text:
How to make programming lectures more effective and stimulating?
I've been assigned the position of Teaching Assistant for the programming part of my university courses in Bayesian Inference, at the MS level. I previously taught a course, a few months ago, in Computational statistics. My experience doing this, with no previous teaching experience, has been not so great because of generally poor student's performance, probably due to a lack of familiarity with the programming language used (R).
I am preparing slides lecture by lecture, with embedded code that I run and comment upon on-the-go. Occasionally I propose exercises but execution is often sketchy and I find many people cannot use the basic constructs of the language with enough fluency to create code that runs "on the spot". Given that I have a program to cover and I would not know what else to propose to the students other than exercising more and studying the syntax of the language -- I am, myself, in most regards self-taught about this, meaning that my programming abilities have little to do with the coursework I did during my studies -- do you have any advice on how to make my lectures more effective and stimulating?

Are you holding office hours in addition to the lecture?  I think with many first time programmers, one-on-one time is very important.

I would bet that there's a large literature on computer science pedagogy -- this is certainly the case in all other science / engineering fields I know of. Have you looked into this? I'm sure lots of great techniques are out there. If you're in the US, I'd also bet that your university has a teaching "consulting" service with people who would love to help.

I'm not holding office hours, sadly. I am currently in a full time job so that even the workload from the course is not so easy to manage. Re. CS pedagogy, I found some papers, but keep in mind that this should not be a programming course but an analytics one, where the main purpose is to illustrate practically topics covered in the theory lessons. The problem, simply stated, is that the student's background is so varied that they simply do not have the basic knowledge needed (MS students in statistics should have a past experience  w/ R, while a significant portion of my students don't)

Consider asking the previous TAs for this course for suggestions.

Re: The desire for in-class exercises (code "on the spot") -- One thing I've discovered this semester (teaching introductory C++ out of the Gaddis textbook) is the idea of laboratory exercises with mostly filled-in programs, where the students only need to add a few lines involving the new language structures that you just lectured about. Compared to "write a whole program right now" exercises that I'd used in the past, this goes down remarkably well; fits in the right time slot for everyone, gets their hands/eyes to have typed that structure at least once, raises up the salient points/difficulties of exactly that one topic, etc.
The fill-in lab exercises I'm doing come directly from the Gaddis instructor materials, so that eases my workload a lot. Frankly, I wouldn't have expected them to work as well as they do, but every day there's an important teachable moment that emerges organically. Not a silver bullet for everyone, but it's kind of been a revelation this semester.

Live coding (in particular as done in Software Carpentry workshops) is great at getting the programming across. I've used it in standard university lectures for three years and it's very popular with students. Key advantages are

It slows you down, so you move at a pace closer to the students' level;
When you make mistakes - and you will, and should - you show the students that this isn't a problem, and also show them how to fix them on the fly.

These advantages have their disadvantages built in: it eats more time in a busy lecture, and you need practice to be able to prepare without over-preparing. You also need to make the code available along with the slides for later perusal - combining lecture capture with live coding works, but having the files available is better.

I've been in a similar boat, TAing for economics courses where a piece of software was used throughout that most students didn't know to begin with.  I found a few things worked well:

Does your school have a technology lab?  Mine had one, and they offered regular seminars and individual help on using common pieces of software.  They were often happy to coordinate with professors for specific classes.  Look for that, and if it exists talk to them.
Following on, dedicate maybe one entire class at the beginning to going over the software.  As an alternate or supplement, offer an extra non-class session on it.  This may not be practical given you work full time off campus, but if you have a technology lab there might be someone else who can do it.  Particularly since you don't offer office hours, however, this might be appropriate for you to make time for.
Stress right from the start that learning this piece of software is crucial to passing, and that they will not be able to learn it just by watching you do it in class.
Along those lines, email the students before class begins so that they're fully aware they need to know the program to follow the course, and you'll only be dedicating minimal time to teaching it to them.
In the case of R, there are a myriad of other sources out there for learning to get started.  There's no need to reinvent the wheel!  Vet a few of them for quality, then recommend them to the students.  This may not work as well with more obscure pieces of software, obviously.
Minimize the code you show on slides.  Parsing another person's code is difficult in the best of circumstances, and an unfamiliar language in a slide show is far from that.

The bottom line, really, is that it's impossible to learn a programming language by sitting in class.  The students will have to dedicate out-of-class time to practicing it.  You can point them in the right direction and show them resources, but you can't hold their hand the entire way; at some point you just have to expect they can follow what the course requires.


text:
possibility of changing the corresponding author in IEEE transaction
Is it possible to assign one of the other authors as corresponding author in IEEE transactions during the peer review (i.e. changing the corr author) by any reason? If yes, at which stages it is possible? Is it possible when a paper received the A.Q (Accepted with mandatory minor revisions) status?
If not, is it possible to add the second corresponding author at any stage of peer review?

Any change you would want to make should be immediately mailed to the editors or wherever the journal tells you to do so. Just state the reason clearly and ask for the change. Generally they tend to accept most changes prior to publishing it.

It's possible, but explain why you're making the change to the editor(s). Changing the authors of a paper is suspicious, but if you have a good reason to do it (e.g. original corresponding author moved/died/graduated, new corresponding author took over the project, etc) then the journal/publisher usually won't object.
Odds are you can make changes all the way up till you get the proofs, if you have good reasons.

Thanks for your help. Could you also please give me some information about the possibility of adding a second corresponding author to the paper? Is it possible to have two corresponding author simultaneously in IEEE?

I doubt adding multiple corresponding authors is possible.  Otherwise, more authors would simply claim papers without doing the actual work.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Must presenters in the humanities read their papers verbatim instead of summarizing/discussing them?
Thanks to Covid-19, I have been watching many video conferences and online presentations (both formal and not) in the humanities, specifically on printing, paleography, manuscripts, analysis of paper, libraries, etc.. Many, but not all, the presenters read their papers verbatim. Unless you are really experienced and talented, reading a paper sounds monotonous and tedious. It is a much better experience to listen to someone just discussing their topic, using the paper or slides as notes or a prompt if needed. My question is are academics expected, advised or required to read their conference papers verbatim?

Agreed that reading a script is horrible (although not uncommon particularly for those unsure of the language of the conference). In my experience in physics/materials science almost everyone gives a talk using slides as a visual component. Reading the slides to the audience is equally bad (but, again, not uncommon sadly).

In math/biology/environmental science, the only time I have seen people reading verbatim is when they are employed by a government agency that will only allow the presentation of materials exactly as they have been submitted for clearance for public presentation.

I've heard philosophy papers being read verbatim, but the only time I've encountered that in math or computer science was one talk where the speaker's English was very poor, he had obviously gotten a lot of help producing a paper in English, and he didn't feel confident about saying anything else in English (including answering questions).

@AndreasBlass same in physics/engineering, a few times, but also a few very nervous native speakers with notes so copious as to be a script

Related, but no duplicate: Is it good for the speaker to read notes during a presentation?

I attend a religious conference once year.  The presenters are mostly pastors (so they're polished speakers) but not only do they all read their papers (dynamically, of course), copies of the papers are distributed at the beginning of the talk, so the audience can read along.   This seems to be the norm for this denomination.  Once a guy didn't have copies to distribute and there was much complaining.   Since my field is math, this style drives me crazy.

"STABBY" is the mood that puts you in. Only poor language skills or legal obligations can forgive this. Everybody can read your presentation faster than hear it, plus can linger/repeat anywhere they had a doubt/problem. You're massively wasting everybody's time by reading verbatim. E.g. 100 academics x 15min (wasted on a 30min voiceover) x $50/hour = $1250 I want to charge you; that's not even containing a penalty nor including overheads of the public. Possible exceptions if you have the voice of, say, Charles Dance or Patrick Stewart or June Foray.

They should all spend 1 hr watching Patrick Winston (ex-MIT) show them how it's done while he teaches them 'how to speak': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unzc731iCUY

This is a common method in the humanities, often in a lecture hall, they also sit down which adds to the "undynamics".
I have no idea where this comes from other than from a desire to always use perfectly polished and honed language - as is the case in a written article.
But I completely sympathize that this is a very annoying style and is beaten by a modestly interesting slide-based stand-up presentation in terms of excitement. Unfortunately, there is not much comfort I can offer, as this seems to be the norm in this topic group (although I have witnessed some excellent humanities talks, in different style, and yet perfectly polished).

"they also sit down which adds to the "undynamics" Admittedly, if I were to read out a manuscript (even worse: my own manuscript) for 90 minutes, I couldn't stand it either...

(Sorry, just couldn't resist.)

@JochenGlueck Yeah, if they start yawning at their own manuscript, that should be a red flag for oneself, but no...

A researcher in biblical hermeneutics once told me that reciting polished text is practically required in their field. A more free-form presentation would be seen as unprofessional. As far as I know, most other fields in the humanities are more lenient.

