text:
When and how to make the jump to Assistant Prof
I find myself in a complicated situation. I am about to finish a 3 year Postdoc, and have been applying to other postdoc and professorship positions. However I have not been lucky so far, without even a single interview.
I am even wondering my path in academia as it feels that all these new positions keep asking for unrealistic experience levels. Some positions even go as far as rejecting candidates that defended their PhDs for more than 3 years, which I think it is hardly a reason to reject very good candidates.
I work in materials science, my background was inorganics, but did a PhD thesis in organic polymers, in a group that only works with inorganics and has very little to no knowledge in polymer science. Because of this I ended up publishing much less than my peers, and my supervision was not great (including toxic environment, threatened to be fired, forced to agree with the supervisor, and micromanagement).
My postdoc is also in polymer science, in a completely different work environment: no meetings, total freedom, very little feedback, and the usual "you're a postdoc" statement whenever I ask for genuine feedback.
I want to continue in polymer science, but diversify into electronics, yet no PI/institute has answered a single application. I have also tried grant applications, which also resulted in nothing, often with no tangible feedback on what could be improved. In my current situation, writing and applying for funding is out of question, huge risk, no grants are opening now, and would leave me unemployed waiting for a chance.
They want scientists to have a broad knowledge and creativity, but only hire people that have devoted their research to single topics. Ask for teaching experience for a basic entry level of professorship when not everyone can do teaching because of contractual limitations.
How do I move from this? am I stuck scientifically and cannot explore new topics? or is the system already so rigged?
I would love to get some feedback from fellow postdocs and even some professors. I understanding this is a more "ranting" or subjective post, but I think it could benefit some people (like me) to perhaps see this whole situation from a different perspective.
EDIT:
To clarify some points - I have been in three different countries already (mobility), at good universities, and actively try to apply to different places in different countries, primarily within the EU.
I have a broad experience in physics, engineering, characterization, materials, and polymer science.
I have tried to ask for counseling from different supervisor and professors at different stages in my career, but it comes always to the same: "you have to publish".
From my different conversations with different professors it feels like many are disconnected from today's market reality, retaining the idea and experience they had 30 years ago.

To clarify: are "How do I move from this? am I stuck scientifically and cannot explore new topics?" your primary questions? "is the system already so rigged?" is a very different question—but perhaps it's only rhetorical in your post.

If your postdoc supervisor gives no advice, ask other people for help.  Department head?  Collaborator?  Even your competitors might give you useful critiques if you ask them nicely.  Of course even the most diligent supervisor can give poor advice sometimes.

I do not think we can give you a guide to be coming a professor.  Most people do not.  Those who think they can give you a guide have survivorship bias.

Many places will not accept an applicant for postdoc position with more than X years since PhD to prevent "abuse".  Financially I'd love to pay postdoc rates for someone with 10 years experience, but it's a disservice to that person. Having hard limits like that forces me to hire staff/faculty if I really need that experience level.  Unfortunately such policies are sometimes too strict and limit second postdoc terms

The (perhaps unpopular) truth is that not every postdoc can get a faculty position. There just are more postdocs than open faculty positions, and as a consequence universities can ask that successful candidates have qualifications that you (i) think are unrealistic, (ii) believe constitute a "rigged system". But that's really no different than in any other system where there are many more candidates than positions. Say, in American football where there are literally thousands of players on college teams every year who would love to become professionals, but only a couple of hundred can get a spot on a pro team.
So there are really only two approaches that are open to you:

You dedicate your life to the job so that you have a resume that's among the best.
You have a Plan B for your life.

Given that, as you mention, you have not had any luck with applications and proposals, I will come back to the (perhaps unpopular) suggestion to seriously explore option 2. It isn't that people in industry (or whatever other career path outside universities) are generally more unhappy with their jobs than professors are. Indeed, there is a vast number of people who do industrial research, and your particular research area strikes me as one that should have substantial potential for industrial research jobs.

There are 1 million high school football players, 73,000 NCAA football players, and 1696 NFL football players.  NFL players can stay in the NFL for over 20 years.

@AnonymousPhysicist Ah, very cool! I love that you provide the statistics to back me up!

