, Aeis, thank you for your answer. I thought #4 was actually a bad idea due to the con you mentioned. Can you think of any other pros to it or elaborate on 'most likely to be viable'? Thanks very much!
I was just about to write "Ben reminds me to ask what law would apply", but I've just seen Aeis add that the ADA does not apply. That's interesting and unfortunate. Thank you both

@Ben Actually, the bigger issue is that it’s a religious school, so ADA protections don’t necessarily apply.

@RastGasser ADA may or may not apply. It depends on who runs the institution. As for option #4 it has the lowest barrier—you only have to get the instructor involved. Everything else requires multiple people and a lot of time to resolve.

@Aeismail Thanks for elucidating, that is a good point.

Remember that the primary purpose of higher education is to learn, not merely maximise grades for the purposes of a credential.  If you are able to get through your courses, and you have additional knowledge of broader scholarship, to the extent that you can reasonably dispute answers in exams, that sounds like an excellent learning outcome to me.  This should stand you in good stead for the future of your field.  If this particular institution is not meeting with your expectations then you should consider looking elsewhere.  If you are at the level of knowledge that allows you to argue against textbooks in the field, you might also consider trying to write some scholarly papers on these topics and publish these.  (That is unusual for an undergraduate and would be considered highly.)
Having said this, my spidey-senses tingle whenever I hear an undergraduate student say that the teachers in their university are all wrong and don't know that they're doing.  Ninety-nine percent of the time when this occurs, it is the student that is misunderstanding the material.  So bear in mind that people like me are going to be skeptical of your claims, and it is going to be a lot of work for you to provide compelling evidence.
Your suggestion #3 sounds quite reasonable, since it is certainly open to you to write additional information on your exam if you think it is relevant.  If you are able to show a broader knowledge of the scholarship that renders the available answers subjective/dubious, then you might receive some additional marks, but that will be at the discretion of the examiner.  Your other suggestions generally involve attempts to challenge the practices of the university; you are not well-placed to do this.  (The notion that a report to an accreditation body from a single undergraduate would yield any immediate change is ---frankly--- a delusion of grandeur.)
Whatever you decide to do, remember that a good outcome is any outcome where you learn a lot about your field.  If you get a lower grade than you deserve in the process, then que sera, sera.

Thank you for your answer, especially the consideration of the big picture. I absolutely understand your spidey-senses, mine would be going off too if the roles were reversed - thank you kindly for giving me the benefit of the doubt in the rest of your reply! Would it be appropriate under SE rules to provide a couple of examples in the comments section under my question? I felt them too long for the main question.

Regarding the end of your first paragraph, I was under the impression that a lack of formal training would be a huge disadvantage when attempting to publish academia. Would the "freshness" of being unqualified really be impressive enough to be a substantial advantage? (Not sure how off-topic that is, but the idea excites me)

It is reasonable for you to have omitted examples, since I understand you want to make your post succinct.  Definitely save your explanations for dealing with the university itself - we are happy to give the benefit of the doubt on this site, but also just to flag the expectations that students may be facing.

As to the possibility of trying to publish something, yes, that will be very difficult for someone without the formal training (i.e., postgrad education).  That is why it is extremely rare for undergraduates to publish.  Part of the reason to suggest this is that even the attempt to do this will probably show you how hard it is to get your own views on a subject to a level of evidence that will make it into the scholarly conversation.

I strongly disagree with the penultimate paragraph. In every single multiple choice exam I have ever taken, anything you write other than selecting the answer of your choice from the list will at best be completely ignored and at worst will render your entire answer incorrect. Examiners typically do not have discretion on this and as the OP pointed out, the exam is probably marked by a computer anyway (and again, marking anything other than the answer could cause the computer to reject it as incorrect).

Well personally, if I set multiple choice questions in a test, I allow elaboration and mark it on its merits.  Perhaps it is best for the student to check this with the course lecturer to see how the lecturer prefers to do this.

You both have a point. Ben's pro is that I would not be demanding the uni actually change any regular practices, but otherwise I think the cons outweigh that pro. Still, I appreciate the input, and will consider contacting the relevant person.


text:
How to reconcile interest in two (somewhat related) disciplines
I have two separate in-depth interests in two academic fields.  One of them in pure math (PhD in probability, also interested in complex analysis and differential geometry).  The other one is in software/computer science systems (privacy, distributed systems, this is where my current day-job is).
I do not want to spend my life having to give up one of them because I find both very interesting.  But apparently Morera once said that having very in-depth knowledge about a narrow field is better than superficial knowledge in several fields.  Is his advice correct?  Is it possible to make contributions in both areas?  I am currently 34 and in between early-career mid-career stage.
Thanks,


text:
Is it possible to complete a Master's degree while working full-time?
Generally
There's a question which asks is it possible to get a PhD while working full time? The responses to this were essentially "yes but say goodbye to anything except school and work" or "only if you're a prodigy".
My first question then: can I complete a Master's degree while working without killing my social life? Browsing the course names gives me the impression that at least 10% will be review from my undergraduate degree.
Specifically
I'm interested in deepening my knowledge in my area (software/computer science) and am in NYC, where Columbia U would be a great option for this. I have completed an undergraduate degree and since a PhD seems like a stretch, I am considering a Master's degree.
My job has a 40 hour work-week but has flexibility with timing.

As a supplement to the answers, I'd like to say that MS/MA degrees designed for working professionals often involve little or no research. If you plan to apply to PhD programs in the future, you will want to beef up your research experience as much as possible.

I have a follow-up question.. why? I'm a software dev and I'm not sure that an MA or Phd increases earning potential relative to time and money invested in said degree...?

@Cloud: For the sheer joy of learning.

Many thousands of teachers do this all the time.