@IlkkaTörmä Yes, I am sure there is a constraint to that form and I respect that. However, I can imagine that some people would manage to make reading a telephone book a haunting adventure at par with a gripping tale - or at least entertaining (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx04xAoHDE8, partly in German, still probably fun and definitely relevant); I would expect that a text worth writing down meticulously is also worth being presented with a minimum of rhetoric finish.

I've attended a lot of academic conferences in various fields that would be lumped into the broad banner of "humanities", and I can safely say that I have never seen anyone sit down and read a paper to the audience. That would be absolutely horrible. I don't know what specific sub-disciplines of humanities do this, but in my experience, it's not at all popular in history, anthropology, or even philosophy. Some presenters are certainly better speakers than others, as would be expected, and some people engage in the unfortunate trope of reading PowerPoint slides, but not literally the paper.

I suppose it the practice might have originated in the style of "supervisions" or "tutorials" at old universities like Oxford and Cambridge, where the student literally wrote a paper and read it verbatim to the supervisor who criticized it. Of course today's one-on-one tutorials at Oxbridge have much more two-way interaction.

My hunch (as a STEM scientist) is that most of the perceived value in the humanities is in the created text not so much in the content (while it is the other way in stem). I am not judging though. As an extreme example imagine a painter artist who doesnt show the painting but instead tries to verbally summarize the painting.

@lalala Indeed, and I appreciate the language issue. But the talks are still boring. I should think that a polished talk could be delivered with twice the aplomb.

Are you also listening to YouTube talks at 1.5 x speed as I do? Then this stuff will always be boring.

As someone linked to the humanities as well as applied sciences, yes, it is very common for papers to be read, although the number of conferences that actually force you to read verbatim is fairly limited. In the large majority of conferences, speakers have as much freedom as they want to deviate from the written text, so long as they are able to successfully convey the key points included in it. I think most presenters in the Humanities would agree that just reading a text verbatim and doing nothing else to engage the audience is not a great look, but somewhat acceptable. It is possible to make good presentations, regardless of whether one reads a text, or speaks spontaneously. In the end, I would guess that Humanities scholars are more interested in debating the actual evidence, rather than focusing on the presentational skills of the speaker. So this answer is not intended to defend the practice of reading texts, just to explain why it happens.
Having cleared this up, there are a few reasons for reading a paper verbatim at (some) conferences.

Tradition. There is a long-established tradition of reading one's
research before an audience that goes back all the way to the 17th
century (and in some places, all the way back to the Late Middle
Ages!) at the time when the first official Societies and Academies
of Science were established in France and other parts of Europe. The
normal thing to do was for a speaker to read the text before an
audience, and soon after the text would be published in the Bulletin
of the Academy and sent to all of its members who could not attend
the presentation. These printed speeches are now considered to be
extremely precious historical documents, because they are the only
remaining testimony of the research done by those researchers. After
their death, their notes and personal documents were often lost.
Many printed presentations have crucial research about long-lost
tribes and languages which would be impossible to replicate today.
Even today, many presentations are prepared in advance with the
intent of getting them printed somewhere (more on this below).
It helps to maintain overall time schedules (to some extent) in this current paradigm of large-scale international conferences: humanities scholars are famous for
rambling endlessly, losing track of the key point, and going way
beyond their allotted time. Therefore it has become more and more
common to see reputed conferences demanding their presenters to
submit beforehand to the session chairs not just the paper draft,
but even the presentation slides as well (if they exist). These are
then reviewed by the session chair(s) who will recommend edits and
changes. Unsurprisingly, most of the proposed changes are for
cutting down parts of the text and to tighten up things, in order to
make sure that the spoken text can fit within the allotted time. Of course, this alone cannot guarantee that everything will go smoothly, and I do regularly see some delays with read texts. At the end of the day, we (the audience) are all at the mercy of the speaker's presentational skills, regardless of whether they read a text verbatim or speak freely.

EDIT: This section here is intended to refer to an interesting paper (from the 90's) posted by Szabolcs (included in this thread) about the frustrations of holding conferences, with time delays, bored, unenthusiastic people, and not all that interesting discussions. This paper is an opinion piece, and I'm sure that you can find just as many people who would agree as well as disagree. The key point I want to emphasize here is that the actual scale of conferences these days is much bigger now.
In the past, it was sufficient for a conference to simply use the lecture halls of a university, and even though time was wasted, it was not such a big problem. However, the largest humanities conferences today have reached such a scale that they often need to rent actual large-scale conference spaces, because not only are there more graduate students presenting now, but there are also  many more people coming from abroad to attend and present as well. It should also be kept in mind that Humanities conferences don't usually have the same large budgets as some hard science fields. There are severe financial penalties for not closing the venue at the contracted time, so those conferences are much more strict about requesting texts in advance, reviewing/editing them in advance, and also preparing the session chair's response in advance.
All I can speak about is my personal experience: I have presented at three types of large-scale conferences (those that ask to read verbatim, those that give you complete freedom, and those that give you some freedom, but ask you to not deviate too much from the text). The scale of these conferences is approximately 100-140 speakers total, over 3-4 days. In the case of the conferences that ask speakers to stick closely to the written text, I do see some delays, but overall things tend to go more smoothly, without too many bumps. As for the conferences that had no restrictions (always held on university lecture halls), they were pretty much disasters from start to finish (although I did see a handful of excellent speakers).

The "bread and butter" of the Humanities is the deep analysis of textual materials, leading therefore to a focus on describing minute details, rather than just summarizing one's results. Difficult fields such as Philosophy and Religious Studies require a
very high level of precision in regards to the terminology employed,
the definition of terms, and the method for exposing one's
arguments. Otherwise, it will be very difficult for the audience to
adequately apprehend the topic and its many nuances, or provide any
meaningful discussion or debate around it. For example, on an
average Humanities presentation the speaker is often required to
quote numerous textual passages without any mistakes, and do what is
called a "close reading" of those passages, which requires the use
of very precise language. These two things alone tend to push people
into reading texts, rather than talking more spontaneously.  It's
already challenging enough to talk about things such as Ontology,
Proto-Indo European or Esoteric Buddhism, now try doing it on a
strict 20-minute limit, without any text to guide you along the way.
By reading a text verbatim, the speaker can have enough time to hone
the text beforehand, and make it as clear and well-structured as
possible. This helps everyone in the audience to stay on the same
page. For instance, if you show a mathematical equation such as
e=mc2, everyone in the audience will probably grasp the idea
perfectly without any ambiguity. But if you mention a concept such
as "Dasein", the whole audience will immediately produce 10-20
different meanings, because this term (and many others like this)
has been interpreted in numerous ways by different authors. This
kind of situation generally forces the speaker to be much more
careful about what they say, and how they say it. Regarding disciplines that are more oriented towards the social sciences, and who do not engage all that much with textual materials (Archaeology, anthropology, sociology, etc.), there is less tendency to read written texts.
To allow for adequate simultaneous translation and improve inclusivity of non-English native speakers. It has become more and more common to conduct conferences (both
online and offline) that include speakers talking in different
languages, thus requiring the temporary hiring of translators.
Whenever translators are involved in a conference, having a prepared
text can go a long way to reduce costs and make sure that the
quality of the translation is at its best. This also makes
conferences more inclusive for speakers and attendees coming from
non-Anglophone regions.
There is a desire for speakers to have their papers reviewed by experts and get them published in printed form as soon as
possible. It is often the case that a presentation at a humanities
conference is the first step towards writing a full paper and
submitting it to a good journal. Since draft papers for popular
conferences must be submitted and reviewed in detail by the session
chairs, this provides a precious opportunity for getting valuable
feedback from experts. I have often seen actual papers published in
reputed journals, where the "Acknowledgements" section says
something like this: "The contents that comprise this paper are
significantly revised versions of two presentations made at
Conference A and Conference B; I would like to thank the session
chairs and the following attendees who provided valuable comments:
(Person A); (Person B), etc." In addition, it is very common for the
session chair to invite some of the speakers to publish their papers
as book chapters (or as a special edition of a journal) within a
book that they are currently editing. I myself have been invited by
a session chair to publish my papers for a few times, after my
presentation was over.
Having detailed papers in advance allows for mutual discussion
between session speakers. Before the session takes place, it is not
rare for the session chair to distribute all papers among the
presenters. In some conferences, the presenters are even expected to
meet for breakfast with the session chair to talk about each other's
papers, and then during the session itself, there might be a part
where the session chair and presenters give comments or questions
about each other's work in front of the audience. although not all
conferences do this, it does help to build up friendship between
presenters and sometimes leads to research collaborations.