Average tenure in the NFL is apparently 3.3 years, so that’s 514 slots on average per year among 250,000 graduating high school seniors or 18,250 graduating NCAA, so about 1 job per 36 at the college level. Better than I’d have guessed!

@Charles Some players would not play all four years of high school/college.

+1 "not every postdoc can get a faculty position" ... or at least a faculty position in a research university.  You could try for positions in  primarily-teaching universities.  Or even two-year community colleges.  [This is if you are already in the US.]

@AnonymousPhysicist Yes, you could adjust for average stay at college, but I don’t think the answer would be significantly different.

Out of the 500 NFL slots, around 70 come from NCAA D2/D3 programs, the rest are D1. This brings up an analogy about getting a faculty position at a R1 school vs R2 and teaching institutions. Not all positions are the same. In the US, anybody can get a faculty position at a community college, and close to anybody at a teaching institution. Whether that's what you're looking for is another question.

You've asked for feedback from postdocs and professors. I've just gotten a tenure-track research uni. job after a 3 year postdoc and a close-call academic search, so maybe I can add some perspective on top of Wolfgang's answer. Your question is "When should you try to make the move to an Asst professorship?" The answer can only be: start applying as soon as you are competitive for the jobs you are willing to take, and keep taking lower-ranked jobs for as long as you're willing to take them.
For me, my line was to do only one 3 year postdoc, then Asst professorship at a PhD-granting institution or out. Most such places now have candidate pools with a larger number of postdoc years on average and the application season was rough. But that was my line. You'll have to set yours however makes you happy.
Supply/demand for labor in academia is strongly balanced against the supplier (you). Academic institutions are also relatively poorly funded in aggregate. The more unbalanced this becomes, the more institutions can afford holding out on promotions for workers (e.g., a promotion postdoc -> tenure track). If you can't get a promotion now and want to stay in the industry, there are few choices other than continuing to work at your current rank.
You mention that you think you are missing skills that are sinking your applications, like teaching experience. It's hard to guess whether that's true. If it is, taking jobs without an opportunity for gaining that experience also has a cost to you in the longer term in delayed promotions. You need to make a decision about your goals and the costs in time/money/etc. you're willing to expend for them.
Finally, rather than saying the "system is rigged", at some point it's rather that the "system" cannot afford your labor relative to their competitors. Academia is a peculiar, demanding, and relatively low-paying line of work. I'm constantly questioning whether better pay in a different industry would be the smarter choice myself.
If you end up in a situation where you can't find a university that has enough compensation to pay for your skilled labor, that's the system's loss not yours. Sure, there's some competitive aspect to getting a job at the next rung, but just as much of that is randomness and time at a lower rung (i.e., lost compensation).

To add to the answer of WB.
Your specific qualifications are largely irrelevant when you apply for a postdoc position. The matter of fact is that, in most fields, it is increasingly hard to find a candidate with the exact qualifications required. The candidates have just to be able to quickly catch up, which means that any adjacent area will take you.
Therefore, just apply to everything you see. Forget about your narrow field of expertise.
As wisely put by the other answers, have a plan B with a deadline. And stick to it.
A 3 year postdoc is, quite frankly, nothing. Most staff we hire have been to 3-4 postdocs.
Finally, the time to apply for an associate position is "all the time". Getting hired in a ternure track position is associated mostly to:

Luck
Contacts
Qualifications
(In this particular order)

You know that 3-year-issued condition that you mentioned? That's one of the tools we use to filter candidates, so we can hire who we want.
As a 3 year postdoc, you should have been actively applying for grants as the PI (for 2 years now, tbh). If you want to follow an academic path, you should also be teaching, regardless of what your contract says. Your contract simply cannot stop you from teaching in your free time. Just pick 2h/week anywhere you want.
The system is rigged. The sooner you realize it, the better. Some places are better than others, but overall it is always the same.

A 3 year postdoc is, quite frankly, nothing. Most staff we hire have been to 3-4 postdocs.
In my field if you have more than one postdoc when applying for TT it's counted against you.

"in most fields, it is increasingly hard to find a candidate with the exact qualifications required" -- I would question the correctness of this statement. I believe that in times of the internet, when it has become so much easier to search for and apply for jobs, it has become much easier to find the right person.