Do you have to go to school full time as well, or would you be okay with the degree taking you two or three times as long to get as opposed to going full time?

I graduated with a Masters in Software Engineering from the University of Texas at Dallas.  It was a program aimed at professionals.  Most of my cohort consisted of working professionals, about 5-10 years into their careers.  It required 7 full Saturdays and 3 full Fridays per semester.  My employer required that I take those Fridays as vacation days.  Some of us were old.  I was well into my 50s when I started - so it made little obvious economic sense.  However, I was laid off 18 months after graduation and found a job 2 months later.  When I got bored, I found another job (15% raise)

I did both master's and Ph.D. while working full time.  Each degree took a long time.

My mom and one sister got their masters while working full time. Another sister earned multiple degrees (including masters) while in the full time US Army. My brother-in-law got either a masters or a 2nd bachelors while working full time. It's definitely possible, and it definitely takes a lot of time to manage it.

I'm reminded of this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Appel

To answer a few question together: I'm ok with doing school part-time even if it means it will take a few years and I could accept doing both full-time but that's far less desirable. The reason I'm interested is largely for personal enrichment, though it includes topics relevant to my work (e.g. concurrency, image processing, machine learning, etc).

@Daniel You can experience the joy of learning for free, without university fees! If that's your only aim. Especially in software. Just make stuff :-)

You may consider asking for a 80% full time job. You basically would invest your present time and effort into your future.

yes but say goodbye to anything except school and work :)

The key here is "without killing my social life".  To really answer that, we'd need to know exactly what your social life consists of.  I did it with a social life that mostly involved things like hiking, biking, & cross-country skiing in the winter.  If your idea of a social life is spending your nights hanging out in clubs & bars until they close (and where I live, they often don't), you may have serious problems.

A lot of people in the US do this, actually. Some places have enough evening classes at the MS/MA level that it may not disrupt normal work hours. But it takes a lot out of the rest of your life, of course.
It is easier in a field in which you can complete the degree without research, say by coursework and/or creative writing.
But if you can afford to spend three hours a night in class for a couple of nights a week and also do the required other work then it can happen on a reasonable time scale. And NYC has a lot of options.

At least in the US, there are often masters programs designed specifically for people with full time jobs. Often people attend these programs with support and even funding from their employer. Classes are mostly at night. Your work schedule may permit you to take normally scheduled classes, however.
Unlike a PhD program, you also often have the option to draw out your studies a bit, and trade a longer time to degree for a bit more sanity in your day to day.
As with most things, you'll have to check the specific policies of a program you are interested in.

I did one of these, it was a 3 year degree with 2 three hour lectures per week (depending on the lecturer either 2 evenings or 1 evening and Saturday afternoon). You could complete it in 2 years if you did the summer semester. It was a huge amount of work, I would only recommend it if you really want the degree but for me it was worth while.

@DavidWaterworth The people who I know have done similar have typically done it in more like 4 years, probably the same total work that you are describing, though, just spread over more total time.

yes 2 years was incredibly intense. It was basically working and studying full time. It was only worth it because of the future career prospects (it was a quantitative finance masters)

@DavidWaterworth Yeah, a 2-years masters is pretty standard for a full time degree, in the US anyways, for most subjects. I'd expect it would be a lot of work to complete that degree at the same time as full-time employment.

I have completed 2 Master's degrees online with a full time job and 3 children. It is very possible. I did spend several hours a night on homework. I did that several times a week. I did have time to spend with my family as well. It does require a lot of time.
Ask yourself this: In 2 years, where are you going to be? It will be 2022. Regardless if you enroll or not, it will still be 2022. So, go ahead and enroll because you might as well embark on something challenging. The nice thing is that unlike certifications, degrees do not expire with time. Hope this helps. Good luck! Go get it!

Kudos for so much successful post grad work with such a full life. Respect!

It's doable (I know someone who did it) but expect it to be hard. You can compare it with your current job - a full-time Masters student might work 40 hours a week. If you do it part-time, you might have to work 20 hours a week. Added to your day job, that's 60 hours a week. Can you cope with that? Some people undoubtedly can but for others it'll be very stressful, especially since you'll probably have to keep it up for months if not years.
... but it's doable.

Yes. It is definitely possible to do Masters or PhD degree while working. I did that comfortably.
I wish you success in your pursuit of learning.
I achieved M.S. degree in Software from a great university while doing a demanding job in a New York based company.
These 3 factors have helped me achieve the degree without hassle:

The Manager was convinced that what I am learning will be beneficial for the company's business. Hence, I did not have an objection for pursuing higher studies.
A Senior colleague who had achieved the same degree provided guidance and mentoring.
Fellow colleagues got inspired by the stories that I shared about those who got better pay after completing the degree.

Had I not had the approval and encouragement from the Employer, colleagues and friends, I would not have been able to achieve the degree.
Thanks to them.
I could achieve the degree and also pay back with these returns:

Better value and more efficiency at work
Sticking with the company for a long time
After completing the degree, I became a mentor and helped a few others advance their careers.

This is an interesting answer because your employer seems to have been enthusiastic about it - how did you bring up the idea to them?

I explored my company's HR policy on encouraging higher studies and professional ceritifications. I also talked to some senior colleagues who had already pursued studies while working. Support from all these sources helped to get the idea accepted enthusiastically by my manager and team members.

