text:
Is it alright to be out of academia for a while before applying for academic or research-only positions?
I am 15 now. If I quit high school now and start a BSc around age 35 and finish my PhD around age 45, is it possible to find a job in some university after being out of academia for so long?

Think twice (or more!) about quitting high school. Among various concerns, a potential inability to enter even a BSc program without a high school diploma comes to mind.

@Aleksandr Blekh the reason to quit is 'happy to live frugally but instead be free to do math research', which I asked the situation in http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/46890/can-i-do-research-just-because-i-am-able-to

@MKR: I saw that question. However, to do research at your leisure is one thing and to do research, affiliated with an organization is another. The former usually requires at least a BSc degree. So, my point above is based on your mentioning formal degrees, such as BSc, which, to the best of my knowledge, in most cases is impossible to obtain without a high school diploma.

What do you plan to do between ages 15 and 35?

@Dave Clarke - doing research (I commented reply to 'Aleksandr Blekh').

To play Devil's advocate: what leads you to believe, that bored and "incompatible" with the educational system as you believe yourself to be now, this will have changed after 20 years of self-guided research? How do you envision taking introductory BSc classes then?

I think the bigger question is... How do you plan to earn money to support your living expenses for 20 years? And after that, how do you plan to finance your Bachelor's? I don't know of anyone below a Master's degree who is earning a decent wage as a researcher, and without even a BS, the income is likely to be much lower as well.

Adding to @CuriousCat's concern, in order to do research you will have already had to self-study much of the material covered in the BSc courses. You will be older, more mature, and with more experience of life without qualifications, making for better motivation, but you are still going to have to do a lot of review of material you already know.

In modern dynamic society it is next to impossible to predict what happens with education systems, universities, and job market in 20 years time. Also, the success in finding an academic job depends highly on the skill of a candidate, and we do not know what your skills are now, and will be after 20 years. It is unlikely that you find the precise answer to your question here.
However, it is very likely that a proper education, and a "badge" which confirms it, will be still of some value. Therefore, quitting the high school may really be not the wisest choice.
Of course, there are stories of prominent success of people without any degree, and it is tempting to revolt the system and prove yourself a hero. Just bear in mind that a great amount of people without any degree achieve nothing and remain unknown to most. A real genius may (and hopefully will) rise no matter what, but in the long run and on average people with the structured education and degrees are more successful in getting themselves high-skilled jobs.

Especially the last paragraph!

I entered a computer science PhD program over 25 years after my last formal education. Although I retired after completing the PhD at age 60, I did get contacts from recruiters suggesting I would have been able to find research work in industry. The gap is not in itself a killer problem.
However, there were two differences from your scheme:

The 25 year education gap started when I received my master's degree.
I was working in an intellectually demanding job that produced both patents and references suggesting I was capable of research.

I know some young people who are trying to earn enough to support themselves, at a minimal level, after only just scraping through high school and with little or no college. It takes a lot of time and energy, because of the low wage rates and physical demands of the jobs, when they get a job. It tends to be a very high stress lifestyle, because the jobs are temporary or part time, low benefit, and drastically varying hours.
I can't imagine living that way and being able to concentrate, when not working or looking for work, on mathematics research.
In another question you wrote: "Solving exercises or studying the texts in self-study themselves can (although difficult) be stopped for the duration of university affairs (classes, ...) but I believe that research can't be frequently stopped by other irrelevant things ..., as to be creative requires to be much more engrossed (to put it simpler: 1 2-day is more efficient than 2 1-day for research)."
Given that, you may have trouble getting much research done mixed with the practical demands of supporting yourself with no qualifications. You may need to work early morning rush Monday through Friday at a coffee shop and late afternoons Thursday through Monday at a supermarket. If you can get the work.


text:
How can I legally avoid submitting a transcript to Phd programs in America or the UK
Background: Five years ago, I obtained a Master's Degree from a top 10 American university in the Social Sciences.  I was a novice in academia, only one year post completing my Bachelor's degree, and simply not yet ready for the rigors of professional academia.  I had virtually no quantitative background from my Bachelor's degree, but after my first semester during my Master's program, I became interested in quantitative analysis, and registered for a doctoral level course in quantitative analysis.  I was simply not able to keep up with the course, and I received a C-, and my performance in my two remaining classes for the semester was negatively affected, and I earned a B- and B+.  For my final semester, I got my act together and earned three solid A's, including in two very quantitatively oriented courses.  I went on to pursue a second master's degree in a foreign school where, although by no means as prestigious as the first, I had a 4.0 GPA.  However, I am quite confident that my low GPA of a 3.33 from the first Master's will immediately kill any chance I have of receiving an admissions from American schools, which essentially means that one poor performance five years, at a time when I was an entirely different individual, will forever preclude me from pursuing my life's dreams.  I do not believe that it is in any way immoral to want send the transcript of my second master's degree, which I feel better represents who I am and what I am capable of, though obviously I am well aware that this is not allowed.
I am not trying to avoid responsibility for my academic performance, I am simply looking to pursue my life without being kept back by one poor performance five years ago.
Questions

Is it possible to request from my first university to have my degree revoked and registration cancelled in a legal, open, and transparent manner?
Is there any way that I can, once again, legally and by the book, not be forced to send in a transcript which will assuredly destroy my chances of being accepted or looked upon as series student?

If you realize it was a mistake 5 years ago, so will the application committee, especially if you describe it in your letter.  I also dont see how having your degree revoked in an 'open and transparent manner' will solve your problem, since that will most likely follow you as someone who had their degree revoked.

@Sam just don't send the transcripts from the first masters, done. Admission will not have time to check for every applicant if they sent all transcripts. You only send what's relevant and what's required and you have the requirement already. You can't cancel a degree.

You probably cannot do this the way that you propose... because even if your degree is revoked [sic], you still would have attended the college, and have a transcript. "Moving forward" and "lessons learned" and "see how I'm doing better now" are the points that could be made. Trying to avoid sending those transcripts would generate all kinds of trouble... including potential future revocation of future degrees, due to fraud, ... which would not be happy.

@user4050: For US universities, a typical requirement is "send a transcript from every university you have ever attended", or "every university from which you have received a degree".  If you intentionally omit a transcript, you have falsified your application.  That's bad..

@NateEldredge I think the case you point to is very different in nature, that was a student that got expelled from the PhD program. In this case we are just talking about not including a part of your career in your application. Do you include in your CV everything you have done since you got your first job at the hardware store? You have to tailor your application based on what you are applying to, of course without giving any false information.

@user4050: You can think what you like.  I repeat that it is my considered opinion that if an application states that transcripts from every university must be submitted, then anyone who intentionally fails to do so has committed academic misconduct and may suffer the corresponding consequences.  I do not think I am alone in this opinion.

Indeed, Nate Eldredge is not alone.  Just a few days ago I was advising my math PhD student, and the topic of CVs came up (i.e., I said she needed one).  She has a 2012 BA in math and a 2005 BA in theater, and she asked whether she should put the latter on the CV, because then it would become clear that she had seven years of non-academic employment.  My answer: yes, a CV is not tailored but rather a comprehensive description of your academic record.  Jobs at the hardware store don't belong there, but degrees do.  Omitting parts of your academic record is giving false information.

Whether a given job must be included depends on what the application instructions say. When I was applying to a PhD program in 2001, the instructions asked for a list of all jobs I had held since receiving my bachelor's degree. I listed them all, starting with the job writing punch card based management science software in assembly language in 1970. Given different instructions, I might have covered the first 20 years of my career with a short summary, and used more space on the last decade before the application.

Plenty of successful researchers have had some less than stellar periods.  If the poor performance were the more recent transcript, things would be different.  A good school will look at the whole person, and not dwell on the low point.

It is not a crime to fail to provide information that graduate programs ask for.  However, surely by "illegal" you mean "against the rules of the university and program you're applying to".  In that case my answer is no: not sending information to admissions personnel which is a required part of your application and because you think it would jeopardize your admissions chances is both against the rules and clearly unethical.  I'm sorry, there's no magic wand to wave to change that situation.
Your hope that with suitable incantations you can perform such an outright academic dishonesty makes me question your academic maturity and suitability for a PhD program.  Conversely, if you had those things you might realize that you are being melodramatic and your situation is not as grave as you seem to think.

Five years ago, I obtained a Master's Degree from a top 10 American university in the Social Sciences. I was a novice in academia, only one year post completing my Bachelor's degree, and simply not yet ready for the rigors of professional academia.

I'm sorry, but my eyes are rolling already.  When you started a master's degree you'd been in academia for what, 16 years?  Hadn't you been taking classes and getting grades for the vast majority of your entire life?  In that you had a bachelor's degree, how were you less experienced than anyone else who is starting a master's program?  If you were not a serious student during your undergraduate years, you need to take some ownership for that: it's nobody else's fault.