This is very accurate. The connectivity is countered by the increasingly narrow fields.

Times are hard at the moment. Your field seems (to me) to be very specialized, which might be limiting your opportunities even further, especially if you aren't flexible in your asks and expectations.
You may need to look farther afield to obtain a position if you are limiting your search to, say, France. You may need to apply to a wider range of institutions if you are applying only to top research institutions.
I suggest, however, that you have someone in your field who you trust to look at your application materials and identify any needs or deficiencies. And, identify any opportunities that you may be missing. In some places, make sure that any letters of recommendation are very strong. Make sure that they match institutional needs.
When there are a lot of candidates for any given position, the requirements can seem to be unfair, though they are actually a natural consequence of the current situation.
Think about what you want your career to be long-term and note that you don't need to start there, but can work toward it from many different types of entry level positions. But, I also suggest that the time to make the "jump" is now if you can manage it. But do what you need to do to keep connected - and to get more connected. In CS, that would mean attending a lot of conferences, presenting if possible, even in workshops and such.

When aren't times hard?

@user479223 - well, the 50's and 60's in US universities were pretty good times...

@JonCuster That certainly seems longer than a moment!

@user479223 - sure, but it was a unique time with the US coming out of WW2, the GI bill, then the baby boomers hitting universities - there was tremendous growth in undergraduate populations and a need for folks to teach them all. In the US, undergraduate enrollment dropped from some 18 million in 2010 to less than 16 million in 2020.

@user479223 - further data for the USA: in 1950 there were 1708 institutions with enrollment of just under 1.5 million undergraduates. By 1970 there were 2525 institutions with an enrollment of 8 million students. Instructional staff grew from 110,000 to 551,000 over that time. Doctoral enrollment went from 3290 to 29,914. Adding 400,000 instructors over 30 years is more than 10,000 hires a year on average, and even in 1960 there were still under 10,000 doctoral students enrolled. Times were good.

Times are not hard right now for fields that have huge industries attached to them. Few people want to become a machine learning professor when there are industry jobs offering similar work for much more pay, for instance.

@JonCuster: Maybe I'm a bit nitpicky - but given that the number of students in a country cannot steadily increase so strongly in the long run, rather than saying "times are hard at the moment" it might be a slightly more realistic framing to say "times are quite normal or a bit worse than normal at the moment and it happens only rarely that times are really good".

@JochenGlueck - Agreed! The demographics of the undergraduate population in the US are quite clear, and can't be changed without a time machine. There are no good times coming anytime soon. Post-WW2 was a unique event in many ways, and the growth of universities was just one facet of that.

I don't remember the dates exactly, but STEM fields (and especially CS) had a boom in students and a corresponding boom in faculty hiring earlier in this century. And "over-hiring" in one decade tends to depress hiring in the next two or so. This happened about 1970, actually and greatly affected my own career.

"Your field seems (to me) to be very specialized"  Polymer science is a very large branch of chemistry.  It would be hard to find a large chemistry/chemical engineering department that doesn't have any polymer science faculty (unless the polymer scientists have their own department.)


text:
How do I know that journal is good apart from the impact factor?
My boss asked me to submit my research to a journal I've never heard of.
How do I know that journal is good for my career apart from the impact factor?
I would like to have my own criteria without just doing whatever my boss says. For example, how the journal is peer-reviewed, time of publication, specific topics, other authors, and how to measure these things just looking at a journal site.

Do you trust your boss? If so, his word is good enough. If not, why are you working under him?

What about checking if it contains papers that are relevant in your field? Either by looking at the contents of that journal or by looking how often that journal is cited in your field.

Heavily related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/101/how-do-you-judge-the-quality-of-a-journal

@Allure, I don't think "his" word, assuming my boss is a man, is enough. I believe is good to learn and double check as an independent person and not just do whatever my superior said. I know she will listen if I have something to say. Science is collaboration too.

@RamonaUcelay why don't you ask her why she thinks the journal is good then? She is not going to say something incontrovertible - you can double-check whatever she says then.