I did this myself, but I've seen lots of people failing. There are a lot of hints and compromises you should think about:
What helped me:

I've earned many credits from "isolated classes", which I took before actually enrolling. Time is critical when your are not exclusively dedicated to an academic program. So work a lot before the clock starts ticking (i.e. before enrolling) and don't let yourself lag behind schedule once the countdown starts.
I was dismissed from work to attend regular classes, but did not take work hours to work on my thesis or class activities.
I often took a full day every weekend only to study/work on my thesis. Other than studying on workdays.
I was lucky my advisor was okay with meeting with me outside working hours, I did went to his place rather than his office (that is something many people would be uncomfortable with though).
The program had difficult admittance exams, but I had seen everything on grad school. I worked with topics covered in most classes I've attended, and made my thesis on the same topic of my graduate thesis, which was the specialty of my advisor. All of these are measures I considered would put the program on "easy mode" for me. While it was still far from easy, I know a guy who failed to deliver a thesis within deadline because among other reasons, he wanted to work with something completely different than what he did on graduation, took no classes on the relevant subjects and his advisor was not from the exact field.

What you should be concerned about:

You will have setbacks. You need to leave room for failure to occur while not being catastrophic. I've known a guy whose thesis depended on an experiment, which required a few custom materials. The company that sold him one of these materials screwed up its composition (and the guy was able to notice and prove it later on). Basically, this meant that a very important experiment had basically failed due to execution error, but by then he had no time to wait for new materials and no results to compose a master thesis.
You will likely need to cut-off some hobbies. People often feel like learning something new and thus decide to do a master's program. These same people often decide it's a good time to also learn a new language, or start playing some musical instrument, and doing both at the same time might be a bad idea. While you should not stop physical activity or simple hobbies like going to the movies, there is a limit to how much you can effectively learn and focus on your daily life. And doing a masters while also working full time already pushes you close to this limit.
It does take a toll on social life. I've spent a month without seeing my girlfriend while preparing a pre-thesis. At some other point I had very limited time to see her because other than studying I also needed physiotherapy five times a week. People understand  this up to some point, but both you and them will be frustrated by the situation (this depends a lot on the type of people you relate as well).
You may be out of the academic environment, but you should try to put yourself in it. I hadn't had the opportunity to attend a single thesis defense or a random seminar while I was enrolled in the master's program. People often talk and exchange useful information on daily life and on social events. Often students spend work hours at the university rather than at home, which makes them and teachers much more accessible. But if you spend work hours at your full time job, you are out of this circle. So you'll miss on the information, tips, culture and so on that makes the academic program a tad easier.
Vacations are not (primarily) for traveling anymore. While I did took days from my work vacations to travel and enjoy myself, it happened that I had classes during vacations, and often spent a lot of time working on my thesis or class assignments when on vacation. From an outsider opinion, I've seen people fail their master's while working due to what I believe was a "vacations are sacred" mindset. If you think you'd be okay by skipping classes when on vacation and going traveling to forget everything about work and studies, then you've just increased the difficulty settings by two levels.

(3) and (5): agreed. Social life takes a beating, and vacation time dries up quick.

As other answers have mentioned, it is not just possible to complete a master’s while working full time, but there’s a whole assortment of great master’s programs designed specifically to accommodate career professional students.
In the industries I’ve worked in, primarily aerospace engineering and defense, it’s a prevalent part of the culture that early career people will sometimes choose to pursue a master’s while working. Many of my peers and I are currently following (or have recently finished) that path, so I can share what I’ve learned from our experience.
Schools/Programs: It seems you’re already looking into programs that are local to you. That’s often a great choice, but another route worth considering is an online program which doesn’t require you to be physically on campus. The idea of an online program can have a negative connotation to some, but an online master’s program in engineering from a university with name recognition is often indifferentiable from a degree gained while studying full time on campus. One example I can think of is a master’s at USC’s Viterbi School of Engineering, which you can complete without ever setting foot on campus, but the degree you receive is identical to that of any other master’s student. I’m sure there are a number of other programs like this
Time Scale: As others have mentioned, the time it will take you to obtain a master’s this way will be significantly longer (prodigies aside). However, in all programs I know of you can mostly set your own pace. Many of my peers have found that taking 1 class a term is plenty of additional workload and taking any more can be overwhelming. That being said, if taking 1 class a term it can take 2.5+ years to complete the degree, even if you choose to take a summer class or two. Regardless of the pace you end up choosing, I highly recommend starting out with 1 class the first term, so you can learn how to properly balance work and school before feeling immediately overwhelmed.
Value: How much value you will personally gain from the program is difficult to judge, but it’s a crucial exercise before you commit to years of school. Some key questions that you should ask yourself are:

Why do I want to do this? (e.g. do I think it will help me land more promotions at work, make me look more prestigious to my colleagues, do I just really enjoy learning in an academic setting)

Once you’ve answered that question, think about these:

How much will this help me advance in my career? (e.g. I’m partway through my program and I’ve reached the position that newly graduated master’s students are hired into in my company. Doing my master’s for the promotion would’ve been a poor choice for me)
How much will this additional academic learning benefit me over additional time I could spend learning on the job? (e.g. a number of my peers in EE/CS are now pursuing their masters in order gain expertise in machine learning. This has resulted in them landing projects at work they may have not gotten otherwise. It’s helped them break into a field that was otherwise mostly closed to them. If they had studied the same field they work in every day, the calculus for the benefit would be different)
How much do you enjoy academic studying? (Hopefully you have at least some enthusiasm for it, as it’ll be a significant part of your “free” time for a while)

Pursuing your master’s while working full time is a fairly accessible and not uncommon route. How much social life you have left over and how much benefit you get from the program depends largely on how you choose to accomplish this goal.

At least with regards to the UK - it's highly dependant on the institution and the demands of their program. I had a guy on my CS masters course who worked full time and due to the self-learning-centric course design, he managed to get away with making a deal with his employer in regards to flexitime and compulsory program obligations. He also practically lived and worked on campus.
I wouldn't personally recommend it unless you have a very fortuitous set of circumstances and potentially a flexible employer. I'd be worrying about the mental strain of doing both in parallel, least of all that it'd impact my social life. As mentioned, there are part-time masters courses available as well, but I don't know much about them.
But if you're set on it, definitely look into the prospective program and its demands before making the leap - perhaps even ask your current employer if accommodations can be made?
Personally I'd take the advice of one of this centuries greatest philosophers: "Never half-ass two things. Whole-a** one thing" - give each thing in your life the time it deserves.