However, I am quite confident that my low GPA of a 3.33 from the first Master's will immediately kill any chance I have of receiving an admissions from American schools,

I'm quite confident that you're painting far too bleak a picture.  A 3.33 GPA in a master's program is indeed a lower than average one.  But it doesn't kill anything, especially since you got a 4.0 GPA in a different program.

which essentially means that one poor performance five years, at a time when I was an entirely different individual, will forever preclude me from pursuing my life's dreams.

My eyes are really rolling now.  What you're saying is both factually incorrect -- no one is ever "forever precluded" from pursuing an academic degree, and your situation is not even an especially tough one to bounce back from -- and really annoying: according to your own description you had more than one poor performance, and you were not "an entirely different individual".  Grow up: you had a period of relatively poor (not failing, nothing burned down, you got your degree...) performance.  Acknowledge this, and move on.

I do not believe that it is in any way immoral to want send the transcript of my second master's degree, which I feel better represents who I am and what I am capable of, though obviously I am well aware that this is not allowed.

Of course it's not immoral to send the transcript of your second master's degree.  You must do that.  You must also send the transcript of your first master's degree, which is presumably what you're asking about.  And for a third time, my eyes are rolling: doing what is not allowed by a program in order to gain entry to a program is immoral...as you clearly know.  You're asking whether there is some penance you can do to nullify this immoral act.  Nope.

I am not trying to avoid responsibility for my academic performance,

That is exactly what you're trying to do, or rather asking whether it is possible to try to do.

I am simply looking to pursue my life without being kept back by one poor performance five years ago.

Then get over it.  Apply for the programs that you want, at a wide range of schools, and see what happens.  Write a personal statement which acknowledges the substandard performance and explains how you've moved on to further success and found clarity in what you want to do.  I think it's very likely that you'll get in somewhere.  If you don't, you can always enroll in a non-degree program taking individual courses and doing very well in them.  Doing that for a few years is the academically acceptable way of laundering your checkered past.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Taking courses beyond requirements in a Ph.D. program
As I'm starting to look to put together my plan of study, a question popped into my mind: are there, generally speaking, rules against taking additional courses beyond what is required for a Ph.D., or is it simply frowned up by most advisers (in the interest of creating more time for research endeavors)? I ask because I've found several graduate certificates offered at my university that seem relevant to my interests (in teaching), and I'd like to take an additional 2 or 3 courses to fulfill their requirements.  I've heard from other grad students in my lab, however, that there is frequently push back from our adviser on such matters.

Does your advisor need to know your exact academic schedule?

@aparente001 - I'm not sure; I was under the impression that he would be monitoring (at least from a bird's-eye view) the courses I'm taking so that he knows when to advise me on scheduling various milestones.  But I suppose if that's the case, then no, he might not need to know the exact schedule.

As an adviser, I encourage my graduate students to take classes they find interesting and/or that broaden their knowledge and therefore are useful to later finding jobs. Ultimately, my goal in this is to help my students become well rounded and broadly educated graduates who will be successful in life. The only caveat I place on this is that they need to make sure they have enough time to do the research that will ultimately lead to their thesis and their defense.
I don't know whether I'm typical in this, but would imagine that most advisers will agree to let their students take other classes if a student asks and gives a reasonable justification. I think most will even agree to this if the student is paid from a grant.

Note that the type of classes matters. They probably should at least tangentially relate to your field of study (e.g. chemistry classes taken by a biologist), or contribute significantly to your career goals (e.g. teaching classes for the academia-bound). "Fun" classes (e.g. renaissance poetry classes taken by a physicist) would likely be viewed differently.

@R.M. - I don't think that's the case here - I'm an engineer, and the extra classes are related to teaching and/or engineering education. But I do love poetry, so your comment about Renaissance poetry makes me sad nonetheless haha

@tonysdg -- talk to the poetry prof. Maybe she lets you just audit the class. That satisfies your curiosity without the commitment to having to  do the homework.

@Wolfgang Bangerth - haha I was just kidding :) My poetry isn't good enough for a grad-level course anyway, I just write for the enjoyment of it!

Taking extra classes is a great idea, but be sure to check the financial aspects of your plan. As far as I know, teaching assistantships in my department come with a tuition waiver that covers only a certain number of classes (especially after you've passed your preliminary exams and are supposed to be working on your thesis); if you sign up for more classes, you might have to pay tuition that you weren't expecting to pay.

This was sort of a concern for me in grad school. However, nothing stopped me (or fellow grad students) from sitting in a course we were not registered for. So if you are only interested learn the material, and are not worried about earning credit units from it ... The problem is, of course, that when you know you are not gonna sit in the exams, your attitude may be less disciplined than it normally would.

@JyrkiLahtonen I agree that attending classes without registering is an excellent way to learn things. I did that a lot when I was a graduate student.  I omitted it from my answer because the OP asked about using these classes to fulfill the requirements for some certificates, and unregistered attendance at classes presumably won't fulfill any requirements.

It's quite common to take courses beyond the requirements just because the material is interesting to your or because you think it will be useful in your future career.  However, at a certain point, it will become clear that it is time to focus on finishing your dissertation which after all should be your top priority.  You should discuss this with your academic advisor.

If your have enough time and you are keen to take additional courses apart from your coursework subjects, then you can take them. I took two additional courses during my PhD. It helped me in many ways, e.g., I could sharpen my knowledge in my field, I could mention these subjects along with my coursework in my application for Post-Doc positions, etc.

I'd be in favour of taking extra classes. But be careful not to spread too widely, in the end, you'll have to select a line to specialize in. There are many, many subjects that intrigue me; most I have to let pass with regrets.
Whatever you do, check with your advisor if that is how the environment there works. Perhaps talk it over with people in the group, or some other person you trust. For me, the fact that you are troubled enough to ask here is a sign that you should think it over with some help.

It's ok to take extra courses to support your PhD or just out of personal interest. I took a graduate certificate myself which lasted a year (as a part time course) whilst doing my PhD which I found very helpful. This was more relevant for me because my research is very interdisciplinary requiring skills from multiple fields. However, a note of warning: it must not get in the way of your PhD-this is after all your primary focus. It's a good idea to do any course that will require some commitment from you in your first year of PhD because you're likely to get very busy towards the end of it. Generally speaking, you won't be able to take too many due to financial implications and in order not to get too distracted from your PhD.

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


text:
Do topmost professors have something to read daily (in their locally saturated domain)?
I have this doubt from last year. This doubt arose in me after an academic incident.

Incident
During last year, I presented my progress before a panel of four experts and it went almost well. The only issue happened when I kept a slide of "what I will do next?". In that slide, I kept the name of a proof that I want to read. I got opinions and warnings that were shocking to me at that time. The opinions and warnings exhibited by those experts in the panel are as follows:

It is impossible for you to do that in the next academic year.

None of us even think about that since it is beyond our scope currently.

You are overambitious.

Only dozens or at most hundreds of people, on earth, have understood it till now.

The world of exalted mathematicians is entirely different. Don't even try for it. It may lead to mental issues.

Some aspirants I know became mentally ill after attempting such projects.

Although some are harsh opinions, I got them. The last two are shocking or a revelation for me. Till that time, I was confident enough that I will do. But I am slowly realizing that the opinions may be true.

Question
My question is slightly tangential to the incident I faced. I am thinking about the topmost professors who make such proofs or write great textbooks encompassing the overall literature.
You can consider any domain of interest for answering this question. But the domain has to be locally saturated. I think it happens mostly with math.
Since I am a beginner or in my early twenties, I may have much to read in my domain. I want to know about the (contemporary) highest people and their world in that domain, especially in the reading aspect. Suppose I spent ten years on it and completed all the available textbooks and the significant papers till that time. Should I need to read anything further in that domain except the occasional seminal research papers by peers?
Should there be anything in a (say locally saturated) domain for a topmost professor to read?
Note that I am not considering the option of changing the domain for this question.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

"I think it happens mostly with math". Well, think again: my pile of articles I should read is increasing, my time to read is decreasing and I don't see the situation changing if I ever get a tenure-track position...

Very curious to learn what the subject of "Some aspirants I know became mentally ill after attempting such projects" was.

@Aruralreader If reading a paper is enough cause to become mentally ill, then surely the paper is an extract from the Necronomicon!