With repect to the whole discussion about predatory publishing, I think this question is perfectly valid and important.

@Allure. Of course, I asked her reasons to publish in that journal but I would like to have my own criteria: how is peer-reviewed, time of publication, specific topics, other authors, and how to measure these things just looking at a journal site. Maybe I didn't explain myself at the very beginning. Just reading your recommendation now. Thanks

Where do your most admired authors publish in?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Found a major flaw in paper from home university – to which I would like to return
During my Ph.D. in condensed-matter physics, I published a paper together with two other students. The research group of the university that I am originally from (in Madrid, Spain) happened to work on the same subject and, later on, published another paper where they criticize our work, propose their own, and claim that theirs ‘works’ better. This group includes a famous and highly influential professor.
I could finally get around to study their results, reproduce every single bit of them, and found a major flaw, which invalidates their conclusions, including the superiority of their approach over ours.
I am now a permanent researcher in another country, but would like to go back to Madrid some day for personal reasons. It is a small world, and it is likely that I will have to interact/negotiate with that group if I ever want to go back.
On the one hand, I would like to publish this work where I found the flaw, in order to get things straightened out and properly settle the scientific issue. On the other hand, this may cause a strong embarrassment for them and be detrimental on a relational/political level, possibly implying a revenge from their side.
I could certainly write them a polite email before publishing, trying to be as delicate as possible and frame the whole thing in a positive way. However, I doubt that this will make a difference on the long term.
How can I deal with this? Have you ever been in a similar situation?

So they said your work was bad, and you fear they may not be happy if you say that their work is? How did you react at the time?

@jcaron I did not react. When their paper came out, a couple of colleagues (not them) asked me what I thought. I told them that I had doubts about the correctness of their results. Now I can prove that those doubts were correct.

I have a differing opinion from some of the other answers. I have not been in a similar situation but I worked in the condensed matter field and I've seen how some of these criticizing papers go.
If it is your intention to one day return to Madrid I propose you follow the advice of ZeroTheHero with one major difference: when you approach them suggesting there might be a problem in their approach, propose a collaboration with them. This costs you nothing (except maybe sharing authorship of a paper for which you've done most of the work), gains them a publication and a chance to be on the "correct" team, and sets up a favourable relationship for you in the future.
Should the collaboration fall through (or more likely, never actualize) they will still have been sufficiently warned, and should not take offense. (Of course, they may still take offense, but that might be true regardless of your approach to the situation.)

Well, I know them very well, and I am sure that they will never publish a work where they admit that they have been wrong. However yours is, in general, a good suggestion to show a nice attitude towards them.

Don't make it personal. Keep it about the science. You can inform them of the flaw and let them fix it or you could just publish a new paper with better results, pointing out the flaw if needed. That would depend on whether you want the new result under your name or are happy enough for it to be under theirs.
If you write, however, and get pushback, evaluate it fully and then publish or not as you choose. But I wouldn't get into an argumentative back and forth about it. And if you just decide to publish it, as a courtesy you can send them your paper when you submit it to a publisher: For Your Information...
The science is the important thing.

"The science is the important thing" - or at least it should be to both parties.  I guess the OP is fearing that it might not be for the other party; but any discussion should be able to highlight this line and diffuse any issue

Isn't turnabout fair play here?  Research Team B thought they found an error in Team A's conjecture and instead of reaching out, they published a paper and said that their way worked better.  Why doesn't that set the precedent for moving forward?

Make it about the science @zero298. Not about payback. In the long run you come out ahead that way.

+1. Also: whilst trying to be objective and sticking to the science, you can only again by keeping all messaging positive. In a personal communication, suggest "I am trying to understand X because it seems to me that ", rather than "X is wrong. This is the right solution". Similarly when publishing, try to position as building on the other's work rather that taking it down.

@Buffy I get what you mean, but I think zero's point was not about getting payback. Rather, it was about not feeling bad or nervous about just publishing

@zero298 Not really comparable. "We have a new method that works better than the method previously published by Bob" is far less embarrassing than "We found a big problem in the method previously published by Bob". It's quite reasonable to treat the latter differently.