Now, having said this, a skilled speaker will normally do various practice sessions in order to become familiar with the text, and allow for making direct eye contact with the audience while still reading from the text. Personally, I normally practice at least 5 times in order to test everything thoroughly: the flow of the spoken text, the flow of the slides and overall structure of the slides, etc. I also designate key moments where I stop looking at the text and point to key aspects of the slides with a mouse or a laser pointer. All of this preparation time pays off handsomely, as it helps to make the reading text feel much more natural, and to better engage with the audience. I often tend to get better response from attendees after the presentation is over, which leads to being more successful at networking.
By the way, here is a funny point: if you see someone (in a Humanities academic conference) who is apparently talking about a topic freely (NOTE: I regret the use of the word "freely", see comments below) in a skillful manner, it's more likely than not that they are reading from a pre-written text, although they are able to disguise it by adding several short remarks that give it the impression of being more "natural". Likewise, all of those TED presenters are actually reading from teleprompts, but they had to rehearse the whole thing 20 times or more, so it's easier to "disguise" the fact that they are reading a carefully-prepared text.
EDIT: I would like to clarify that my answer should be interpreted within the context of Humanities academic conferences, especially those that deal in detail with the analysis and interpretation of textual sources, such as Paleography, Literary Criticism, Ancient History/Global History, etc.

"By the way, here is a funny point: if you see someone who is "apparently" talking about a topic freely in a skillful manner, it's more likely than not that they are reading from a pre-written text"  This is simply not true. I have listened to many excellent talks where the presenter clearly was not reading. Was the talk well rehearsed? Of course. Some of the best talks I've heard were given many times before. Was the presenter reading? Absolutely not. In many cases they were open to interruptions, and could go into details according to the audience's interest.

Fair enough, but I was talking about academic conferences, not ordinary lectures or other types of presentations that get repeated regularly (OP specifically mentioned the situation of conferences, so my reply should be read within this context). Normally in conferences, you don't get to repeat the same 20-minute presentation every single year, it's something that you can only do once (otherwise it would be seen as self-plagiarism). Furthermore, in the case of a 20-min conference presentation the public would not be allowed to interrupt until the Q&A session.

While I disagree with many points, I upvoted this answer because you attempt to explain why this approach is common, and you bring the perspective of someone in the field (I believe the vast majority of users on this site don't come from the humanities and will find the idea of reading a text verbatim to be horrible).

I do sincerely appreciate your willingness to hear out my answer, even if you may disagree with some of it. In any case, it's important to keep in mind that many presenters at conferences are not yet very skilled at presenting, and in order to make sure that the time schedule goes according to plan, reading from a text is generally preferred rather than doing it more spontaneously (and yes, I think many in the humanities would agree that just reading the text and doing nothing more to engage the audience is not a great thing, but nevertheless acceptable considering the circumstances).

Every day, here in SE, I manage to learn something. I read your answer and was thinking to myself, hmm, apprehend? or comprehend? and then I looked up the definitions of apprehend. Thank you for that.

Fair enough, but I was talking about academic conferences, not ordinary lectures or other types of presentations that get repeated regularly – While there may be more of a tendency to repeat talks in the sciences, I can second @Szabolcs’ statement for fresh talks. I would guess that about half of the experienced academics I know can freely give a good fresh 20-minute talk that will hardly improve with ten repetition and scripted teleprompts (if they had experience with those). They would need a few practice rounds, but mostly to nail the timing and smoothen some transitions.

Interesting that mathematics went in a different direction - details of arguments and precision of terminology is also very important, but as a field we have simply given up on having audiences adequately apprehend the topic of a talk or having meaningful discussion or debate around it.  Rather, talks are seen only as advertisements for papers (which generally are already available in final form or close to being finished), and anyone seeking to actually apprehend the topic has to go off and read.  Part of the difference is that mathematics has a consensus about standards for validity.

Also, I find it ironic that your answer has a textual detail that 90% of readers will miss - "Esoteric Buddhism" doesn't mean a form of Buddhism that is not well known, but rather a form of Buddhism where some of the teachings are only passed down from master to pupil and not written down in a way that can be read by outsiders, presumably to prevent misinterpretations of written material from causing harm.

Funny, in my field (CS), if you go over your allotted time, you simply get cut off by the session chair.

Yes, in the most famous Humanities conferences, which are very well-organized and who have session chairs with a great reputation, the session chairs are not afraid to immediately cut off the speaker once the time is up. However, the sad reality is that there are also many other large conferences (less well-planned/organized) where the session chairs are people starting out their careers, and who don't always have the guts to shut down some speakers, especially if the speakers have higher seniority.

For what it's worth, I will also agree with @Szabolcs and will even take it a step further: I have never heard someone who manages to come across as "speaking freely in a skillful manner" who was reading from a text. On the contrary, only those speakers who are so knowledgeable and well versed in their subject that they can speak about it without reading come across that way. In all the (few; my field is biology) cases where I have seen a presenter reading, it came across as stilted, unnatural and boring. I'm sure what you say is true of your field, but it doesn't seem to be universal.

Hmm, I take your point (and those of the other commenters), but I think the problem is with my bad use of wording, especially the word "freely", which seems to be causing most of the disagreeing comments; this word seems to evoke on many SE users the image of someone walking around a stage lecturing without looking at any reference materials. I regret the use of this word now, but it would be wrong for me to edit it out at this point. I should have changed it to something like "who takes very brief glances at a text, but mostly talks while facing the audience"... My bad.

I'm sure that this isn't a general practice, though I don't know about the specific field. I agree that listening to someone read a technical paper is boring and a waste of time.
I once had a course in which the prof read verbatim from his notes while projecting some thing (art, actually) on a screen. At the end of the class a bell would ring and he would stop, even if in the middle of a sentence and put a mark in his notes. Next day he would take it up from the mark. One of the worst (not the worst) courses I ever had.
Unless it is specifically expected in your field, do something more spontaneous - more interesting.
Those who are truly interested in your paper/results will read it. Those who only want an overview should get enough to satisfy them from a less formal presentation.

Edited to add, as a service to Jon Custer:
The worst course was a "special studies" course in projective geometry where we two students met in an office. The prof would bring in his notes, place them in front of us and leave. We were expected to copy them verbatim for an hour. No questions, no interactions. Sort of like Medieval scribes, I guess.

@JonCuster, not your fault. And, luckily, I had a mentor who was much better. And, later, another who was even better.

That's not that bad. At least the topic is interesting. The worst I had was a social dynamics talk which sounded promising. It consisted in the speaker describing how he and a scientist from a different field ("interdisciplinary", mind you!) came together and the dynamics that led them to work together; it was indescribably dull (of course, the speaker was seated while speaking from manuscript). And the outcome of the "research", the punchline, so to say, after some 45 mins, was that they worked together because they liked each other's company. Give me daily Vogon poetry instead.

"Listening to someone read is boring and a waste of time" - in this context, of course, but it's not absolute or we wouldn't have audiobooks and poetry recitals. +1, especially for "do something... more interesting"

@ChrisH, yes, thanks. I made a small clarification. But this is a poetry "reading" done right.

RE your story about "special studies": i thought i would have you beat with my story about a professor that read the slides provided by the textbook (not his own)... but your story is worse. at least for my class there was some back and forth and questions. my followup second story is similar to your story but in my case the teach only presented his hand written notes (from 2-7 years ago, with many errors)... but at least he talked and there was questions and back and forth.

I was thoroughly shocked to hear that such as thing as reading papers verbatim even exists, so I googled for the topic. The first hit was this very thread here on Academia.SE, but the second one was a paper from 1998 that seems interesting enough to warrant highlighting in an answer:

First Aid for Listeners: Why Humanities Conferences Need to Change their Format

My question is are academics expected, advised or required to read their conference papers verbatim?

The paper mentions that some conferences require presenters to read their paper verbatim, so you might not have the choice.
You seem to be sceptical that this is a good presentation format. The very existence of this paper shows that you are not alone. As you can see, there are scholars in the humanities passionately arguing in favour of more dynamic presentation formats.

Since the article is paywalled, here's a short summary of what it covers (keep in mind that this was written in 1998, and I do not know if conference formats have changed since then):

Summarizes the various common presentation formats, but focuses mostly on the following one: "the papers are read verbatim from pieces of paper; a respondent may then read a prewritten response." This is said to be the required by many humanities conferences.  Not all conferences have this requirement: some give the speaker a choice, and some even focus on discussing papers which were read in advance.
Something interesting I learned from this is that in some cases not only the presentation is pre-written, but also the response.
Another important point is that in many cases, the papers are distributed in advance. The audience can read them before the talks.

While the abstract promises to explain "how and why this method has come to be accepted", the paper does not actually do this, other than noting that it is done "primarily in the interest of verifiability and validity".

The rest of the paper argues against this rigid format and lists the benefits of "extemporaneous delivery". I believe that most people who frequent this QA site would find these arguments to be simply common sense. For example:

Written text is just harder to understand to listeners (as opposed to readers) than freely spoken text. Humanities professors speak freely in the classroom. They do not read from the textbook.