I am going to assume based on your question that you are an undergraduate or beginning graduate student -- I apologize if this assumption is misplaced, but at least in the US this would be the appropriate level for "I am a beginner or in early 20's".
There is a major transition that happens in your education as you go from being an undergraduate and beginning graduate student, to an advanced PhD student and beyond.
As an undergraduate and beginning graduate student, your main job is to receive knowledge from courses, homeworks, lectures, readings, etc. In this context, it makes sense to think that there is essentially a finite amount of knowledge, with some small amount of new material being added on the cutting edge, and a professor is merely someone who has done enough reading that they know the entire field.
This is really not how things work at all! The knowledge you learn in courses has been very carefully organized to present an efficient, compelling, apparently complete story. In reality, "all of human knowledge" on even apparently tiny subjects, like "integration" (just one half of "calculus"!) are really vast and sprawling landscapes of failed ideas, competing formulations, pathways into apparently unrelated areas, disagreements about fine points of key definitions... it is impossible (and probably not useful) to know everything on any subject. Additionally, as pointed out in the comments by @avid, it's not even really possible to carefully define the "boundaries" of a given subject -- often progress in Mathematics (or any field) is made by realizing that a technique from one area can be applied to an apparently completely different area.
On top of that, your main job from the time you are an advanced PhD student onward in the academic world is to produce knowledge. This comes about by doing research, writing papers, disseminating that information into the scientific community, and attracting interest and funding.
As a result, professors don't know everything about their field, partly because no one can, but mainly because that's not what they are trying to do. They are trying to make a lasting contribution to human knowledge in their domain. This requires an enormous amount of work in a narrow field of study to get an understanding of the most important concepts in the field, keep up with the latest developments, and develop a strong vision on where things are headed that fuels research projects.
Applying this to your question, I think you are implicitly assuming a paper is interesting because it is deep, or done by someone famous, or solves a famous problem. It may be the case that results like this are "interesting" in the everyday sense -- enough that it's worth spending an hour or two reading about it. I've watched my share of youtube videos and skimmed papers about results well outside my domain that I found "interesting" but have no hope of actually understanding at a deep level. But just because something is famous doesn't mean it is interesting in the professional sense that it is worth spending a significant amount of your time studying. Most professors would classify something as interesting enough to study, only if there was a chance it could lead to something productive. It would be difficult to justify spending months reading a very difficult paper that will take a long time to fully understand and which is not closely connected with ongoing projects and therefore is unlikely to lead to producing new research on a reasonable timescale. Even if a person was interested in moving into a new area, it would probably be more fruitful to start with something easier, and build up to more complicated papers step by step.

I think it is also worth noting that in many cases progress on Problem A comes from recognising that some result or technique developed for Problem B can be applied. A comprehensive knowledge of A is not sufficient to be able to progress.

@avid I incorporated this helpful comment.

Focus, for now.
I am a 'topmost professor' in my field, by many measures, and I read daily outside of my 'local interests'. This is for fun. I represent it professionally as a personal quest to keep growing, and to become an expert in a larger circle of ideas I find important. Upon finishing my PhD I determined that, alongside my job, I could complete another PhD's worth of work each three years. By my own metric, I have done so. My reputation is for publishing in a number of fields simultaneously, and in their intersections. One is Mathematics.
I achieved this luxury of spending so much of my time learning by first becoming a recognized expert in one thing. It is very difficult to be a polymath from the start in this moment of history. Indeed, some proofs will put you in rarefied company, and require years of study. Your committee, while a bit hyperbolic with the whole madness warning thing, is giving you good advice.
My recommendation: become a master at one thing, and with it do something novel. Use the resulting reputation and resources to go after other things, chosen carefully.
Have fun.

+1 Also, "I am a 'topmost professor' in my field, by many measures" is cool.

Thank yo. I feel privileged to be such. :) I will add that I am not the most senior professor here, so there is still much ahead.

An answer, appropriate for a 20-year-old mathematician in academia.  (This relates to points 5 and 6.)
Do not start working on the Riemann Hypothesis now.  Wait at least until you are tenured.  Reason: it is likely you will get nowhere on the problem, and thus you will be publishing nothing, and will have no job after 10 years.
Many other well-known open problems could be substituted for the Riemann Hypothesis in this advice.

I don't believe OP is asking about solving an open problem, but rather understanding an existing proof. It may in fact be that the warnings are more about a logical assumed next step involving an open problem, but that isn't clear.

Agree with Bryan here. The context seems to imply something like OP was trying to understand the proof for Fermat Last Theorem or Poincare Conjecture.

Well, all I can say is that I had an honor of seeing how Jean Bourgain (a Fields medalist in analysis) worked. He certainly was reading a lot. In fact, if you want to become like him, the recipe is very simple. Take some research article (not too long but interesting) that slightly exceeds your current abilities and work it through (meaning try to first quickly get the idea of the general scheme from the paper but try to prove every single lemma yourself and if you fail, go over every detail of the proof and retell it in your own way). Once you finish with one paper, take another, and so on day after day for about 20 years. Increase the slight excess gradually. Spend one half of the time reading and another half doing your own research. In the end (20 years later) you'll be able to take a paper, look at it for 5 minutes, and then to explain how to improve the theorem and simplify the proof (not every single time, of course, there have been nuts even Jean failed to crack, but except for the very top things, which you'll still have to work through slowly like in the beginning, reading research articles in your field  will not present any problem to you any more).
This route is open to everyone, but not too many people follow it. Why?

You can under- or over-estimate your abilities and pick up something that is too hard or too easy. In both cases, you can detect it and switch to something else though. The best indicator of a hard thing is that you don't understand the general logic of the paper (or even most of the words on the front page). If it is so, postpone it! Don't try the proof of Fermat's theorem or Poincare conjecture. If you really want to get there, wait a few years reading relevant but simpler things and solving problems in related fields. The indicator of an easy thing is an ability to take a look at the main theorem in a paper and being able to prove it completely in a couple of weeks all by yourself. If it is the case, move up.

Inability to keep the reading schedule. Life is full of distractions, real or imaginary, and this route requires a lot of persistence. It is not the only way to become a decent professional, so if you strongly dislike systematic work or your life circumstances do not allow it, just choose some other way. I'm personally definitely not up to the required amount of self-discipline and I prefer talking to reading, so my way was just to talk to as many people I could and to try to understand and solve their problems. As a result, I'm no match to Jean, of course, but not completely hopeless either.

Not being ambitious enough (as far as mathematics is concerned). We are not all samurai and usually like to balance our priorities. That's completely normal too but it turns the required 20 years into 100, and that may be above one's productive lifespan.

But by itself reading is a good thing if you approach it like running or weight lifting. Just don't try to run a marathon on the first day or lift 250 pounds on the first try. Though neither feat is impossible (and many people can do either one), both require some preliminary training. With it, you'll be there eventually. Without it, you may have a heart attack, break your arm, or, as one of the reviewers said, go insane. The whole secret is in handling the task just the right amount above your current abilities and letting time and patience to do their work. 20 years is not the exact amount of time, of course, but it is not metaphorical either: it has the right order of magnitude. Developing mathematical (or any other brain) abilities is almost universally regarded as a slower process than training your muscles.
Just my 2 cents.

Obviously it depends on the size of their field, doesn't it? Some questions are popular and get a lot of people thinking about them. They all publish papers. If you are in such a field, you will never run out of things to read. Then there are topics that have only a handful of people around the world who are even aware of it, let alone care. Naturally you will not be getting a torrent of new paper alerts in your mailbox from watching such a topic.
As for your misgivings, when you are wanting to bite a big piece, and your professors are saying to bite a small one, I think you are better off listening to them. If you conclude they are wrong but it turns out otherwise, you could easily end up getting stuck for years, wasting a lot of time, not getting anywhere, not graduating, etc. But if you listen to them, take on a smaller task, and it turns out that they were wrong and the small task really is too small for you -- well, that means you will finish it very quickly, and then you can go to the professor and tell them you want to try a bigger challenge now. You're not really losing much.

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


text:
Should/can I submit to the same journal and explain the situation asking for another review?
Recently I got a rejection of my research article from a mathematical journal. The referee report says "the results are correct but it has not motivation why should we care such results".
Now I have a got an idea and applied those results of my research paper to make a link with some interesting results of great interest.
My question-
Should/can I submit to the same journal with same Editor and  explain the situation asking for another review ?

Yes, only if you can show within the cover letter (or maybe by some changes within the manuscript) that either:

a significant aspect of your work in the original submission was misunderstood/neglected/misinterpreted or simply the process of the review (by the reviewers) was not objectively addressing a flaw in your work, or
you can provide a strong argument based on the points aroused by the reviewers,

then I would suggest preparing a convincing cover letter and resubmiting the manuscript.
The important point is that for the resubmission after rejection, you have to convince the editor why the first decision made by her/him could and should change. Since your manuscript was already reviewed once, the editor was interested in your work in the first place, so making an argument wouldn't hurt. Based on the response you got initially, this process is just a scientific argument and even if you get a second rejection because the editor does not see the situation the way you do, nobody will hold a grudge :)

Thanks for your nice answer

No, you should not submit the paper to the same journal. The referee report is only one piece of information that helped the editor make the decision. You most probably do not know about other reports or opinions. Send it somewhere else.

Thanks for your opinion. But it went under 6-7 months review

@MAS: 6-7 months support my answer. During this time, the Editor probably got a lot of information about the paper.

I do not recall that there was much relation between the time taken and the information garnered. But that is anecdotal.

@erstwhileeditor: For example, 6-7 months may mean that the Editor sent the paper to several people who refused refereeing. The reasons for refusal may be relevant to the quality of the paper. Of course everything depends on the field of research, on the journal and on the Editor. I can only rely on my experience as  an Editor of several journals.