This is definitely doable, and I know because both me and my wife have done it (simultaneously in fact). And we had kids while we did it. And she was pregnant with and gave birth to another child during the final semester of both of our programs...I would not recommend aligning having a child with this (we didn't mean to, but life happens).
Look into executive masters programs - I was able to go through an executive masters of software engineering program which was designed for working professionals, and was able to keep my full time software engineering job. The classes were 2 saturdays and one friday a month, and most of the classwork was on your own time, so it definitely requires the motivation to work on your own without having regular classes. The professors were all fairly available for questions via email and stuff. Overall it was a positive experience for me I'd say, and was worth the trouble. Hold off on having kids until afterwards though....
As for social life, I do have to admit I had less free time during the program than I would have otherwise, but not none. I guess it depends on how much social time you desire, but one thing I would say is this depends a lot on the program. With my program, I was able to get a lot of the work done in and shortly after class, so I was able to mostly keep the extra time to class days. There were a few weeks each semester where I had a large group project due or was studying for a test where I would be busy every day in the week but for most of the project I still retained my evenings for the most part. I'd say overall my free time was cut in half on average (some weeks having mostly the same amount, some weeks being completely shot, especially around finals for instance).
You can do this with a standard masters degree (e.g. non executive program), as I know several people who are doing this, but I would really recommend looking for programs specifically tailored towards working professionals - I find that the courses themselves were better adjusted for real world application of the material and were more helpful for growing myself as a working engineer as opposed to some of the regular masters level engineering classes which I took as an undergraduate, which were much more academic in nature and not really applicable to my day to day as a working engineer.
Hope this helps.

Yes, it is possible to do a masters while working full time.  The trade-off is that it takes a much longer time to get a degree in many cases.
I know that at least one university in the UK offers such courses, as my father was the Distance Learning Coordinator for the Civil Engineering department.  There is a short article about what Civil Engineering Distance Learning they offer published on their website.
I think many of the other departments also offer part-time courses, although not all of these are Distance Learning so you will need to attend some classes on campus AFAIK.  You can study some of my own degree there.  Details of the Computer Vision MSc show that
a one year Full-Time masters degree is expected to take around 5 years as a part-time module.
A fifth of the study time a year of a full-time course (one day a week) should leave you with some time to socialise and live a normal life.

I did this with a thesis-based MSc in Software Engineering. It was a terrible idea.
I worked full time (>40 hours/week) at a software engineering job. Since it was my first job, I also wanted to be good at it, so I put in more than 8 hours a day. I would then come home, eat, and either work more remotely for my employer or work on my MSc. Weekends were spent the same way.
A summary:

It does let you get a Master's without quitting a good source of income
It affects relationships with family/friends because there is almost 0 free time.
Meeting with your thesis supervisor is hard because you're always at work!
It is really hard to come home after a long day at work and to sit down and focus on something. Looking back at it, I think I could have finished my thesis a year faster if I didn't have to go to work.
It requires a lot of self-motivation and organization because any experimentation you are doing will be self-driven.

I would not recommend it if you can avoid it. I was mentally drained every day (slept well though!).

Appreciate hearing this as it's a very valuable perspective, congratulations on getting your degree despite the challenges!

Depending where you are and who you work for, maybe your employer would be willing to let you do some of your course on their time? If it's relevant. They might even contribute to the costs.
This is not uncommon here (Germany), especially for PhDs, but then it has to be relevant and useful to your employer. In fact, our firm will offer to support you with advice and a sponsor, as well as leave and fees.

I work full time and I am doing two Masters degrees part time. I looked at both curricula and decided I could rush it and lose energy and motivation or take it slowly (4/5 years) and stay sane. I don't have much of a social life (by choice), only use the TV for news and perhaps a 1 hour drama series. Sunday evenings are quiet times when I watch a 1 hour movie on Netflix. For sport I weight lift or cycle daily to keep fit and hike during the vacations.
I know people who have done this as a dual degree within a 3 year period and think that's impressive but I'm happy to just be steaming along. I'm not doing it for any other reason but because I'm very interested in the subject (don't think I could earn a living out of it, particularly at my age). I would have just done one but got a full scholarship for the 2nd degree and just couldn't say "no". In one of the programs, for example, I am prepared to take 9 credit hours in a year (one course a trimester). It's doable if you are really motivated, happily single, work in a conducive culture and are able to set definite boundaries.


text:
What is a reasonable expectation for privacy of exam and homework grades?
I went to a large public state school for undergrad.  In most of my classes, great measures were taken to keep assignment and exam grades private.  When I became a TA, I had to complete a privacy/FERPA training that detailed exactly how assignments could be stored, returned, etc.
There was the occasional instructor that had free-for-alls with students digging through piles of assignments with grades written on the front.  However, this wasn't the norm, with most assignments being returned by request at office hours, or having the grade written on the second page.
I recently started attending a well-known private school for my master's degree.  With one exception, all of the classes with paper homework assignments have been returned either in the free-for-all method, or in large drawers in an open part of a campus building that can be accessed by anyone at the school.  Personally, I'm past the point of caring if other people happen to see a homework grade of mine, but it was just a bit surprising for me based on my previous experience.
Is allowing other students to see assignment/exam grades a violation of FERPA or did my previous school simply have more strict institutional privacy guidelines?  What is a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding homework and exams?
Edit: Both institutions are US-based

You are right that these are FERPA violations.  Apparently, your new school does not have an adequate culture of compliance.