I am paraphrasing, but the author seems to be saying that such presentations are boring and cause the audience to lose attention and get fatigued early.

This format leads to less discussion. Discussion is the very purpose of a conference.

Speakers who read a pre-written text are more likely to run over time (or to be allowed to run over time), which again cuts into discussion time.
It is interesting to me that @djohn argues the opposite, i.e. that reading verbatim should help speakers keep within the allotted time.

The general theme is that the main purpose of a conference is discussion and dynamic exchange. A dynamic format is much more conductive to this.

Can you summarise the parts of the paper addressing the question here?

I was less concerned about link rot than having to read an entire (pay-walled) paper. Here, even what answer can and cannot be found in there helps the reader.

@Wrzlprmft Alright, I'll add some notes. I didn't notice the paywall. It seems that once accessed from work, JSTOR remembers that I have access and will also work when I try to use it from home.

I appreciated your edit with the summary of the paper, and your post made me decide to actually go and read it, to see how it compares with now. I am starting to worry a little bit that this whole thread is becoming a means for people to vent "outrage" about reading papers... I am not a hardcore apologist of it by any means, but it has been done for centuries and I'm a bit surprised that there has been such a negative reaction here. I think I will edit my post once more to add a few more reasons, hopefully that will help bring some more clarity to this topic....

@djohn Soon I'm going to spend a few months in an environment dominated by humanities scholars. I am curious to see what the first-hand experience will be like.

are academics expected, advised or required to read their conference papers verbatim?

Academics are advised and expected (but not required) to give engaging, effective talks that add some value beyond what is already available to their audience in print form. This expectation is not compatible with reading your paper verbatim, which is about the most boring thing I can imagine having to listen to.*
Disclaimer: like everyone here I am only familiar with certain disciplines, so I cannot rule out the possibility that there are conferences that actually do require researchers to give bad talks (or that have more specific requirements that amount to the same thing).
 * The only exception I can think of is in a creative writing reading event, where an author reads from their work. In that case one expects the added value to come from the author’s use of tone of voice to convey additional nuances of meaning - they are effectively playing the role of a voice actor, and since they are presumably very familiar with their own characters and the meaning of their text, they can probably give quite an engaging presentation in this way.

My main experience is with the social sciences, which are arguably as close to the humanities as to the hard/natural sciences (depending on the subfield). It's totally uncommon for a presentation to be read  verbatim from a manuscript, and for the reasons you mention, it's widely regarded as bad practice in my field as well.

I've always thought the social sciences were an integral part of the humanities, but now you say they're not at all. Do I have to recalibrate my compass?

@Roel Schroeven it's complicated, because one would have to go into the defining aspects of science and address social sciences' heterogeneity. But parts of the social sciences (mostly the "positivist" parts) use similar methods (experiments, inferential statistics), are interested in similar kinds of questions (causal explanations, problem-solving, empirical puzzles), and think of theory in similar terms ("covering laws", preference for parsimony over complexity) as the natural sciences.

@Roel Schroeven (cont.) However, the main difference between the natural and the social world is that the latter has/contains/is constituted by "meaning", which the positivist outlook doesn't capture. So we have other kinds of questions, and need other methods and theoretical concepts as well that can deal with/make sense of/understand/reconstruct the meaning(s) of the social. That's where the social sciences are less "science-y" and more "liberal arts-y".

You are not required to stick to any of the guidelines for the talk. The only rule that can be enforced is the time limit. So, if you think that a different way of giving your talk is better than the way you are supposed to do it, then there is no reason why you should not do that.
I have deviated from the official script twice when I gave substantially different talks than the text submitted as the abstract in one case and as the article for the conference proceedings in another case.

Absolutely not!
Your observations here are correct --- a presentation that looks like excontemporaneous discussion is far better than reading a paper verbatim in the kind of monotonous tone you hear in some talks.  Most good speakers are able to give a good presentation using their paper (or some bullet points) as a prompt, but they sound like they are speaking about the topic "off the cuff" and in a conversational style.  When speakers read directly from a paper and sound monotone and dull, that is because they are bad speakers, not because of any required practice in academia.  (Though one could be forgiven for forming the impression that there must be rules requiring bad speaking techniques in academia.)
As to whether people are advised to read from papers in this way, I have never heard of anyone giving such bad advice, and I certainly have never given this advice to any of my own graduate students.  Some students are nervous speakers when they first start out, so perhaps people advise them to read from the paper as an initial method of keeping track of their presentation without losing where they are up to (i.e., walk before you run), but then the longer-term goal should be to develop the ability to speak extemporaneously about the topic and engage with the audience.

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


text:
Is it a good idea to pursue a PhD in Singapore as a European student?
I graduated with a masters from a good university in the Netherlands and am considering to accept a PhD at the National University of Singapore. However, since I have no experience with this university, it's hard for me to decide if this is a good idea academically. The research I'd be doing is very interesting, and both the university and the department where I'd work seem to be very good. I have a good idea what the academic culture is like in Europe, but less so in Singapore. The department of my PhD in Singapore is very international, also about one third of the researchers is European. I'd like to stay in academia after my PhD (at least, that's what I think now) and at least pursue a post-doc. For me, there are two main reasons to accept this PhD position:

Interesting research topic and a good (so it seems, but not sure) research environment.
Personal experience to live and work in an interesting place very different from home.

Does anyone here with a background in academics have experience or advice on the academic side of doing a PhD in Singapore? Specifically, is the academic culture comparable to Europe, and do I stand a good chance of obtaining a post-doc in Europe or the USA afterwards?

For the last subquestion, where have graduates from the groups you are interested in gone after their PhDs?

Attending conferences can be tricky in fields where most conferences take place in the U.S. or in Europe. Paying for multiple inter-continental flights per year is expensive.

@JonCuster: As far as I can see, most have continued in academia, many of them in the US and Europe, but this is worth checking out further, thanks.

@Chr: Fortunately, I will receive a large budget for these things, and according to a PhD student I spoke to, travelling will be no problem.

The groups I know in Singapore are well connected to Australia, Europe, and the USA (in addition to China, Japan, and India to a lesser extent). On the other hand, I'd only know of groups that are connected like that... Check the last few years (pre-Covid) for conference presentations from the group(s), and where those folks ended up.

About point 1, it probably depends on one's field but Singapore is a nice place to graduate from. I really enjoyed the department there and working there in general.
About point 2, it should not be the only reason to do a PhD there but Singapore has a unique feel and is a very enjoyable experience in itself. As anecdotal as it may sound, the food is cheap, eclectic and very good.
A few caveats :

While life itself is kind of cheap in Singapore (eating in food courts is cheap, making your own food slightly more expensive), housing is expensive. You may need to share a flat with flatmates (that can be a very nice experience by the way, especially in a new place).
Having an immigration pass to do a PhD is, of course, not a problem, however your spouse may not get a pass (it depends on your income and I have been told that a typical post-doc salary is below the limit). You might want to check that if applicable.
From what I have seen both in Europe and Singapore, I would say that there may be slightly more pressure on PhDs and  post-docs there than there is in Europe (of course Europe is a big place and it mainly depends on your supervisor).

Obtaining a post-doc in Europe/USA with a PhD in Singapore is not a problem in itself as long as you make sure you meet some professors working in Europe/USA and get yourself invited to some seminars when you're in Europe/USA. That is where the 'large budget for this kind of things' you talk about in the comments will come in handy.

Point 1 of course should also not be the only reason to do a phd there;)

Since you mention spouses, it should probably be noted that things may be quite more difficult if OP is homosexual.

Thanks @ClémentGuérin for your detailed answer! I do have a question about your comment about more pressure in Singapore: do you mean positive pressure to be productive, or more negative pressure in that the supervisor forces you to do stuff you don't want that only benefits him/her. I'm ok with the former.

@FedericoPoloni: that is, unfortunately, a good point to keep in mind. Singapore is very conservative in that respect.

@dutchstudent, I definitely meant the former. For instance, PhD students working on Sundays in the department was a common sight in Singapore, not so much where I come from (France). A friend of mine has been told at the beginning of his post-doc by his supervisor that he should consider working in the office from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. While it may have been said as a joke, my friend did follow these instructions for quite some time.

@ClémentGuérin: mmm, that doesn't sound very nice. My prospective PhD advisor doesn't seem to be that way to me, so I think I'll be fine. :) I have heard things like this happen in The Netherlands, too, but I guess it differs a lot per department.


text:
How should I answer a question about my "personal goals" when being considered for a graduate position?
I'm applying for a graduate position. One professor answered my email and asked me some questions. Two of them are listed below:

What are your short- and long-term academic/professional goals?
What are your short- and long-term personal goals?

I can talk about my professional goals in the first question, but I don't know how to answer the second question. To what extent should my goals be personal?