Note that some journals will not accept a resubmission of a rejected article and will simply reject it. In that case, you are wasting everyone's time by resubmitting there.
But absent such a rule you can certainly resubmit to the journal and it is possible that you will get a different outcome. But it is up to them what happens. The chances for a happy outcome increase, of course, if you have made sufficient changes to satisfy the reviewers. You might point that out to the editor to avoid a desk reject. A sentence or two will do.

Thanks. According to review report, my results are correct but it lacks motivation. I have found some good places to relate my results now. Thats why I am thinking to write a cover letter mentioning the previous submission number and a reason why  I am resubmitting. Just one question-Is there any chance that the paper will be assigned to same Editor and the same Referee ?

Yes, there is a chance. Probably a good chance, but it is up to the policies of the journal how resubmissions are handled. It is probably more efficient for them to send it to the same people. Alternatively they could seek a wider set of views. It is up to them.

Thanks a lot for your opinion

@MAS probably should contact the editor for his or her position regarding resubmissions. This would likely save a lot of time for everyone.

@ZeroTheHero, I know the managing editor who primarily assigned the editor. So I don't know who was the editor.

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


text:
Is it justifiable to submit two research papers of Mathematics in two different journals simultaneously on the same problem but in different methods?
I have submitted a research article on a particular research problem in a Mathematics journal few days ago. But now I have been abled to answer the same research problem in a different method and hence I have prepared another article on the same research problem but in a complete different method.
Can i submit the 2nd article in another journal ?
The reason I asked this question is that every journals says that the same work should not be submitted in two different journals for publication, simultaneously.
However, my 2nd paper is completely different, just the problem is same with the 1st paper. I have seen many mathematics research papers which worked on same research problem but in different way and all are published.
That is why I think I can submit the 2nd article in another journal, as well.
Any advice or suggestion please

I do not see an issue with the requirement that the same article may not be submitted to two journals at the same time since based on your description these seem to be two essentially different papers. I do however see another issue: Can the novelty be sufficiently judged by the reviewers?
In particular I think it would be dishonest not to mention that the same problem has been solved in the other article. Then the reviewer can look at the other paper on arXiv (both of them are on arXiv, right?) and judge whether the second one is novel enough.
Edit for clarification based on the comments: I think that in both papers the other one should be mentioned and cited.

Thank you very much. The second one is not in arxiv yet but the first one is already in arxiv. So your suggestion is to mention the 1st paper into second paper, even though the 1st paper is not published yet. I agree on you because I also had same intuition

I think both papers should mention the other.  One can list the title and say "in preparation" or "on the arxiv" and discuss the relation between the two papers somewhere in the introduction or a discussion section.

@TerryLoring, But the first paper already submitted in a journal. So I can mention it in 2nd paper only

I am saying you should have mentioned the second paper but this is not a major issue.  I was too lazy to figure out the multiple tenses.

@MAS: You said you just submitted your first paper "a few days ago."  So you have plenty of time to add the citation to the second paper at a later stage of the process (revisions or proofs).

@PeteL.Clark, ok. Thanks

One other point: do not use the same title for the two papers, do not even use titles that could easily be confused.

I have a suggestion for the question you might have but didn't ask instead of this one. Since you submitted your first paper just a few days ago, it's likely that no editor or referee has spent time on it yet. Consider withdrawing it from the journal. Then write one longer paper in which you address solve your problem two ways. In the long run I think that single paper will be better than the sum of the two separate ones, and will help readers see the shape of the area where you have made this progress. Updating in arXiv is easy.

If each paper cites the other, then yes you can submit both papers simultaneously for publication -- that is, there is no ethical or procedural problem with doing so.
However, like most things that are possible and ethical, you may or may not actually want to do it.  I think it is worth some discussion of pros and cons.  I will assume that you are seeking an academic career in mathematics: otherwise much of this will not apply to you (but will, I hope, to some readers).  Here are some questions to guide the discussion:

Are the two papers of independent interest?  That is, would an expert in the field who had both in hand want to read both?

If the answer is yes, then it would be very reasonable to publish both.  Two papers solving the same problem is not an issue: as you point out, new proofs of old results are commonplace in mathematics papers.  (Most often new proofs are not viewed as work of the very highest level, but sometimes they are, and I'm sure we all have our favorite examples.  Anyway, most published mathematics is not "work of the very highest level.")  However if you are publishing a second proof of a known result, then you have to explain the novelty of the approach and not just of the result itself.  But anyway, there is no question that a different proof of a result is not "the same work" in the sense that the journals are warning you about.

Would it make sense to combine both proofs into a single paper?  Would it be profitable to do so?

Sometimes the same work has multiple proofs of a single result.  This is a good way of signalling that neither approach is clearly superior and also provides a natural opportunity for comparison -- for instance, perhaps each proof can also be made to yield further results that the other cannot.  Or maybe one is shorter but the other is more self-contained/elementary.
By the second question, I mean the (perhaps difficult) one of how the community would view one paper containing two proofs versus two papers published at about the same time.  This is a very "sociological" question that I don't see how to answer in a principled way: it really just depends what people believe.  My understanding is that most parts of science outside of pure mathematics are much more tolerant of "parallel publication" than pure mathematics.  (Gian-Carlo Rota quipped that the value of a mathematician is judged by taking their worst paper and dividing by the number of papers.  Like any good horror story, it has just enough basis in reality to scare us.)  Within pure mathematics parallelism is better received in some areas than others.  But it is definitely possible that if you combine the two works you could publish both of them in a better journal than you could otherwise publish either one (and moreover, in most parts of pure mathematics, if journal A is clearly stronger than journal B, it is probably better to have one paper published in journal A than two papers in journal B).

Even if one paper largely or completely supersedes the other, does the chronology of the work justify publishing both?

Academics are temporal beings and also temporal workers: whereas some artists can work on something for years or decades and show you only the finished product, almost no academic can get away with saying "I am working steadily on a very promising programme.  I will show it to you when I've finished it and then worked out the best possible presentation, some years from now."  In practice, it is usually the case that you publish things that have not been put in their final form (I mean this in a demanding intellectual sense).  I worked hard for about five years with a junior collaborator (first a postdoc then an assistant professor, whereas I was already tenured).  When we would get a nice result, it would really excite me and point to the next result...which I would often want to put in the very same paper that we were working on.  This made my collaborator justifiably nervous.  Our last two joint works were about 50 pages each, published in the same year though we had spent at least three years working on them.  Ever since then I have been pursuing implications of this work, and I currently have a preprint that is nearing 100 pages.  If we had waited ten years, we could have published one article or book where everything fits together beautifully.  But that's not how academic work works, most of the time.
On the other hand, you describe having prepared the second article in the "few days" after submitting the first one.  Perhaps you don't realize that the first article is going to spend, most likely, the better part of a year or more at various stages of the refereeing and publication process.  It is really not too late to combine the works into one article if you choose.  Really!

Thank you very much a for complete answer with complete elaboration. However I need to raise the fact "Novelty", which you mentioned. Indeed, the 1st paper (under review in a journal) answers the problem in a more general fashion while the 2nd paper uses the some restriction. So I have a question-Would be good idea to combine the two papers in which 1st method answers the question in more general way while the 2nd method assumes some restrictions to answer the question?

@MAS: It could be.  Only someone who knows the field and your work could give an expert opinion.


text:
How long should I describe when asked to talk about my past research experiences by a potential PhD advisor during Skype interview?
I have done two projects in the area of molecular biology. I have a Master's degree. So, I find that it requires more than 20 minutes to talk about them. My first-language is not English. I think this is too long, right? I would be tired, and the interviewer may also be tired. We may need additional time to discuss the research projects I did. So, should it be short? How many minutes are appropriate?

A skype interview is interactive: people will interrupt you and ask questions. So if the overall interview is supposed to last 60 minutes, then 20 minutes may seem appropriate -- with questions it will fill the time. If the interview is scheduled to be 30 minutes, then 20 may seem optimistic -- but it could also be ok.
I think, though, that you're focusing too much about the length of the presentation. You ought to be concerned with the content and the level at which you present. Remember that you're going to talk to people who have a decade or more of experience in the field -- they won't need a detailed introduction to the basics of the field.

I think this answer is helpful, but as an addendum to the second paragraph, whether the people interviewing you are experienced in the field or not, they quite possibly won't need a comprehensive discussion of the field, or indeed of the research projects, in order to judge whether you're suitable for a PhD programme. As Roland has pointed out in his answer, a significant chunk of your answer should be focused on what you did and what you learnt.

Correct. They're likely not overly interested in what you actually did. They want to judge your ability to do research.


text:
How to react to racist remarks by fellow PhD student as a foreigner?
In the first week of my PhD studies, another student of my advisor asked me strange and racist questions regarding my religion and country of origin. We are in Germany, and the other student is from Italy (if it matters).
I didn't say anything, because I don't know how things work here and I didn't want to be seen as a troublemaker as soon as I arrived. In addition to this, I had doubts, because I came to another country and did not know the subject I was going to study very well.
But I want to complain about this student to human resources after I graduate, or I want to tell my advisor. Which of these actions would be appropriate, if any? I have never encountered such a thing before, I don't know how to act.