Although I am sympathetic to the good old times when you actually could permit yourself to do so, under today's compliance rules, this is not permitted.

This must be a country specific question so it would help others to clearly specify the country...

I believe it is allowed if they sign a waiver.

The answers in the comments are correct.  FERPA, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, makes "education records," which include grades, private and protected by law in the United States.  Students can reasonably expect their homework and exam grades to be held private from other students.  (Students acting as TAs can necessarily see such grades, but are bound by FERPA to keep them private.)  A search for FERPA will tell you more than you could ever want to know.

This is generally true, but it should be noted that FERPA itself is quite vague on what exactly is an "education record" and what specific measures must be taken to keep them private.  My experience is that institutions decide for themselves what policies to create, and what sorts of measures they feel are enough to reduce their liability to a manageable level while still getting work done.  So there can be considerable variance between institutions as to what actually happens on the ground, even though they all think they're in compliance.

While I agree that FERPA is vague on specific measures, 34 CFR § 99.3 says, "The term [education records] means those records that are:  (1) Directly related to a student; and  (2) Maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a party acting for the agency or institution."  Given that there is a specific exemption for peer-graded assignments before they are collected and recorded by a teacher [emphasis added] I think it's pretty clear that other grades are "education records."


text:
Weird volume and issue number for an IEEE publication
I recently got a paper published in IEEE, but on IEEE Xplore it is listed to be in volume pp, issue 99.
What does that mean?

Could you please provide the query/ your paper?

That is what they temporarily use for "Early online" papers that have not yet been assigned to an issue.

This simply means the volume, number, and pages have not been assigned yet.  When your paper is selected for an issue, these will change.

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


text:
My conference paper is not published in IEEE Xplore because we didn't fill the copyright form in time
We sent a paper to a conference and it was accepted.
We presented it and everything was fine.
Yesterday I accidentally see that the conference is indexed in IEEE Xplore, But our paper is not among the papers.
I emailed the conference and they said it is because we didn't reply to the IEEE email.
There wasn't any email from IEEE in my inbox, it was sent to my friend who was the first author. And he missed that email.
Now, what can we do? We filled the process today, Is there anything we could do to make our paper appear in IEEE Xplore?

With "friends" like that as co-authors, who needs inimical referees and editors :)

The first author should have been checking their email.
They may be able to publish it during the next cycle, you will have to discuss it with them but by not replying to their email you did not give them many options.

Yeah it was the first author fault but we did the process today. Is there anything we could do to publish our paper in IEEE Xplore? Can't day add it to the proceedings?

“You will have to discuss it with them”...


text:
Is it ill-advised to make a cover for your thesis in STEM?
I handed in my undergraduate thesis in mathematics and since I had extra time due to COVID-19 lockdown, I had made a cover drawing for it that I included. I've never seen a thesis with a cover in the STEM field before.
Was it a bad decision on my part? Will it look like kowtowing/bootlicking my supervising professor for a better grade? I believe my work was pretty good on its own and I'm afraid I have ruined it with what was intended as a personal touch that I really wanted to add.

I wouldn't have an issue with it if it is relevant to the topic. Your advisor might view it differently. But if it is behind you there is nothing to be done

In my experience, theses usually have to conform to a standard institutional format that doesn't include cover art.  Is your institution's format an exception to that?

Anyhow, unless the illustration is of your supervisor as a mythical hero riding a dragon or something, I don't see how it could possibly be construed as bootlicking.

I've seen PhD theses with custom illustrations for the title page, and I think if the artwork is appropriate to the subject, it is a nice touch. However, I don't know if those were the submitted versions of the thesis, or a version the author made afterwards for themselves.

if the illustration is of your supervisor as a mythical hero riding a dragon please include it in the question!

@TheoreticalMinimum I thought including it was against the rules because I got a warning at first the question might be closed if it was too subjective. But to quench your curiosity, the subject was about the theoretical background of actuarial mathematics and my cover consisted of a man freefalling with some graphs around typically found in the theory discussed

It does not matter.
It used to be that theses were printed on paper.  In those days, they had standard covers so they would all look the same when placed on a shelf in the library.
Today nobody cares about a digital cover.
Be prepared to provide a copy without the cover if someone asks for it.

Where are theses no longer printed? I still was expected to provide printed copies to both my PhD jury and the university when I finished mine in 2010. That was in Spain, and in France, where I did my Post-doc, theses were also printed.

@terdon I suspect this is specifically in regard of the behaviour with undergraduate and taught masters theses, where there are significantly more produced, the circle of relevance is smaller and they are less likely to include significant new research than PhD theses or Masters be research.

Oh wow, I had completely missed that this was undergraduate! Thanks.

This really comes down to institutional formatting policies. Some may disallow cover art, some may be indifferent to it, and some actually encourage it. For example, my Bachelor's thesis was in a STEM field and included an electron microscopy image on the front cover without any issue. I generally think it's a nice touch, assuming the cover art is relevant to the contents. Further, if that assumption holds it's really difficult to see how it could be interpreted as bootlicking.
I also know of several higher degree theses (Master's, PhD) from the same institution in physics and engineering that had front cover art. And they still print and bind PhD theses (and some Master's theses). They achieve a uniform look on a library shelf since the spine isn't affected. In fact, the institution's website notes that they prefer PhD theses to have similar cover art.

agree. You need to check if you violate the examiners rules. Also one needs not to forget that one has all copyrights of the image


text:
Should I explain change of major in my statement of purpose?
During my masters program I changed my major from Molecular Biology to Biotechnology.
Should I explain in my statement of purpose for PhD programs why I changed my major?

Was it really that large of a change? I could easily see this being a change in concentration within one department.