I agree that the question could be interpreted as inappropriate. But, while it's impossible to know the professor's intention (were they trying to screen out applicants who want to start families, etc.?), I think it's safe to answer the question ASSUMING that they are interested in your academic goals that may not be directly career related.
For example you might answer the first question with a straightforward goal for your career path (I want to be a tenured faculty, I want to work in research, I want to get a sales job with a technical company, I want to start my own company, etc. etc.).
The second question then would be more open ended discussion of what you personally want to get out of your graduate degree (I want to learn to become more independent, I want to learn how to teach myself anything, I want to satisfy my curiosity about how ants communicate [or whatever]). These are personal goals that are related to your graduate training, but aren't necessarily about your future career per se.
It's personal preference, but I would probably steer clear of goals or ambitions clearly unrelated to your relationship to the professor (I want to earn a blackbelt, I want to be an Olympic ping-pong player, etc.). I suggest this because it's unlikely that the professor cares about these goals, and the wrong answer has a possibility to seriously hurt your chances of being selected.
For example, it's hard to imagine a professor thinking to themselves: 'well their theoretical biophysics training is a bit weak, but we need a good ping pong player for the departmental retreats...'; it's easy to imagine a professor - EVEN INADVERTENTLY - thinking 'wow that olympic training is really going to cut into their hours in the lab...'

This sounds like an inappropriate question. This professor doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of the word “personal”, which is defined to mean “of or concerning one's private life, relationships, and emotions rather than matters connected with one's public or professional career”.
I can’t tell you how you should answer given the somewhat delicate situation. But if someone I don’t know asked me what my personal goals were, I’d tell them that’s none of their business.

Those categories seem taboo but it's only really certain subtopics that are off-limits to talk about. It's certainly possible to come up with answers that avoid danger zones while avoiding being rude. Like I want to run a marathon someday, or earn a blackbelt, or learn chinese, etc.

@ASimpleAlgorithm yes, of course it’s possible to answer without being rude, but my point was that a rude answer is what the question really deserves. Not that that’s what I’m actually advocating to answer in OP’s situation, but it should be put on record that the professor simply has no business asking about OP’s personal life, beliefs, hobbies, secret desire to become a movie actor, etc., or anything else that falls under “personal goals”, including all of the sample things that you yourself mentioned.

I'd like to argue that this is to some extent country-specific. No country was mentioned in the original post, though. Applying to a concrete position while mentioning "graduate admissions" sounds compatible with the German academic system, for which the following answer is particularly applicable.
The professor may simply be asking if long-term you plan to work in industry or in Academia and has worded the question poorly by excluding work outside of academia from "professional" and making the decision whether to stay in academia or not "personal" (the questions may have also been rephrased by the OP, in which case some subtleties may have been lost). Even if that was not the intended purpose of the question, assuming that this is what is meant may be one way to avoid refusing to answer that question.
Asking a candidate about long-time carrer goals may be of relevance because of funding - the professor may have an ongoing collaboration research project with industry, and such projects are very useful for those PhD students wanting to move to industry anyway at some point. They are sometimes or frequently less well suited for those needing publications in the best venues, which should be avoided for those interested in an academic career.


text:
What should I do if I have accepted an offer informally but am denied the job?
This is a follow up to my other question.
In November last year I accepted an informal offer of a position at a university outside my country of residence. Since then, I have in good faith withdrawn all my other applications and stopped applying elsewhere as I understood that my acceptance of the offer was binding.
I have now applied for the job formally as they told me to. Recently I enquired about the status and according to them the evaluation of applications will be concluded next week and I was also told that I am in a very good position.
I know now that I should avoid this kind of practice, but I am in it already, and what I fear finally comes. Does 'a very good position' mean that there is a possibility that I will not get the job? What should I do if it turns out that I do not get the job in the end? Can I even start applying for other jobs now or should I wait till next week? The problem is that my current contract ends this month and I have to leave the country next month. I have a family to feed and to provide a home for.

The following is added after the first two answers below are posted:
Although the position was not yet advertised before I accepted the offer, I had always thought that this was a real offer, since they already said things like they were looking forward to welcoming me in the group and that they would get in touch with me to finalise my contract (all this was said in writing).
I guess my question is, is there nothing I can do with all the email correspondences in which the promise and my acceptance of the job were all recorded? From the answers already given below, it seems that there is nothing I could do with it except to learn not to make the same mistake again. But then, can the university just walk away like that?
Of course all this is still hypothetical, and hopefully I still get the job as promised, but I would appreciate if someone who has been in the same situation could share his/her experience and how they dealt with it, just in case.

Update: The university in question has lived up to their promise and I have now been formally offered the position.

The only real job offer is written, in the formal way. I understand why you withdrawn/stopped applying, but, realistically, it was not a very safe idea.

@FábioDias, every academia.stackexchange member is encouraged to do that. It would be unfair to the other parties if the truth is that I have accepted an offer elsewhere.

I disagree with Fabio. Realistically, there are other ways of offers: e.g., if the head of school writes to you via email that you got the job after an interview. This is not a FORMAL offer, but it is biding.

My experience agrees with @Dilworth -- I received a job offer by email; after I accepted the over via email, I withdrew my other applications, though I didn't receive a formal letter for a few weeks.If someone on the hiring committee emails you and offers you a job, that seems fairly official; I suppose it wouldn't hurt to check if the offer is binding and ask if it is safe to withdraw other applications, although I wouldn't have thought to do that.

@bmurph Exactly. I didn't think of asking either, as both the heads of department and division were already expecting me. I thought it was formal. At that time the advice I got from this community was also to withdraw my other applications.

@Dilworth, "This is not a FORMAL offer, but it is biding" No this is not binding. In the USA it means nothing. If you are in a "at will" state it means even less.

@adipro, Dilworth That's the point, you were not accepted, not truly. Otherwise you wouldn't be worried. Until you sign a contract, you are free to do what you need/want. Personally, I'd rather withdraw later (potentially wasting time from some TT search panels) than risk unemployment (I'm usually broke, I can't really stay without income)...

"very good position" sounds like the committee wants you. Problem is, there may be some regulations or some people whose permission they need before they can send out the contract, which is, in my opinion, reading the entrails of the present case, why they do not give a binding promise. So, there is a (small, but nonzero) chance that they may have to retract their offer. Anyway, you are already that far, you retracted other activities, and with only one week to go, you probably just wait. Or else, just contact them briefly again to see how everything progresses if you feel very worried.

@adipro You have not accepted an offer elsewhere, because you cannot accept an offer that you have not received. If the position was not advertised yet, it didn't even exist when you "accepted" it.

That's good news. Congrats!

I think the other answer is decent, but OP seems to think that his/her question is not being addressed, so here goes:

What should I do if I have accepted an offer informally but am denied the job?

Apply to other jobs, of course.

Does 'a very good position' mean that there is a possibility that I will not get the job?

Anything is possible until you receive and accept a formal offer of employment.

What should I do if it turns out that I do not get the job in the end?

Forget about that opportunity and start applying for other positions.

Can I even start applying for other jobs now or should I wait till next week?

You can/should be applying/interviewing for other opportunities until you have obtained and accepted a formal offer.

I would even go further: Usually, during the first months of employment, your contract can be terminated immediately every day, even in continental Europe, where long-standing employees can have a legal period of notice of a full year. Until that period is over, have some backup plan in the drawer.

This seems to be contrary to the advice I got here: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/58483/withdrawing-my-application-for-a-research-fellowship-when-getting-a-job-elsewher

@adipro "accepted" means officially accepting a firm offer.

Until you have formally accepted a job, there is no need to withdraw from any other job application process.
It is very common at my university for us to go as far as offering someone a job, and them to not accept it as they received a better offer from elsewhere. Certainly this is slightly annoying, but no-one would suggest it is bad, or unethical behaviour.
In this case, it sounds like you might have been over-promised. It is also possible (and we can't know unfortunately) they are hedging their bets. The person you are talking to probably can't promise you the job, so they are trying to encourage you, without stating anything which they could be caught on later.

Yes, I understand, but you are not addressing my question.

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


text:
What should I do if my thesis advisor keeps insisting on making changes that are scientifically inaccurate?
My thesis advisor keeps proposing changes that are inaccurate (e.g change a scientific definition) or simply wrong. I have already gone through over 70 papers in order to find evidence and information about my subject. Still, when presented with evidence, my advisor keeps rejecting some ideas and has been rude at times. At the beginning of our collaboration she presented me three papers, out of which only one was relevant.
Her English is also not very good, so I'm starting to think she doesn't really know what she's talking about at all. Should I ignore her proposals completely? Anyone with similar experiences?

I love that your profile self-describes you as "Brilliant scientist!".

I guess your choices are, switch advisors, or work on developing a more mutually respectful relationship with this one, and finding ways of calmly defending your position.