Were these remarks directed at you personally, were they directed at someone else, nor were they not directed at anybody in particular?

Are you German too? If you are foreigner and If you need to that person I suggest to avoid debating with him and say him to speak just about work or thesis!

Does this answer your question? Misguided use of offensive figures in student presentations

In particular, this answer by me also answers this question: https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/166544/13240

@Anonymous Physicist good finds, but I think if we need a somewhat canonical question to close future dupes it should be this one, because it's more generic. (The other thread is also more concerned with the instructor's perspective.)

@henning Use meta.

it sounds like you're assuming malicious intent from the other student. How do you know their remarks weren't due to them being insensitive? Did you tell the other student that you found their remarks to be racist? It's possible that they didn't realize they said something offensive to you, and it's not clear from your post whether you tried to check that possibility and resolve it by talking to the other student.

Moderator’s notice: Please refrain from debating and inquiring whether the remarks are actually racist, but just assume that they are for the purpose of answering. It’s the asker’s responsibility to ensure this (and not yours), and they probably cannot quote the remarks here without revealing their identity. Same goes for whether the remarks were an intentional attack: It’s okay to inquire how the asker judges and treated them (like Elodin did), but we need not and cannot judge them ourselves. All posts violating this will be deleted without warning.

I am going to try and suggest what I would do from a UK perspective, which I think would apply to most European countries with protections against discrimination based on a number of protected characteristics in place (such as Germany).
I can see that you are clearly upset, and will not question your claim it was a racist remark. I would only make a difference between two cases:

It was a demeaning/insensitive question or request.
Things like addressing somebody as "little lady" (happened to me) or "drug lord" (happened to a Mexican friend).
If this kind of thing repeats, or even if it still bothers you, the first advice would be to clearly tell the other person: "This remark was completely inappropriate and I would kindly ask you not to say such things and consider their implications."
I am not trying to imply you have a requirement to educate anybody about how they should behave, but you do need to make it clear to the other party that they had acted inappropriately towards you. If the other party asks, and you feel inclined to offer more explanation as to why it is innapropriate, you may, but you should not feel obliged to either.
Unfortunately, we all do have prejudice we might not even be aware of. In the best case, this will be a wake-up call that makes them consider the implications in their words, re-think their actions and change their behaviour. But at least you will make it clear to the other person that you find their behaviour unacceptable.
If this behaviour does not stop after you had made this clear, the next step would be to go talk to your colleague's or your supervisor. In this case, this is the same person. The supervisor is the person with the authority to discuss the professional behaviour of his student and ask him to correct it.
The next, and final step, would indeed be to contact HR (I think?) -- your University should certainly have some services signposted on their webpages.

You felt threatened by this racist remark
Something much worse, like "your type shouldn't be allowed to be here". (I can think of much worse examples but... I don't really want to)
If you are afraid for your safety, you should not confront your harasser directly but rather get out of harms way and bring the case to the attention of the correct University and public services.
In the UK, the correct way to handle this would be to go talk to your advisor ASAP. While they would not be able to actually intervene in most cases, they are required to know which University and public services can help you, and offer support in making that contact if you need it (i.e. walk you across to campus to the right service, or be with you when you make the phone call).

In both of these cases, I would suggest you document everything in a diary, making note of:

when it happened (date/time)
where it happened (Uni/lab/campus, outside of uni?)
what exactly was said, by whom to whom
who else was present (and how they reacted / did not react)
any subsequent communications you had regarding the issue (with your advisor, the other PhD student...)

You should not suffer harassment through your PhD and I would encourage you to take all of these steps as soon as possible. Try and confide in a friend that is at your location, or even a family member over the phone to get some confidence, if that helps you take the correct steps.

+1 for different actions appropriate for different scenarios.

Excuse my ignorance, but how is little lady demeaning/insensitive?

@oguzismail Usually used to a child, so to an adult it is condescending at best and outright derogatory at worst https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/little_lady

@oguzismail You don't need to know! They actually mention this in 3rd para in that section. Often explaining why something is offensive takes too long.

@OwenReynolds They may not need to know but knowing is helpful for anyone who has offended someone unintentionally, so that they can avoid similar mistakes.

Also "You don't need to know" might be considered patronizing and borderline offensive. It's the sort of thing said by a superior to an inferior, so by saying it you are implying that the other person is your inferior, and should stop asking questions and just obey your orders.

The "little lady" is indeed a nice example that imho also highlights a point that could improve the answer: the educating part is not necessarily universal and that's totally fine. I.e. some things aren't universally perceived as racist, sexist etc. In some contexts some things are perfectly fine while in others they aren't (to at least part of the audience). It's fine to voice that you subjectively feel something is demeaning to you and that the other party stop addressing you like that even if there is no objective/universal consensus on that.

Obviously there is a line somewhere - e.g. when you try to tell other people they cannot address you in what otherwise would be the cultural norm etc. But especially for (potentially playfully meant) terms it's totally fine if the resentment against their use is personal, when they are directed at OP. Obviously this applies less when they are directed at someone else, especially of that other person is fine with it.

@DJClayworth Do you think this answer's 3rd para in section 1. adequately addresses the problem of someone not knowing why "little lady" is yucky? If not, I'm sure they would appreciate your suggestions.

@OwenReynolds I don't see anything in that paragraph that explains why the phrase is demeaning. I think Dragonel's explanation is spot on.

@oguzismail Pretty much what the linked definition said. I might expect this from a romantic partner, maybe my mother when she is showing endearment; I wouldn't even mind a friend or even a colleague using once it in reference to something specific (i.e. I dressed particularly feminine that day) -- but I might raise an eyebrow at their choice of words. I do not however find it an appropriate choice for form of address on a regular basis from a new colleague who had just joined us and is still building rapport with the whole team. I also am above-average height and average weight/build.

@DJClayworth Never tried to imply that "you (or the person who offended somebody unintentionally) don't need to know" why, or that it wouldn't be helpful. But sometimes, it's a long day, and I work with computers so my language skills are at the level of "potato potato duck" in the evening, and maybe I thought a particularly unruly class earlier in the day, and I just can't muster the effort to explain. We are all in research, so one could take it as a queue to go and inform themselves. Sometimes, it's a beautiful morning and I don't mind sharing my opinion in a public Q&A site and explaining

@penelope Your answer is excellent and I have upvoted it. I entirely agree that you are not required to educate anybody. My comments were directed towards Owen Reynolds, who said "You don't need to know", which is something entirely different.

@DJClayworth Cheers. I'm just aware that this is quite a sensitive topic (I wasn't really sure whether I'm confident enough to offer a public answer on such a topic actually...), so while I agree that a lot of good explanations have been provided in the comments, I'd rather make absolutely sure that I'm not being misinterpreted, and add an explanation in my own words.

At a German university I would expect a broad consensus that racism is bad, mkay, but not necessarily much awareness of concepts like subconcious bias, microaggression, etc. In the German public discurs, the realization that racism (other than anti-semitism) is an important issue for daily life is still an ongoing process.
To give a concrete example, the ZEIT had not too long ago an article about how conversations such as "White German: Where are you from? -- "Black German: Bremen" -- White German: No, I mean, where are you really from?" -- "Black German: ..." are problematic, and a lot of people didn't really get it.
For your concrete situation, this means that if the comments were a blatantly open racist attack on you, you can probably expect that informing proper authorities will at the least give them some stern talking to. However, if the comments can plausibly be explained by a combination of weapons-grade cluelessness plus unexamined racist cultural baggage, I'd be much more pessimistic about telling HR producing any desirable consequences. Reporting those comments after you graduate (ie a long time after they were made) is even more likely to just be ignored.
As for telling your supervisor, that will really depend on them personally. Some supervisors would really want to hear of such issues and try to improve things; for others the "don't get it" mindset mentioned above will apply. You'll probably be able to judge this better once you've gotten your supervisor to know a bit better.
To keep your options of reporting this later open, I'd advise you to write down exactly what happened. That way, the accuracy of your recollection of the event will not be in doubt if you do report it.

Snitching on fellow PhD students will create a bad atmosphere for everybody.

@YuvalFilmus I think this is a very problematic attitude. Some stuff should be dealt with by a person with relative authority, and this can only happen if people feel comfortable informing those persons.