Should I explain in my statement of purpose for PhD programs why I changed my major?

Yes, this is a substantial enough change that it's worth at least a brief explanation.  As a general rule, it's better to explain than to make the committee guess.  There might not be much to say beyond that you realized biotechnology was a better fit for your research interests.  If so, then say that; if there is more to say, then it's worth clarifying further.

I have finished my undergrad in physics and wanting to change the field to ecology. After  consulting a lot of good questions here, my solution is:
Write in detail in your website, write briefly in your statement, and put a link to your full version
I will call this the Changing Major Dilemma. This dilemma actually is a combination of two smaller dilemmas.
The first dilemma is the contracting of you and the school. On one hand, since changing your field is your important decision, it's about your benefit. On the other hand, the SOP is the place to show how you fit their benefit. Your benefit is having a new breeze in knowledge, to have the fun of discovering things that you have lost in your old field, and to make your life easier. Their benefit is to recruit someone is capable to do the research. Having fun in the new area is one thing, being capable to do it is another thing. You need to prove that your benefit will give you the ability to satisfy their benefit. The SOP is born for this. Therefore, you definitely want to give them the reason why you decide to change your field, however long it is.
The second dilemma is, it is hard to explain your decision within only a paragraph, while the structure of the SOP require you to focus on their benefit, aka your future research. Your future research should be the most important point in your SOP, because, well, it is the place to show how you fit their interest. Knowing why you switch your field is can explain how your interest give you the power to fill their interest, and that is interesting, but it's not urgent.
Luckily we live in a world which has internet. You can build your own space in the internet, focusing only to your interest, and leave the SOP to focus only to their interest. Write briefly the reason you want to switch, then give them a link to your website. Leaving a link in your SOP is acceptable.

• How should I write a statement of interest about how my research will fill gaps in the field, when I don't know enough about the field yet?
• Are hyperlinks allowed in a Statement of Purpose?
• Should I mention my blog in my SOP?
• My link, if you are interested ^^
I use URL Analytic to tracking my links. They do click on the links. I need to disclaim that I haven't known how successful this approach is yet, because I'm applying this year. Will update soon.

This was "barely" a change. You need to mention and give a brief explanation for it, just so people see that you are acting "rationally". But you don't need to dwell on it.


text:
How to advertise my unpublished work in my CV for graduate admissions, when I can't put it on arXiv?
I am applying to graduate programs. I have an unpublished work. It has been submitted to the arXiv, but it has been put on hold. Also, we have submitted to a journal. I want to advertise my work on my CV.
What should I do ?

When do you have to submit your application? Can't you wait a  little longer to find out what's going on with the arXiv submission, then just list that in your CV when you have that straightened out?

Personal website?

@ff524 The deadline is on 20th December.

I sometimes add a paragraph on recent projects in my CV and I list titles and my contribution on them, in summary.

If you have not already submitted applications, it's good to add a link to your personal website on your CV.
Your personal website is a good place to provide up-to-date information on what exactly you're working on currently.  As soon as you submit to arXiv, you can link to the work online.  Ultimately, you can update your website to include where it gets published.
Your personal website doesn't have to be super fancy, too.  It can just be plain HTML, meant to convey additional information to whoever may be reviewing your CV.


text:
What does it mean when one month after submitting a paper we receive a request for clarification?
We submitted a paper more than one month ago, today we are asked to clarify one question in our paper. Does that mean the paper is just on the borderline right now?

Has the request for clarification been sent directly by the editor or is it part of the reviewers' comments?

I think it's the editor. We only see that single request, no other comment yet.

Without knowing the details, I can only make a couple of guesses: i) The editor spotted something which seems to be a major flaw (which is your fear, I suppose); ii) the editor is trying to understand if your paper is really fitted (in-topic) for the journal the paper has been sent to;

While it's raised by some reviewer..Sorry I haven't made this clear.

@JeromyAnglim based on tags, I suspect this is about a conference paper, not a journal paper. (Although some comments reference a journal, those comments are not by the OP.) Perhaps the OP can clarify.

@ff524 okay. updated edit to refer to "paper" as per question body.

Edited tags, feel free to revert.

@RoboKaren Why do you believe this is about a journal paper and not a conference paper?

I may have misread the comments above. Feel free to revert.

@RoboKaren I wish the OP would clarify... until then, I think it's probably safest to stick with OP's original tags.

monkinsane: Are you referring to a paper you submitted to a conference? Or to a journal?

Is there a difference between the refereeing process for journal and conference papers?  I haven't noticed one in math (for refereed conference proceedings).

Thanks! It's a conference paper in computer engineering.

One of the reviewers is unclear about one of the claims you are making. You could (for example) be making Claim A which you seem to have the data for, or you could be making Claim A' which is related but the fit isn't as strong.
While the reviewer could give you the benefit of the doubt (and ask you to clarify in revisions), they felt it was safer to ask ahead of time. If it was indeed Claim A', then your paper could have more serious flaws and would need more substantive revision.
I would reply as quickly as possible with the clarification and not try to over think it.

The reviewer had doubt on the scenario from which we raised our motivation. I have replied, arguing such scenario can be possible in the future, something like that.

Sounds reasonable.


text:
Switching between active and passive voice
I realize writing in active vs passive voice is a heated debate in academia, with arguments being made for and against both styles. My adviser prefers passive voice.. But is it acceptable to switch from passive to active voice in the same paragraph? What about different sections? For example, the intro and literature review in passive voice, but switching to active voice for materials and methods section. Is this a big no no?

A strongly related question (under a different guise): Using first person vs. third person in papers.

Personally, I would write the introduction/conclusions in active voice and the methods in passive voice.