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


text:
Terms agreed upon for PhD offer are being unilaterally rescinded—what to do?
At my old university:
I was a visiting researcher at a university, working with my current advisor. My advisor got an offer to go to another university. He also offered me to join him at his new university.
I got an offer letter by the Admissions department of the new university for their PhD track. As the offer was lacking in multiple regards -- type of housing, healthcare, stipend rate, academic responsibilities, opportunities for internships -- I spoke to my advisor, Admissions and the dean of my department at the new university.
My advisor and the dean effectively agreed to fixing my concerns. These agreements were partly put on record. During that time, my advisor had not yet accepted his new position. (Maybe the dean just agreed to my concerns in order to land that hire.) I was invited for a short stay as a visiting researcher.
At my new university:
During that stay many of my concerns materialized. I voiced my concerns with my advisor, the respective administrative departments, and Admissions. My advisor  reluctantly tried to change things, but mostly referred me to speak with other people.
This effectively led to a one-sided invalidation of my offer letter.
I spoke multiple times with my advisor and the dean. They still are of the opinion that they are bound by our agreement. However, they are now telling me that they are in no role to give orders to the Admissions department. The only two people who have this authority is one of the Vice Presidents and the President himself. The dean knows that this Vice President will side with Admissions. The President is shortly before his retirement and will not be present anymore.
Both my advisor and the dean made the impression that they can take care of my admission and fix my concerns. Now they are saying that even though these things were agree upon, they cannot do anything to fulfill their promises.
Current options:
My advisor offered me to work from another country as a remote contract worker with lower effective pay. That will of course not lead to earning a PhD.
Legal options are not available, as the university is located in a country with no court system.
How would one go forward with this situation?

What is your goal?

" a country with no court system. " o.O

@user2768 Doing research and earning a PhD.

@Fábio Dias Effectively no court system. No lawyers, no binding precendents.

"Legal options are not available, as the university is located in a country with no court system." I am not a legal expert, but I don't understand why anyone would want to live in such a country, given the option to live and work elsewhere.  Anyway, if the people who promised you things that made you take a job now regretfully tell you that they have no power to enforce their promises: well, that has got to be the best reason to leave a job I've ever heard.  Think of what you are telling them by staying: breaking their promises and breaching their contract is okay with you.

If they can't keep their promises, they should be willing to help with contacts and letters of recommendation so that you can move back to your old university or to another one that can meet your requirements.

@PeteL.Clark: that seems like a remarkably easy thing to understand. Perhaps one's entire family lives in that country. Perhaps one feels a deep personal connection to the country of one's birth and one's ancestry. The idea that everyone would be happy to emigrate from their own country given the opportunity seems contrary to evidence, contrary to history, and and contrary to human nature.

@Tom: You're right, of course.  I should say that I get the impression that this is not the OP's home country or where his family lives.  The first part of my comment should be understood in those terms.  (I also am not aware of any country "with no court system".  So it is not so easy for me to imagine growing up in one.)

@Pete L. Clark and others: It is a country that uses Sharia law. I do not want to go into more details, as then the university would be easily identifiable. The merit of witnesses before court is based on their religion. I am an EU citizen, and additionally do not possess the right religion for that. The university recruited a considerable amount of high profile researchers in the past. I do think the main reason my advisor went there is money.

It seems like if you want to thrive in a system where the rules are made by the university without any other oversight, your only option is to go by those rules. You stood up for yourself and now the university doesn't want to deal with you. You already stated your options; none of those lead to what you say your goal is. If you want to do research and earn a PhD, you need to go someplace else.

@Bryan Krause The reason for my initial question is: Are there are any other options not mentioned so far?

It sounds like your advisor is saying they can't help you any more because admissions is against you and they don't have any support to countermand their decision. It's not clear to me what your concerns were that are causing the problem with admissions, but unless you are willing to do or accept whatever admissions tells you they need, and they won't change their mind otherwise, I don't see any other options.

@Bryan Krause According to the dean, admissions will never change their mind regardless of what is done by others. One of the options mentioned before is to work with my advisor as a contractor. Would such a relationship be even on the table in the light that previous promises were broken?

No one can answer that question for you but you. It depends on how you view the relationship, including whether you blame the advisor or see this as a result of circumstances outside their control (or maybe a misunderstanding of what control they had). But you also said your goal is a PhD. You won't get a PhD working as a contractor. Why do you feel so attached to this one advisor? (That's partly rhetorical)

Could you try to go back to your old university?

It may have been mistakes and over-optimism, not deliberate misleading, on the part of your advisor and the dean. If so, they should be feeling embarrassed at making promises they could not keep.
The contractor plan does not help with your goal of "Doing research and earning a PhD.". At most, it is a temporary stopgap, but accepting it may weaken your negotiating position when trying to get what you really need. You need to move to a university, possibly your old one, as a PhD student, not a contractor.
I suggest asking your advisor and the dean for help finding a PhD student position, including writing letters of recommendation and calling associates. That is the best way of compensating you for their unfulfilled promises. Give them something to do that is within their power, unlike keeping their original promises, but that will help you to your real objective, unlike the contractor offer.
Here is a way to get that discussion going:

Thanks for the offer of a contractor position. Unfortunately, that
  does not let me achieve my objective of research leading to a PhD. It
  does not seem that I will be able to do that here. Could you help me
  with finding a PhD position elsewhere? Do you know other researchers
  in [your area]? Could you make some phone calls to find out who
  can take me?

Before doing this, you also need to compare your situation if you continue as a PhD student with your current advisor to not having a PhD student position.
You might also review your advisor's and the dean's known contacts, such as their co-authors, advisors, former students, and people who had the same advisor at about the same time. If you can, identify professors on that list who you would like as advisor. That way you can specifically ask them to contact Professors X, Y, and Z about you.
If they do start helping you with your position search, remember to thank them, even if you feel they owe it to you. Always give positive reinforcement to behavior that benefits you. That will encourage them to go further down that line.

Mistakes and over-optimism on part of the advisor sound plausible. But on part of the dean? He has been at his university for a couple of years and one would think he thus knows what he can promise and what not. Wouldn’t that be deliberately misleading?

@JAndersson Maybe he was deliberately misleading. Maybe he expected more co-operation from Admissions or more active support from the president. In either case, treating it as a mistake lets them save face, and is more likely to result in active help fixing the problem by getting you into a PhD program. Accusing the dean of being deliberate misleading will put him on the defensive.

You are speaking about mistakes in a passive voice ("have been made" and "treating it as a mistake") -- Who are attributing this mistake to? Why would such a mistake not put him on the defense? That is something I would also suspect could happen.

@JAndersson You need to pick one of two objectives: (1) research leading to a PhD (2) revenge/humiliation for your advisor and dean. Earlier, you indicated your main objective was (1). If so, do talk about mistakes in the passive voice, and don't waste time and risk defensiveness by attributing the mistakes.

Nobody is looking for revenge, as that would only be counterproductive. Rationally explaining the amount of promises and contrasting it with the amount that they can offer now might result in a better outcome -- and not result in emotional attitudes like "saving face" or "defensiveness". That is reparation, not revenge. Fortunately the basis for that is in place, as they already said that they cannot meet their obligations.

@JAndersson No, if the difference between the promises and the actual outcome is sufficiently big, rationally explaining it will make your advisor and the dean feel horrible (probably justly so) and that will almost certainly result in emotional defensiveness, if I know people at all.

@sgf If rational arguments are out the window, then I do not understand how I can tell them that their current offer is not enough, not by any stretch. How would you say that to them?

@JAndersson I have extended my answer with one suggestion for how to get a positive, beneficial conversation started. Remember the idea is to show them a way out of an awkward situation that helps you get what you really want, a position as a PhD student.

@JAndersson My point is that if what they did to you was really really bad, which making someone study in a place like Saudi Arabia under false pretenses is, it's often a smart idea to show them that they made your life difficult, but there really is no point in showing them just how difficult. What you want to do is make them understand that they put you in a rough spot and to give them a way out by telling them how they can help you, not to make them understand just how bad what they did was.


text:
How plausible is doing a part-time research masters with the aim of applying to PhD programs?
This question might be a variation of similarly asked questions, however, there is some different details that I think might make it different. So thank you in advance for reading.
I was admitted into a M.S. program in Electrical and Computer engineering as a full-time student in a good private research university in the U.S. I finished my B.S. in 2017 and been working full-time since then. My goal was to apply for PhD programs, however, I didn't have the necessary research experience or academic record to give me a good chance of being admitted to top-tier PhD programs.
I'm doing my M.S. as a stepping stone to take rigorous graduate courses and gain experience in doing research towards writing a M.S. thesis. Afterwards, I'm hoping if the fit is right, I'd continue as a PhD student at the same institution or apply for PhD programs at other universities.
Now comes the main point of the question, my program doesn't usually fund M.S. students and I'm seriously thinking of starting as a part-time student while working full-time till I can secure funding or finish the M.S with thesis as a part-time student. Is this a reasonable idea?
My areas of interest lie in the fields of communication theory, control, and optimization. And since, the professors whose work lie in those fields mostly do theoretical research or a hybrid between theory and implementation, it can be possible to do a Master's thesis project as a part-time.
To Summarize the previous information and the implied questions:

How likely is it to find a professor or thesis advisor who will want to work on a part-time M.S. thesis project if M.S. funding is not available?