Not knowing what was said, it's impossible to give definitive advice. But you should also consider the possibility that some people are socially awkward (or have some 'neurodiverse' condition on the autism spectrum such that they don't understand social nuance), don't share your social rules regarding polite conversation (especially if they are themselves from a different culture), and are simply trying to start a conversation the only way they know how.
Starting a conversation with a stranger can be tricky. It's common to start with what you already know about them and ask them about that, because people usually like talking about themselves. If you know somebody collects postage stamps, or plays football, you ask them about that. If all you know is they originate from country X, and you don't realise race and nationality is an especially sensitive or dangerous subject (because in their culture, it isn't), then you might start with that. And if you don't know a lot about their culture or religion, bar the broad stereotypes in the media, then it's easy to unintentionally sound racist or prejudiced. They might be trying to say, 'As you can see I know very little about your culture, please educate me.'
You can tell the difference because if you start talking about your home and your culture, a racist will continue to argue and criticise, and insist on their view, and someone who just wants a conversation will listen attentively and encouragingly, and become more polite and friendly.
And if it turns out they are a racist, then you might also consider how your response will affect their views. If they get a friendly response, then they might consider that maybe you're not so bad after all, and maybe their prejudices are wrong. If they get a hostile response, and hounded by the authorities simply for asking a few questions, they'll consider their prejudices confirmed. They'll consider their free speech and freedom of belief to be under attack. They'll point out that you can be offensive to them by calling them a 'racist', for example, but they aren't allowed to offend you, even unintentionally. We all say things other people find offensive - 'tolerance' that only tolerates things we approve of or agree with isn't worth anything; it's meaningless. Tolerance necessarily implies tolerating views we don't like and don't agree with. We have to treat others as we expect to be treated ourselves.
That doesn't mean you have to put up with repeated and continual harassment. But if your attempts to be friendly or politely non-committal are rebuffed, and they escalate their hostile campaign, then by all means seek help to get it stopped.
If on the other hand they realised they said the wrong thing, upset you, and stopped doing it, then you could surely ask for nothing better and it was likely just an innocent mistake. There shouldn't be any need in such circumstances to take further action. Consider how you would feel if as a visitor to a foreign country, you asked an innocent question about the local culture, and someone thought you was being highly offensive (I assume calling someone a 'racist' in Germany is considered offensive...) and you got reported to the authorities for holding slanderous beliefs about them? How would you want to be treated?

I had many of these same thoughts myself. Even if it isn't applicable to the current case, it is good to keep in mind in general. I ask a lot of people about their origins, but out of a desire to connect with another human. I've learned a lot from that.


text:
Is it ethically problematic for an internal candidate to attend the job talk of a candidate for the same job?
I noticed that my university has been considering "internal" candidates more strongly for permanent faculty positions. These are candidates who have received their masters degree and/or a PhD at the same university.
So when candidates are interviewed, the top contenders are invited for an "on-campus" interview/presentation.
Are there any ethics involved with one internal candidate attending the other internal candidate's "faculty interview presentation"? Wouldn't there be bias established in that manner for or against both candidates since one candidate would receive "pointers" (in)advertently?
Would it be a different situation if the competition for the internal candidate was to be an external candidate?

I'm confused.  Could you clarify what you mean by "pointers" and how they would establish bias?

I think in this case "pointers" refers to "strategic advantages gleaned by seeing the competition and how they present themselves"

You use the phrase "faculty interview presentation" but I am not in fact familiar with it.  There are interviews and there are job talks.  These are quite different; e.g. the former is usually private and the latter is usually public.  Perhaps you could clarify what is the procedure at your university.

@PeteL.Clark This could be classified as a "job talk".

@PeteL.Clark In most American computer science departments, "interviews" for tenure-track faculty candidates involve both a public presentation to the department (the "interview talk" or "job talk") and several one-on-one meetings with faculty.  In my department, each "interview" lasts two full days.

@Jeff: Right, that's familiar to me (except the term "interview talk").  What I was trying to figure out was whether the OP was talking about the public presentation to the department or something private.

First, as I inquired about in the comments, most job interviews have both public and private aspects.  Public means that they are open to the entire department (or maybe, and probably in some formal sense are, open to the entire university community): e.g.  there should be at least one job talk, and most often this talk will be advertised on the calendar like any other talk, sometimes called a "special colloquium talk" or something like that.  That makes it a departmental event.  As a department member you certainly have the right to go.  There are also usually some private "interview" portions: this is several faculty members asking questions of the candidate, either one-on-one or in groups (or at meals; even lunches and dinners are part interview, really).  These are usually not public events; rather they are activities on the part of the faculty search committee, though in some contexts, e.g. at a small liberal arts college (SLAC) students and other non-faculty members may play an auxiliary role.  Certainly as a candidate for a job you can't be part of the search committee to hire into that job: that is the Cadillac of conflicts of interest!  So you should try to distinguish in your mind between "search committee activities" and "public events" and be sure not to attend the former.  (As usual, if you are in doubt, ask.)
Now I want to make a few comments on StrongBad's (good, I upvoted it) answer.

One of the jobs of internal candidates, like all member of a department, is to help recruit the individuals being interviewed such that whoever is given the offer, hopefully you, is more likely to accept the offer.

At least at a large research university, it probably not the case that all department members are involved in recruiting for faculty jobs (either temporary or tenure-track).  For instance students are usually not involved at all other than maybe wandering into the job talk (though at a SLAC they might be), and temporary faculty are not on search committees for permanent faculty.  So I don't necessarily agree with the above sentence.  Moreover being involved in "recruiting" for a position one has applied for again sounds like a whopper of a conflict of interest.

When you are interviewing after an external candidate, the thing to remember is that in most cases watching what someone else does is not going to help you. One case where there could be a definite advantage is if the search committee has some fixed interview questions and you attend an event that gives you access to these prior to your interview.

Yes, I completely agree with that, and it answers one of the OP's main questions.  Most academic interviews I know are not sufficiently formalized that watching someone else's in advance would help you with yours.  Most questions asked in academic interviews are not content questions or "gotcha" interview questions: they are questions about you.  I also think that a job talk is a strange place for asking pointed interview questions.
So here is my answer: being an internal candidate for a job is potentially awkward enough so that you should seek some guidance about what to do.  If the job talk and the interview aspects are not separated sufficiently clearly in your department, then I think the ethically correct thing to do is just stay away from the whole thing (but tell the faculty in advance that you are planning to do this, in the unlikely event that they have other plans).  If the question really is attending another job candidate's talk: I see no ethical problem with it, and if you're in a department where it really is expected that faculty in your position attend all such departmental events (again I'm thinking of a small department) then maybe you should go.  It is an academic talk after all and you might learn something.  However I think that you should really (forgive my colorful language) shut the hell up as an audience member in this situation.  Interacting with another candidate in any active way is also a huge conflict of interest.  If you have a sincere academic question, of course you can find a way to communicate your question to the candidate later on.
I don't see how multiple internal candidates makes much difference.  I guess that if I knew the other candidate very well and was very friendly with her, I would be more inclined to come to her talk rather than skip it...and especially I would be more inclined to ask what her preference is.  I would not do that for an external candidate because it's a potentially loaded question that they shouldn't have to deal with.

I didn't mean to imply a large degree of involvement with recruitment, more like just being a good departmental citizen and attending things that could benefit from an extra body. I totally agree with the STFU mentality when attending these things.

We had this situation a while back with an internal-ish and external candidates, and the basic message was the same: consult authority figures on the best course of action and if possible stay away from talks and/or don't interact with the speakers.

As an internal candidate you should talk to the search chair about which events you plan on attending and not attending. One of the jobs of internal candidates, like all member of a department, is to help recruit the individuals being interviewed such that whoever is given the offer, hopefully you, is more likely to accept the offer. That said, you do not want it to appear you are trying to gain an unfair advantage. Many departments interview the internal candidate first which helps deal with this issue. When you are interviewing after an external candidate, the thing to remember is that in most cases watching what someone else does is not going to help you. One case where there could be a definite advantage is if the search committee has some fixed interview questions and you attend an event that gives you access to these prior to your interview.
A case where it might be appropriate to attend a job talk would be if your department struggles to reach critical mass at job talks. In this case having an extra body present can be very helpful. Unless attendance at the talk is pitiful, I would suggest you refrain from asking questions or talking to colleagues about the quality of the talk. Another example would be if you are currently a PhD student applying for a TT position, it might make sense for you to have lunch with the external candidate with the other PhD students. This is especially true if you have a post doc lined up in the department such that you will be there the next year and potentially collaborating with the new candidate.

Thank you for your perspective, it mirrors my convction. This was actually a dilemma being discussed in my research group in which I am a new faculty. One finishing PhD student had this dilemma and brought it up in conversation. There was no concrete closure provided but I thought I'd check to see if I had a good[debatable] "decision making paradigm" with my solution.


text:
Why does U.S. Veterans Affairs only pay for classes which are required for the degree?
American military veterans funded under the GI Bill (and possibly under other VA administrated programs) can only receive funding for classes which are required for the degree.  I can find lots of university websites that mention this requirement (here's a good example), but I was unable to determine where this rule comes from or why it is there.  In particular, is it required by the legislation itself or just VA rules?  When was the rule imposed and is there any information on why?

The reason I was curious about this is that there are lots of weird side affects.  For example, because GI Bill students get a semester of credit for their military service, they can easily complete their credit requirements before their major requirements and be left in a situation where it's very difficult to stay a full time student while finishing the major.

Is it considered normal in the US to study courses which won't be credited towards your degree?  That seems very strange from an Australian perspective.