It is perfectly normal to use both in the same sentence:

John stepped in front of the window and was immediately shot.
The continuum hypothesis implies that the continuum is not a
measurable cardinal as was shown by Stanislav Ulam.
The lump of lead turned to gold after being prepared by a senior
alchemist.

The point is that you may want to focus on $X$, but sometimes $X$ is "doing" something and sometimes $X$ is influenced by, say, $Y$. If you want to keep the focus on $X$ and not shift to $Y$, it makes sense to combine the passive and the active voice. This makes the writing actually more coherent, not less.

You should write your paper in a consistent form. I personally prefer the active voice as well, but if your supervisor prefers passive... well then you will have to make the best of it or argument with him.
Try to be specific within paragraphs or connected sentences. If you have an example that you were doubting about, perhaps you can post it here and we will have a look.
But in general: no.

I switch all the time in my papers. It makes the text more interesting and less repetitive, e.g. "We fit model X to the data. Parameters Y and Z were fixed to values of 1 and 2, respectively.".

I believe it is acceptable to switch from passive to active voice according to the way the thoughts come to our mind. This way we do write exactly what we want to express. Sometimes when we try to use one or the other style we write in a "mechanical" way.

You can switch between active and passive, but the switch should not be jarring. A good reference on active vs passive is:
https://serialmentor.com/blog/2015/12/19/dont-use-the-passive-voice
Which argues that the choice between the active and passive voice is determined in any given sentence by what is in the stress and topic positions of the sentence. The TLDR is:

The simple rule is this: Topic and stress trump active and passive. If the topic is the actor, use active voice. If the topic is being acted upon, use passive voice.

Personally in my science writing, I tend to favor the active voice unless it really is easier to write a sentence in passive, in which case I do.


text:
Can a person register a conference using someone else's credit card and still get IEEE membership discount?
I am in a situation where my paper is accepted in IEEE conference and only one of the author is IEEE member. For IEEE members, there is some concession in the registration fee. Can that co-author register the paper using my credit card while availing the concession(which is only for IEEE members)?
In case, this varies then, what would be the best way to proceed?

Generally speaking,

the name of the person registering does not have to be the same as the name on the credit card. You can pay for your co-author's registration if you want.
the IEEE discount applies if the person registering is an IEEE member, regardless of who is paying.

If your co-author is registering to attend the conference, it's fine for him to use your credit card (if that's what you want) and he can still get the IEEE discount, since he's an IEEE member.
If you're the one registering to attend the conference, you can't get the discount if you're not an IEEE member.

Indeed, it's common for conference registration to be paid for by an institutional credit card, rather than by the person attending.


text:
Is it really the responsibility of a conference organizer to provide the necessary letters to the participants for their visa processing?
I got a conference acceptance and my institute registered that. All the expenses to attend the conference were also approved.
When I checked with the respective embassy for visa processing, they asked for a letter of reason from the host country/conference.
Upon request to the conference representatives they excused. When I told them explicitly, once with a sample from some colleague of what I would need and then with the exact form from the official website of their embassy, then the response was, yes we would try our best to prepare it. However, if we couldn't, you can not blame us because the organizer has not promised any such assistance.
Such statement was a shock for me. To me, it was as if, I invite someone to my home, once he is at the door, I tell him, I did not promise you to open the door.
I am not sure if my assumption is wrong or what? maybe that's almost out of their domain but other conferences do prepare these documents.
So my question is:
Is it really the responsibility of a conference organizer to provide the necessary letters to the participants for their visa processing?
In any case, how to deal with such an issue/response?

Since they are the organizer, they are supposed to issue all related letters. Did you check if  any other link is provided? By the way, always check the standard as well as host of conference before submitting papers.

@Mithun I believe they must issue... But why? Anything that makes it binding upon them...

@Mithun There is no link. Conferences are everywhere and so are the visa requirements, maybe for one or other. So, in other words, what makes the organizers assist the participants in visas other than goodwill?

Yes, it's true. If they don't issue the letter then how a foreigner can attend the conference? As per my experience, I never had such problem. However, if the conference is a local conference (here local stands for small conference and they are not able to attract huge participants from other countries) then they may not have such arrangements.

Is it their responsibility?
Yes. I've run into this issue before, but I have never had a conference organizer demur on writing the letters. Not only is it the responsibility of the conference organizer, strictly speaking they are the only person who can provide you with the appropriate letters, since the letter is the justification for your attendance. Someone else cannot write you a letter saying "Tod is attending because of some other conference."
What should you do?
Don't go. On the one hand this is a moot point, because if they don't write the letter, you won't have the visa. On the other hand, the unwillingness to write a letter leads me to believe that this is not a genuine conference. There is an industry of essentially fraudulent journals and conferences. Many of the conferences are held in places like China, I suppose so that people have an opportunity to travel there and because it is relatively cheap, which require letters to travel. Not getting a letter is a huge warning sign.
It is undoubtedly disappointing, but if the conference is not going to do the absolute minimum required, and it sounds like you are paying, you are almost assuredly better off not attending.

Thanks. Yes, this is absolutely their responsibility. But, I am just curious, if there is anything that can make it binding upon them. I know, by saying, organizer has not promised, they are just trying to play with words. However, they are right at the same time. They have not promised that anywhere.

The only costs they suffer are reputational, which only matters if they are legit. That said, if you think you are being scammed and it is actually costing you money, you may wish to contact law enforcement. Nobody likes fraud, except, I suppose, the fraudulent.

@Buzz you have inserted the absolute word.


text:
what do you do if your PhD advisor publishes a solo paper on your topic?
I was working with my advisor on a research topic for six months and we had some results. The important idea was his, but the initial idea was mine and we worked on it together. Now my advisor has published the results without my name in the authors. The paper is in an important conference.
What do I do ? Is this normal ? Should I talk to my advisor about how I get my name in a paper ? How do I approach that topic ?
I'm his only PhD student and he has joined the department recently.
Edit : The paper was written by my advisor but we derived the results together, although his contribution was more important. He included my name in acknowledgements. Should I risk upsetting my relationship with my advisor over this ?