If such arrangement is possible, will it hurt my chances if I want to apply to PhD programs in the future? Or PhD admission committees won't see it problematic if a thesis was completed part-time?

Thank you and hope everyone is staying well and safe.

Almost everywhere your application for a doctoral program will depend on your academic record and on recommendations from professors. The time it takes you to complete a masters is of almost no consequence.
However, in the US, neither a masters nor research experience is generally required for entrance into a doctoral program. Moreover most doctoral students (as opposed to MS students) get some form of funding, including forgiveness of tuition fees and some payment as a teaching (or research) assistant. If you aren't supporting a family it is enough and many people even manage while having a family.
The first part of such a program will be advanced coursework, much as you will find in a masters. The coursework is there to prepare for comprehensive exams. Some programs allow you to get a masters along the way, sometimes just by filling out a form, but usually some additional project/thesis.
So, I think that the only real reason for spending the time to get a masters (in the US) is to improve a spotty academic record. If you truly have a poor record then you might consider it. Otherwise a direct application to a doctoral program is worth the effort.

The above is very US specific. It applies to a few other places, but isn't universal.

Thank you for the answer. This confirms my understanding. The reason I'm going for a Masters first is to improve a spotty record but eventually, I do want to apply for PhD programs.

If you are serious about it, then applying to a doctoral program is much better.
If you are still undecided, and want to pursue a Master's first, then I would suggest that you pursue an online Master's from a reputed university, and keep the current job. For reference, Columbia, UCBerkeley,Purdue etc have good online Master's programs.


text:
What does it mean to get this message on EDAS?
I submitted two papers to a conference on EDAS. I checked EDAS and I saw a change. They added this sentence at the end of both papers page submission:

"You have authored an accepted paper."

The results of the acceptance will be announced in 10 days, but I was wondering if I can take this as a sign of an accepted paper?
My advisor thinks otherwise, and he says we need to wait.
Thanks

What does the EDAS site say?

The official results will be out in 10 days. But when I check EDAS it says  "You have authored an accepted paper." @SolarMike

Let’s be clear - how do they explain their statements, do they provide more info elsewhere on their site...

@SolarMike No nothing. I think there is a probability that only one of my papers got accepted. I can't wait till the next 10 days. :(

@Jacob: And was it indeed an accepted paper?

@OnurA Yes. Check my answer below

@Jacob Are you aware of a case where this turns out to be a false positive?

The answer is Yes!
Although, you need to be careful that it doesn't mean all of your papers are accepted (if you have submitted several papers). It means, at least one of your papers is accepted.

This is a bug in EDAS and yes if you only had one paper, it means that it is accepted.


text:
Is it a normal process if all results by the "Track Change" function in MS-Word of my revised manuscript, are visible after being built in Elsevier?
I got a revision reply and the editor wanted me to use "track change" in Word to do changes in manuscript. I completed the revision for manuscript and responses to reviewers file. I re-submitted and got a PDF file (built through Elsevier system).
My revised manuscript showed full red lines and a disorder of lines and between revised figures and original figures. I am sure that the reviewers will be unable to see my revised part and get mad at me immediately.
If i do submit my Word revised manuscript which did accept all changes i implemented in manuscript.My revised manuscript is presented as final document. It will be good for reviewers to have a look on my revised paper. But how come the editor can see changes and modification in my manuscript?
If anyone coped with this process, please give me some advices and suggestion to built a correct PDF file based on Elsevier establishment.
Thank you very much.

I think the comments and changes should have been accepted and then sent to the reviewers for them to appraise as necessary.

i think the same way


text:
Should I include a summary of related literature and comparison of results in Review of Related Literature?
One suggestion I received for my thesis is to include a summary of related studies and compare the results with my results.
Should I include the summary in Review of Related Literature? Is it a good idea?

You most definitely need to compare your results to other related results: otherwise, how is the reader to know the significance of your work?
Whether this should be done in a literature review section or in your results section depends on how quantitative a comparison can be made.
If your results cannot be quantitatively compared to the prior work, then the comparison should be in the literature review section and discuss the qualitative relationship between the two pieces of work.  For example, if the previous mechanism handles only fribbles but your system handles both fribbles and tribbles, then you can't quantitatively compare tribble-handling capability, but can state the difference much like I just did in your literature review section.
If you can make a direct, quantitative comparison between results, on the other hand, then it is best to do that right in the section where you are presenting your own quantitative results. For example, if you created an algorithm, you might compare it against other algorithms that do the same thing, running on the same tests as your algorithm, and show that yours is faster, smaller, more reliable, etc.  You should also mention the other algorithms in your literature review section, with a qualitative comparison that will then have the details filled later by your results comparison.

In my opinion, results are most important part of the thesis. Please make a comparison of your result with related works results (don't forget to compare with at least one recent work 2014/2015), and include them in the appropriate section of the thesis.
Regarding summary of related work. Normally we provide a detail analysis of the work has been done in past. However, it is also nice, if you include a summary table of the related work, such as follows:
S. No., Author (write first author surname et al. [cite] (year of publication), Related Entities/objects (the approach about), Description (include pros and cons of each approach), any other remake/comparison you wish to make.

authors: 海贼王最新剧情四海一家_路飞开5档是多少集暗度陈仓

authors: 漫画天界代购店嫦娥睡衣壁纸_天界秘话漫画下拉式酷漫屋

authors: 路飞打凯多是哪一集_路飞最新通缉令15亿哪一集


text:
Is it ethical for an instructor to "hack" my system as part of the evaluation for my thesis defense?
Background: I remember when I was still in college here in the Philippines, one of the member of the school thesis committee tries to hack my system by injecting some kind of code (I am not sure but I think this is SQL injection). Now that I am working I realized that it is illegal to just hack and get inside of the system. This hacking includes breaking into the security of the system then extracting the datas (some are dummies only and some are original). He said that he do this to prove that our system has not enough security and therefore concluded that it is not safe to use, due to this my team has been subjected to re-defense. Also, there are no proper discussions whether he has the authority to get inside the system, I also don't know the privileges of the panelist.
Please take note that the computer we are using is ours (students) then the panelist are obliged to test the system for certain minutes only (maybe 5 minutes). Also, we didn't use any ISP because it is only a system together with it's database and therefore can be use offline.
During that time we've been subjected to re-defense simply because our system is not secured.
Question: Does hacking the system just to prove that it lacks security and therefore not safe to use, still ethical? Considering that we are on a thesis-defense and are still a learner. Our knowledge cannot be compared to a professional that is expert in system developing.

@david: Agreed. We are not lawyers and cannot advise you on legal questions. If you ask whether this is ethical, that would be on topic.

This question appears to be off-topic because it is about law.

Reopening, since OP edited per Nate's suggestion.

Update as of September 17, 2014 - I chose Nahkki's answer because of the following reason: 1. It specifically tells something about the policies of software testing which I find helpful when answering questions like this. 2. The approach is for student and inside the academy.

Rather than discussing whether or not this is legal(which, as has been pointed out, is beyond the scope of the Academia board and would depend on your local laws) let's discuss whether it was right or expected or not.
As mentioned by Nicholas, this, to some extent, depends on what you actually did. And, as I see it, this can be broken down into two categories.
If your work involved a database that is not manipulated by outsiders at any point then attempting to 'hack' it would be inappropriate. By this I mean if the database was secondary to the research you were presenting. An example might be a database of Face images used to train or test facial recognition algorithms. In such a case the database iteself is not the product or research being presented. It should be stable and reasonably secure(depending on the data it contains of course) but should not be the focus of 'testing' or inquiry in a defense.
However if your work involved a database that is manipulated by the user or researcher, particularly as a primary focus of the research/work then yes, 'hacking' this database is a reasonable thing for someone to try to do. If the work presented is a complete project, a proposed solution to a real world problem or in another situation where, yes, you are proposing that the system you created could be placed in the real world then attempting to 'hack' the system is not only reasonable but expected.
Let's take a moment, though, to discuss what 'hack' might mean in this situation. You mentioned a SQL Injection. For some folks 'hacking' brings to mind serious people wearing sunglasses indoors yelling "Hack the MAINFRAME!" as they use telephones, bits of wire and evil to do nasty things to computers. But, especially in this particular case, this 'hacking' would have been something as innocent as entering something into a data field. In the early days of speed cameras some clever motorists found a way to do such an attack. The cameras 'read' the license plates and automatically submitted speeding tickets. Clever if unethical motorists could put a sql string on their bumper, the camera would 'read' the string and, since the string wasn't properly sanitized, it would cause nasty things like deleting the entire database. SQL Injections are something that you should not be confused about what there are at graduation, that you are both unsure if that's what the instructor did AND indignant that they would do so would be a signal to me that you did need to re-defend your thesis. SQL (or just plain code) injection attacks are almost laughably easy to minimize, someone being able to 'hack' your database in the few minutes you described is a serious quality concern for a graduate in computer science perhaps especially in graduate level work(you are unclear about your level at the time of this issue).
Finally allow me to point out that all respectable software companies hire people whose job it is to attempt to hack into their own servers, software and, yes, databases. Additionally white hat hackers often attempt to hack software and environments and report it to said companies(black hat hackers will skip the reporting and go straight to exploiting.) No one wants to hear that their baby is ugly or that their code has a problem. I'm hearing a lot of indignation in your question related to that and I understand it but I'm going to respectfully advise you to both get over it and welcome such things - that is how you will become better at development.