@sapi: Typically American students take around 1/3 to 1/2 of their classes in their major and up to 1/4 of general education requirements.  So that leaves a lot of classes which don't count towards any specific requirement other than the total number of credits.  If you're in a science major with prerequisites that must be taken sequentially and you start with outside credits it would be normal to take some classes that don't contibute to any requirements.

@sapi Here's an example of undergrad requirements. To earn my degree, I had to take a bunch of core courses. To graduate, I attended a music history class and a literature class, learned psychology, and did weight-lifting. The idea is to ensure the college isn't generating core-science people who don't know a lick of anything else. Practical? Probably not, but requirements are requirements.

Of course, this is not unique to the GI Bill. Many college scholarships and grants given for "financial need" have similar requirements. And, when students get funding to attend graduate school, that funding is often limited to courses in their program of study. For example, my first year in grad school they let us take any one course over the summer as part of our graduate assistantship - they realized that was a loophole when some people took tennis, and the next summer we could only take courses needed to graduate.

It looks to me like it is more or less required by the legislation, although I'm not a lawyer so I may not be interpreting it right.  Educational assistance is authorized for pursuing a "program of education" rather than just taking individual courses:

The Secretary shall pay to each individual entitled to educational assistance under this chapter who is pursuing an approved program of education...

A program of education is defined as:

The term “program of education” means any curriculum or any combination of unit courses or subjects pursued at an educational institution which is generally accepted as necessary to fulfill requirements for the attainment of a predetermined and identified educational, professional, or vocational objective.

Strictly speaking, this doesn't mean the classes must be required for an academic degree per se, and other sorts of credentials or licenses could count.  However, it does not seem to allow taking isolated classes for their own sake, but rather just as required for the overall program.
I don't know the history or why the legislation was set up this way.  I'd guess that it's because the goal is to help veterans achieve qualifications that will further their careers, not to educate them for the sake of education.  One possibility is that nobody really thought hard about the issue while drafting the legislation, so it wasn't a conscious decision.  Another is that it was intended to save money by avoiding paying for frivolous or unnecessary courses.  A third possibility is that it was intended to help veterans by putting pressure on them to follow a set degree program (rather than squandering their benefits on isolated courses that might never fit together to complete any degree).

Thanks!  I did look at the bill but struggled finding that key definition.

I have always thought that one reason such things come into being is the politics of funding. Imagine someone is one the fence about voting for the law. If you can tell them "It will only pay for veterans to get a degree to help them get a job - not to stay as a student forever", that may well sway a few votes in favor of the bill, particularly from lawmakers who are very concerned about the possibility of "wasting" money.

The purpose of the GI BILL program is for Veterans to get a degree or acquire a new skill for employment after active duty. Not flounder around in college for 6 years for a Bachelors degree.  If there is a class you really want to take that's not a requirement you can always change your major, then change it back. There are different GI bills with different rules depending when you served in the military. I would talk to the VA or visit the VA-GI bill web site, most questions can be answered there.

Exactly. The GI Bill has a mission, which is roughly "Get as many veterans a college education and into specialized jobs as possible." Any superfluous classes paid for by the GI Bill are not furthering that mission -- it's essentially taking necessary class away from another veteran (due to limited funds).


text:
Thoughts on Student with Bad Grades in Easy Courses and Better Grades in hard courses
I have a fairly weird transcript. I took two harder upper-year courses at the second-year of my undergraduate degree. I spent a lot of time working on these courses because I was fascinated by the course material and got A+'s in both of them. I did poorly in one lower-year undergraduate course and got a B+.
How will this reflect on the student for graduate admissions?

Not a good, thing, obviously, no, because it reveals some immaturity, understandable in young people! :), but not a plus. One might worry about a new-and-different manifestation of this later... or, sure, interpret it as being focused on more serious things, exercise-of-critical-judgement... Two things: you figure out which it is and take appropriate personal action, and, separately, spin it as "the good version" to admissions committees and such.

You want either the decision to admit you to the grad school of your choice and the decision of a choice employer to make you an offer to be a no-brainer. The problem right now is that you are not making those decisions that impact your life to be no-brainers. Do things with a little more self-discipline and you'll sleep a lot better at night. Even in a field you love, 90% of the work is scut work. If you can be relied upon only when you are enthused and excited, I am not sure that I'd want you on my team because I have to constantly check on how excited and enthused you are.

And I want to remind you that you are going to be up against a whole bunch of people whose academic records make the decision to admit to the grad school of their choice a no-brainer. Admissions committee want to see passion and you are showing what you are capable of when you show passion. But they are also looking for discipline and an ability to get things done right even when the motivation has gone to hell and even when you hate and despise what you are doing.

If those were graduate courses I'd assume you got the A+'s due to easy grading.  Often graduate courses give everyone good grades and have little to no work.  Then again, I'm not a professor.

A single B+ seems to be inaccurately described as "bad grades".

I'm honestly surprised at @paulgarrett's comment. I see the profile "sought out grad classes and excelled, at the expense of lower level classes" as nearly synonymous with "better suited to research than college", especially coupled with strong letters. Sure, it's immature, but people tend to grow out of immaturity, given the opportunity. Perhaps my confirmation bias is showing, but in my experience, undergraduates with that profile tend to thrive in strong PhD programs. Clear admit.

That said, I agree with @VietnhiPhuvan. Your best bet is not to give the admissions committee an opportunity to think.

@JeffE, sure, if the situation really is, clearly, that the student sought out interesting things and excelled, while neglecting silly required drudgery. But this requires interpretation. Also, the drudgery's pretty easy, so why not just ace it, too, without effort?

@paulgarrett Because they have the good sense to realize there's no benefit to acing drudgery? Nobody really cares if you aced underwater basketbeaving.

@JeffE, exactly sounds like it requires interpretation.

The comments are a bit surprising to me. I had several Bs and 2 Cs on my transcript (overall GPA 3.57, though my major GPA was more like 3.8), and I got into a very good engineering graduate school (US top 10) for my PhD. Maybe my admissions process was special in some way.
Some things to think about:

At many schools (see comment), nobody can tell from your transcript what the class average was for the course you got a B+ in (or any other course)
Nobody can tell that you got a B+ because you were bored

If you want to bolster your chances, stop slacking in the "easy" courses. Find some undergraduate research opportunities. If you did so well in your graduate courses, those professors might be worth approaching.

Some schools do post the course average GRADE and SD in the transcript, but otherwise good points.

@RoboKaren, oh, that's news to me. Edited to reflect.

Actually, more extreme versions of the profile that the question describes (with Cs instead of a B+ in lower level courses) almost screams "bored". Thos students usually get admitted to good places, in my experience.


text:
Should I use bold fonts to highlight particular words in SOP?
Is it odd to use bold fonts to highlight particular important words in your SOP, such as the name of Professors I am interested to work with, or the name of a Lab? I have seen someone do this to highlight the Professor he is keen on working with. I am curious if this is an acceptable practice.
Example:
At Rice University, the works of Dr. Gerard Fuller are well suited to my research experience and goals.

Some university applications only allow plaintext, so any formatting like boldface would not work.

Thanks for your reply. I am curious about the cases where the universities ask you to upload a PDF file of the SOP.

Alright, why not extend this line of reasoning to include hyperlinks, pictures, and video? Wouldn’t a multimedia SOP > text SOP?

Let me reframe that, another approach to your question is, “what value would boldfacing be compared to its absence?” The subject is clear in the sentence, the reason is also clear. When one bolds something, it draws the reader’s attention to it. Like WARNING smoking is hazardous to your health. So if you bold a professors name, what additional meaning does it confer to the reader?

I think using boldface is overkill. You can reserve something more discrete (say, italics) for translation of a foreign term or the definition of some very specific and technical term of your research.

You are overthinking this. It's not going to make a difference whether or not you boldface names or other parts. Focus on the content of your statement, instead of spending your mental energy on issues such as boldfacing some text.

Cannot agree with this enough. The essay is an important part of the application and one should worry about selling themselves as high as they can.

Thanks for putting things in perspective. Your answer makes sense.


text:
Is it appropriate to attend a class one is not registered for?
Is it appropriate for a student to attend a class s/he is not registered for?
I am a CS student and I am almost done with my degree, but there are some very interesting electives that I will not get to take and I would love to simply attend those courses any way.
Is this inappropriate to do? Should I ask the professor's permission first?
I am not sure what my school's policy on the matter is, since I could not find a single source on the topic online from them.

This is country-specific. In some countries, it follows from the law that (state) university lectures are open to the general public.

@NateEldredge this is a somewhat alarming comment, when the case in very, very many universities is that this behavior is either tolerated or encouraged. I would be very surprised if any institution's usual reaction to this is more severe than politely asking you to leave the room. Perhaps 'look at the website' would be a more appropriate response than 'ask the registrar'.

you might get billed for the full tuition for the course you sat in on — [citation needed]!!!

I removed my comment which I should not have made. I will instead note that some institutions charge tuition by the course, including audited courses, and one might guess they would frown on attempts to evade this.

Hi , do you mean sitting in on a course?

Why don't you just contact them?