Yes, you should talk to your advisor as soon as possible.  It is hard to say more than this without knowing lots of things about your particular situation that you may not want to divulge.

@PeteL.Clark what other things about my situation are relevant to  your answer?

Is this normal ?  No!

possible duplicate of My advisor submitted a paper with my work without including me as an author

The above is not an exact duplicate,  but perhaps it can be edited to be more general...

There's also http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/10494/does-it-amount-to-plagiarism-by-supervisors

@anonymous: Without being able to see the actual work done it is hard to see how anyone could confidently agree or disagree with your advisor's decision.

You asked,

Is this normal?

The answer is no, it's not normal. If two people work on some research together, the "normal" thing is for them to write the paper on it together, and for both to be authors on the paper.
It's possible that you seriously overestimated your contribution to the work and don't actually deserve authorship. Even in this case, it's clear you were involved in the research and it's not normal for your advisor to go ahead and publish it without discussing it with you first.
(When I publish work that involves students whose small contributions do not warrant authorship, I always discuss it with them first. I explain why I don't think they can be an author, give them a chance to state any disagreement, and also tell them what additional work they could do in order to merit authorship.)
However, the latter (your contributions did not merit authorship, and your advisor failed to discuss this with you) is somewhat more forgivable than the former (your contributions did merit authorship and your advisor published without you anyways). (You do say your advisor is new, and probably inexperienced in advising.)
To answer

What do I do?

You should talk to your advisor. This is the only way to really understand which case you are dealing with.
You can bring this up in a non-combative way without upsetting your advisor; for example, you can ask "What do I need to do in order to deserve authorship on future papers?" This gives your advisor an opening to discuss why he thinks you didn't deserve authorship on the conference paper, and for you to respectfully state your perception of the situation.
There may still be a chance for you to get some credit for this work, if you come to agree with his point of view that you didn't do enough to deserve authorship on the conference paper. For example, once you and your advisor have come to an agreement on what it takes to get authorship, you can propose that the two of you work together on an extended version of his conference paper for a journal - on which you will be an author :)
Unfortunately, it's also possible that after this conversation you believe you did deserve authorship, and that your advisor published your joint work without you for no valid reason (i.e., committed misconduct). In this case, the best advice I can give you is to start looking for another advisor.
Finally, the lesson for the future is: talk to your collaborators about authorship early and often.

@rocinante I wrote this answer based on my (ongoing) experience in academia, which is that most advisors are decent. This does not deny that some advisors are bad; I just think it's more helpful/productive to start from a position of "maybe I can have a reasonable conversation with my advisor about this" than to start from "my advisor is bad and won't listen to me anyways"

@rocinante trolling much ? or rather "citation needed" for "site is heavily skewed to ignore or shut down any hint of criticism of professors in academia"

@Suresh I took the liberty to take this question to meta: http://meta.academia.stackexchange.com/questions/949/are-we-presenting-an-idealised-view-of-academia

A previous answer here (now deleted) states an unfortunate truth of the matter—what your advisor did was wrong, but rectifying the situation could be very complicated.
The primary issue is whether or not the paper has been formally published in the conference proceedings. Once that has happened, it's too late to change the authorship credits. Basically, any such move would lead to retraction—which, as has been established on this site and many others, such as Retraction Watch, is a huge black mark in the career of any academic.
We don't have all the information here, so it's impossible to say for certain if you've done enough work to merit co-author credit, but let us assume for the sake of argument here that you do. The challenge here is that, unlike ff524, I do not believe that there's likely to be any sort of positive resolution here. Not including you as a co-author on a publication (conference paper) is either incompetence or unscrupulous. In either case, the relationship between you and your advisor is probably not going to be a fruitful one in the future. (If your advisor is incompetent, you shouldn't be working for him; the same applies double if your advisor is unscrupulous.)
If it's possible, I would suggest finding yourself a new advisor.

Just to be clear, I agree that if the OP did deserve authorship on the conference paper he should find a new advisor. The positive resolution is only if OP and advisor come to an agreement that the original contributions didn't merit authorship, and also agree for the future on what does. In any case, I think a conversation with the advisor is the first step to finding out what happened.

This is true—talking to the advisor will explain what the advisor was thinking. But I don't see how the relationship is salvageable if the student believes he should get credit, even if the advisor disagreed and has a justifiable argument.

I do think if it was a borderline case, the relationship may be salvageable. Maybe I just have an overly high tolerance for inexperienced but well-intentioned advisors...

@RJ- Sorry, I have to disagreed with that. I don't see why it is a good idea for "the OP to acknowledge that he does not deserve authorship in the paper" if he thinks he does. Sure, he can ask what is advisor considers suitable criteria for authorship, but that's a completely separately issue.


text:
Will having a patent ensure admission to a top Master's program in the US?
Will having a patent get me admitted to a top Master's program in the US?
I am Computer Science background student.

If you mean: "Will they necessarily admit me once they verify that I have a patent?" the answer is certainly no.  Having a patent -- any kind of patent -- does not certify superior undergraduate level coursework or suggest successful navigation of graduate-level coursework.
If you mean: "Will having a patent have a significant positive effect on my application?" then the answer is It certainly depends on what the patent is for.  If it is for something directly related to master's level coursework in the CS departments at one of these institutions: probably it will be distinctly helpful, yes.  If not: maybe not, though it shows some scientific gumption.

Agreed. There are some extremely ridiculous and useless patents out there.

authors: Κατερίνα Παπαδοπούλου