I'm not sure that image you saw on Google with the car having the SQL string on the plates is something that actually worked:p

It sounds like as part of the defense, you gave the examiners access to the system for purposes of evaluating it.
If you gave consent for them to evaluate the system, and didn't place any restrictions on what they can do with it, I don't see any problem with what they did.
You are correct that is generally illegal to just "hack" into a system, but that refers to gaining unauthorized access to a system. That doesn't seem to be what happened here.

To add: penetration testing is a standard way of evaluating software security in industry.

It depends on whether it is a reasonable expectation that your evaluators would test your work in this way. You don't give the details of what you have created, so it is hard to assess whether the assessor's actions were reasonable.
If you had created a database with an interface that could be accessible publicly, and that the majority of your work was on the creation and/or operation of that interface, then I think that security issues are indeed important, and an acid test of your work would be to attempt to hack in.
However, if the majority of your work was on looking at the inter-relationships between elements of the database - i.e. you were looking for correlations between database parameters - and not on the interface, then I don't think that the security of your system warrants a hacking attempt to test its security. In this case, a lack of security is indeed a concern, and one which you might have to address in a defence, but not one which justifies an attack on the system to test it.


text:
Do you need to read a whole article before citing it?
During writing my academic paper, I need to cite a definition in a scientific paper. The other part of the paper, is irrelevant to my work.
I have been advised that if you will cite a paper, you need to read that paper entirely. But in this case, it seems useless to do so.
It also happened a few times when I wanted to cite from some books.

Don't run, walk! Read the article completely and whenever you understood it, then you are ready to cite it.

Do you read the whole book if you need a chapter that you fully understand? :)

It's better you don't be pedantic. (just an advice)

Related question: Is it unethical to cite a paper or book that you have never looked at?

No, you don't have to read the whole paper.
If you think you do, ask yourself this:

do you also have to read all papers cited in the paper?

For example, I recently needed to know a certain function of n. Some computer experimentation suggested that it might be 3*2^n, let's say. Then I found a paper published in a reputable journal that claimed to prove exactly that. As the reasons why it was 3*2^n were probably rather unrelated to what I was trying to do, I cited them but did not check their proof.
On balance, I think that making every author read every paper they ever cite would slow down the progress of science.
Caveat: this may be field-dependent. For instance, if the paper can be thought of as consisting of just one long definition, then yes, one should read the whole thing.

You need to read and understand enough of the material to feel comfortable relying on it to be authoritative for the material you are citing. If you are using a dictionary to provide a definition of a word, you don't need to read the whole dictionary. If you are citing a journal article to provide a definition of a scientific concept, it's probably in your interest to read the whole thing to be sure that those authors give and correctly apply that definition. Even if they define it correctly, if their use is misleading, wrong, or otherwise dubious, you don't want to send your readers there for authoritative information on the subject.
You've got to consider the source and the purpose of your citation, but most of the time, you should read the whole thing. It's your reputation that's on the line, so it's best to make sure you understand your sources before you cite them.

most of the time, you should read the whole thing - I suspect this may be field dependent, possibly also dependent on the specific sub-field. In some areas it may be common for an article to contain several related but independent and clearly separated contributions, while in other fields it is not.

My initial reaction was, "for the related work section you probably don't", but given that the number of citations is (unfortunately!) a sign of quality today, one should not embarrass oneself by assigning this stamp to something bad (just by being lazy).

You don't have to read the whole article if you're certain about the point it makes.
Ultimately it is up to you to defend your paper and if someone questions your findings you have to be able to give an appropriate answer. If they see that you misinterpreted something, because you didn't fully understand the article you cited they can call you out on that (regardless whether you skipped half of the article or just didn't understand it properly).

This is the right answer. Many of us (myself included) went through a stage in elementary education where we were required to log our reading. Doing that teaches one to question what constitutes "reading it well enough" to put another check mark on the log. At one point, I seriously wondered whether I needed to read and understand the copyright page in order to not be lying when I told the teacher that "I read it". The later stages of education and academia are not like that. Reading is just a tool, not a milestone or deliverable.

To add to the Hansen answer
Maybe you don't need to read an article completely, but abstract and conclusion are there to ease your way to understand an article and you must read them.
It also depends on the subject and your purpose of citation. For example if you claim about something, you should have read and understand it but if you cite to provide a context you can be less sensitive.

What is the difference of my answer with others? they say no, I just added you can look at "abstract", I feel you are biased toward users

I don't think it's important to read the whole paper before citing it, unless you are extending on that paper's work.
Side note: A recent paper said that most of the citations are copied ("when a scientist writes a manuscript, he picks up several random recent papers, cites them and also copies some of their references").

The unless clause in your first sentence is not the only reason to read the whole of an article.

Ironically, you misrepresent the paper you cite. It is a theoretical paper, not a behavioral analysis.

I agree with bill on the unless clause.

Yes. Always read the whole article before citing. Don't be sloppy. Don't take lazy shortcuts. Write responsibly. This is academia, not second-rate journalism.
If you cite something you don't understand, or which is riddled with nonsense, or is later retracted, and you show no sign that you were aware of it in your citation, then it will reflect badly on you.
Obviously, in any paper you cite, there will be things that are relevant, and things that are not. But that doesn't mean you can avoid reading the paper, and only cherry-pick reading the one sentence in it that is convenient for you to build your argument. If you don't read it all, you won't know everything in it that's relevant.
Building comprehensively on predecessors' work is how scholarship progresses.  Being lazy, omitting hte reading of your predecessors' work, and citing it blindly without reading it or understanding it, is how bad scholarship propagates.
If it's a large reference work such as a dictionary, then no, you aren't expected to read the whole thing: in such cases, you'll just have to get by with an appeal to authority, by using the most reputable dictionary you can.

There are plenty of situations in which one would need to cite a paper which is riddled with nonsense, contains factual mistakes or contains stuff far beyond the reason to cite it. How much an author needs to know about a cited paper would utterly depend on the context of the citation, I should think.

@Arno thanks for the request for clarification. I've updated my answer accordingly, and I hope this clears up the misunderstanding.

I don't think "read the whole article" and "cherry-pick reading the one sentence in it that is convenient for you to build your argument" are the only two possibilities.

I am surprised this post garned down-votes. As far as real science goes, reading, writing, and evaluating the literature is how we progress, contribute to, and build on other academic work. Deep analysis may not be required, but if you can't be bothered to read the articles you cite, you aren't doing careful work.


text:
As a student, is it appropriate to use my university's letterhead for a letter I write, to give it extra weight?
A program I participated in for six years, while I was in junior high and high school has just had a huge chunk of their funding removed by the school. I credit this program with the majority of my success in college and my general interest and capabilities in science, and a lot of my maturity (which was sorely needed in junior high...).
The program has a new coach (who I worked with, but has just now taken over) who is not a confrontational person. I would like to write a letter to the school expressing my support for the program, and would encourage other alumni of the program to as well, many of whom also have a lot of respect for it.
This is just a thought I had while drafting my letter. Is it appropriate to find some sort of letterhead or something like that from the university (perhaps my major department?) to give more weight to my letter?
I am personally an undergraduate student, but would it be appropriate for a graduate student or postdoc to use letterhead? Or should use of the letterhead be reserved solely for faculty and staff?

Personally, I'd put very little weight into letterheads, since anyone can use them. If I wanted to say something very important, I could put the ones from Harvard, Caltech, MIT, Oxford, Weizmann, and the Nobel Prize committee on top of each other.

@Davidmh I don't follow, where would you get those?

Google "[institution] letterhead".

Do not use any professional letterhead when you are not speaking "on behalf" of the entity it comes from.
Using your status, like explaining who you are or whatever, is fine. However, the sole fact of using entity's letter head, implicitly involves your employer and can only ends in a bad situation.
If you are writing to another department of the same university, like in case of an internal matter, this can be deemed acceptable, but otherwise I would refrain from doing it.

You can not use official letterhead (or other official institutional material) unless you are talking in official capacity in the name of the referenced institution.
As a student, you certainly aren't.