I am a student in the US and I did mean sitting in on a course. Maybe I should narrow the question down, but then again, the variety of answers given do make for a good general reference on the topic.

In the American system, this is called "auditing" a course. Auditing means that you are attending the class but are technically only listening (auditing => auditory => listening) to the material and not sitting for exams or handing in homework assignments. You can audit a course formally (which often means that this is listed on your transcript) or informally in which you just sit in on the lectures/discussions. For the former/formal, see your local university guidelines. This answer deals with the latter.
Permission of the instructor in all but the larger lectures is always a good idea unless your university has an open classroom policy (as with many European universities). The instructor may have different rules. For example:

In larger lectures, I do not mind auditors (of any ilk) in lecture but they may not attend discussion sections since those are for the paying students.
I allow graduate students to audit my graduate seminars but with three rules: a) They must attend all of the sessions; b) they must do all of the readings; c) they must not be a 'dead body' but must participate in the seminar discussion.

Note that the university itself may have rules on auditing which the faculty member may ignore (for example, I do not mind if local community residents audit my lectures even if they are not registered as auditors through the university).
This is different from PASS/FAIL (also known as CREDIT/D/FAIL) which is another alternative in which you take the class but are allowed a lower level of participation.

This answer is highly university specific. Auditing a course has a very strict definition that is defined differently from University to University.

Thanks for mentioning auditing, I was unfamiliar with the concept.

Should I ask the professor's permission first?

Yes, this is the polite thing to do. (It's a perfectly reasonable and common request, so no need to be embarrassed about asking.)
As an instructor, it's useful to be able to understand any apparent discrepancy between the number of "official" students and the number of students I see in class. (For example, for determining whether I need to reserve a bigger classroom for an exam, or if I need extra TA support.) So even though I've never turned down a request like this (given that it's permitted in my university), I still like to be asked.
Some schools have an official policy about this kind of thing. If you couldn't find anything relevant, maybe the professor will know and will clue you in when you ask him.

also, after receiving permission from the instructor, if the class includes a recitation that you would like to attend, you should, out of politeness, also ask the TA leading that recitation for permission as well. The professor may have no idea how big the TA recitation room is, for example, and you shouldn't assume that permission to attend a lecture = permission to attend a recitation or lab. Especially a lab! major liability, safety and financial issues there.

It's more than just polite; people have paid money for those classes so it's only reasonable to ask given that you shall be absorbing them for free!

@LightnessRacesinOrbit: Unless the OP narrows down the scope of the question to a specific location or payment model, that cannot be taken for granted. Even if we assume that people have made individual payments for studying (which is not necessarily true, depending on the place), tuition fees can also be structured in a way so anyone who pays for the current term (i.e. including the OP) is allowed to attend whatever courses take place. And if that's the case, it might be the polite thing not to bother the lecturer with inquiries whether or not to enter an essentially open lecture hall.

@O.R.Mapper: Sure but the inverse can't be taken for granted, either, for the same reason. It bears mentioning as a possibility.

Good to hear an instructor's perspective.

Other, more qualified, people have answered your direct question, so I will add to it without detracting from what they have to say.
There are some schools with 'alumni audit' policies, in which - as the name suggests - alumni can formally audit courses.  Check with the registrar on policies about this. If your school has such an option, find out the rules. Some classes may be auditable and others may not.  Some may be auditable online if you are far away from your university...etc.
While you will likely only be able to do this for one course at a time for courses offered at night, assuming you work a day job, it could be a good way to take those elective courses, create & maintain relationships with professors and with your university.
Good luck with your studies, and have fun.

That sounds awesome! If you remained local, a great way to stay reasonably current (assuming work isn't research in that area) or just learn the basics of an area you didn't study as an UG, but now find interesting. Really like the sound of that, but having not heard of it before I doubt I would ever be eligible :(

I'd like to add a perspective from Germany:
Fees here are usually paid for the fact that you are registered as a student (typically a general service fee, student union fee, possibly obligatory bus ticket), only very particular courses have course fees (sports, languages, and postgraduate courses that get you certified for  sth. come to my ming). And even if you do your PhD without being registered as student or work as post-doc, for general lectures usually nobody checks whether you are technically "allowed" to attend the lecture: many lectures are anyways public. Registration is required if you want to take an exam and get a certificate, but usually not if you are just interested in the knowledge.
So for most lectures it would be totally OK to just attend and listen.
That is, unless it is really crowded: then it would be seen as impolite to take away the seat of a student who needs to hear that lecture. So for certain subjects, you'd just not get in in a polite way, whereas in others (SMT) the lecturer may be happy to have one more face in the audience.
In fact, a certain amount of broadening your horizon is encouraged ("studium generale"). For that purpose, lectures that are of interest to students of unrelated subjects or the general public are often offered in the evening hours. For example, I heard some more physics than I was required, plus a bit of philosophy, computer science, economics and law and got an introduction to Polish language (I'm chemist).
For language and sports courses you'd typically be required to register. And you may not be that welcome to more intense courses that are meant for smaller groups such as  excercises and lab practica (where there would be questions as to who pays insurance and material as well as safety concerns such as whether you know what you are doing).

Yep, most of your German perspective applies also to Italy (and probably also to France).

Policies vary, from university to university, and even from department to department in the same university.
The first thing you MUST do is to ask the professor for permission. Not doing so, is a form of "stealing." If you have the professor's permission, it's more like borrowing.
The professor will usually know what the university's policies are, or at least be in a position to find out. In some cases, there may be an extra fee involved, for as many credits as the course is worth.
In some cases, there may be "loopholes," that is, there is no problem if you audit for less than half the semester, then "drop out."  Some universities will allow you "sit" for three to five lectures early in the semester before having to choose between courses. In other cases, you may be allowed to attend ONE lecture on a particular topic. (I have used all these strategies in my career).
In any event, do what the professor tells you. That is the best guide for "university" policy, as well as his/her own.

The second paragraph sounds very strong and absolutely contradicts the first paragraph. As you say, policies vary wildly, and in universities where you can take it for granted that if you're enrolled (or even if you aren't) you are entitled to attend as many lectures of any fields as you like, the accusation of "stealing" has no basis and is downright rude. Moreover, in that case, bothering a lecturer with asking whether you are allowed to attend a particular lecture is not any more helpful than interrupting a class to publicly ask whether you may go to the bathroom. ...

... If properly narrowed down to a specific policy scheme found in some places/universities, this can make a good university-specific answer, though.

Not doing so, is a form of "stealing." - not in many European countries for public universities. They are funded by the state (from our taxes) and are by law required to be "open" (except for some cases where attendance could be too high, or labs)


text:
Does repeating a second course to bring my GPA up 0.05 points help or hurt for graduate admissions?
So, I previously repeated an undergraduate course and I am graduating next semester with only two courses left to take. I recently realized that if I repeat another course from my first year, I can bring my GPA up from 3.85 to 3.90 and graduate summa cum laude, but I wonder if repeating too many courses for GPA (two in this case) would reflect badly, so is it worth it?

bring my GPA up from 3.85 to 3.90...is it worth it? — No.  Your GPA is already high enough that other factors (research experience, recommendation letters) matter far more.

Are course repeats of this type frowned upon by grad school admissions offices though?

Speaking only for myself, if I noticed at all, I would be mildly positively impressed if you immediately retook an important class in your major field where you got a C- or worse, and the second time you got an A.  Otherwise, I might think you're too obsessed with grades to be a productive graduate student.

As an admissions-committee person for an R1 math dept, this would look to me like an obsessive-compulsive waste of time.
For most people the years they're in undergrad school are an enormous transition, and things that happen freshman year are (hopefully, and, mercifully) not strongly related to what happens later. People understand this, and often look with some interest on the very contrast between "freshman year" (and maybe sophomore) and what happens junior and senior year.
While it might seem virtuous to "go back and repair" a bad performance early on, this is a vastly sub-optimal investment of one's finite time and energy. Look forward, not back. Learn new things, don't worry about perfecting things that really don't need perfecting.
And, indeed, grad admissions people exactly try to appraise candidates' sense of "forward" rather than "back"...

No. It is not worth it.
If I were reading your application, the difference between a 3.85 and 3.90 would be invisible. If I caught you repeating a freshman course you'd already gotten a decent grade in, I'd peg you as a tunnel-visioned gradegrubber and look for excuses not to admit you.
On the graduate level, gradegrubbers are usually Not Admired. Personally, I do my best to avoid them as students or advisees.

I'd much rather see a student in this situation take an extra elective course in his/her field then retake a freshmen level course just to improve his/her GPA.

Well, I don't know if that changes anything, but I got a C+ in a communications class because of an oversight from the professor that I didn't appeal in time.

It's unrelated, I am a CS major.

Repeating courses should be left to the following:

Courses where you failed
Courses where you received a C or lower
Courses that have no followup course to hone skills
Courses relevant to the field you are applying to

It is much more powerful to take an additional followup course that shows that you mastered the information than to retake a course.  In general, it is bad practice to retake multiple courses during your undergrad, as the other posters have mentioned already.