While I think the second bit of this answer (and especially the science is the important thing) is spot on, you seem very limited with the options: inform them and let them fix it, or don't inform them and publish alone. I think exploring the option of collaboration, or at least initiating a clarifying conversation (which can be then acknowledged) are booth good valid options to be explored as middle ground (especially coupled with the good suggestion to write up the results concisely first, which saves you time anyway if you were to publish alone).

If the other team is smart they would hire this guy! Befriend the enemy if you can't beat it!

This would be good advice if our world was perfect. Sadly, I feel like the worries that Juan has are completely legitimate. I have seen many professors with overblown egos who can be very petty if someone calls them out. These people will use their influence to get back to you even if you "keep it about the science". I would advise against publishing a correction in this case, unless it can be done in cooperation with them.

@UKMonkey Exactly.  Ideals are great, but unfortunately it sometimes turns out to be the case that scientists, being human, have egos too.

I don't think its fair to dismiss OP's concerns. It's all very well to say how it should be, but if there is a chance it affects OP's chances of getting a job, it's not really for us to say what is or isn't important. I also - sadly- think there is a decent chance it will...

@ANone I know that group very well, and I am afraid that there is definitely such a chance. This cannot be ignored.

I'm no physicist, but speaking from common sense: Depending on how "ground-breaking" your discovery of their mistake is, here are the options I would consider:

Silly mistake that could have been avoided by being careful or by knowing a bit more math: Write up a correction, contact the group and offer to co-author the correction with them, so that way everyone "saves face" and you are likely to remain friends and future colegas.
Fundamental mistake that some of their team members may not pick up even after lengthy communication: proceed as above initially, knowing that you may end up publishing alone (if you're correct about the mistake and manage to convince a journal). Friendships may or may not be damaged.
Earth-shattering stuff that requires a gestalt shift: write up, contact them for the sake of politeness and to give them a chance for a rebuttal, but publish alone. Science wins, but friendships not so much.

In all cases, remain super polite and respectful, obviously.
A diplomatic way to title your write-up: "Corrigendum" or even "Comment" rather than "Rebuttal."

I like that this answer goes for the option of "try to do it with them if they're game" rather than "chose if you want to let them sign the corrections or if you want to do it".

Making sure that "everyone save face" is the key point here!

The first thing to do is to typeset your work and check it - if possible ask someone else to look over it if only superficially to make sure there is no obvious oversight on your part.  Typesetting is a form of deep proofreading so this will also force you re-evaluate your own work with the mindset of explaining to others what you have done.
The next thing is to contact one of the persons involved (presumably the senior author if possible) in the erroneous paper, asking for clarifications and supplying your notes as evidence that you cannot duplicate or disagree with the original result.  Statements like I am quite puzzled as to how you got from here to here because... or Could you clarify why you make this approximation because it seems to me... are useful for softly directing attention to the contentious issues.
Presumably this would be enough to get some sort of discussion going.  The key point is to allow plenty of time for the other group to assess your own work and compare it to theirs.
Finally, you can eventually write your own rebuttal, including in the conclusion or acknowledgments discussions with authors of said papers if such a back-and-forth took place.
I have been on the receiving end of such papers, i.e. some groups have published results challenging work done with collaborators, whereas in fact we had never made the claims under challenge.  I have also received advanced copies of manuscript citing my papers and found the authors to have overlooked a crucial details.  I much prefer the second scenario, irrespective of where an error was to be found.

Thank you for your reply. Among the person to contact, the most natural choice would be the 'famous' professor, which is the one that I interacted most with. However, he is extremely busy, and my best guess is that he would just ignore my message and not reply. What would you guys do in this case?

I think writing up your work before contacting the other group is great advice. (also protects you if they don't play nice and try to steal your thunder). And I think acknowledging the discussion with the original authors if it takes place (but for whatever reason a collaborative paper does not happen) are also a good option not considered in other answers.

@Juan presumably then the big boss didn’t do the actual writing or is not familiar with the details of the calculation, and you should try to figure out who was the “effective” first or second author of the paper.  Make sure you cc the big boss.

There are four possibilities, for this moment:

They are wrong, you are right.
You are wrong, they are right.
Both you and them are wrong;
Both you and them are right.

It is also possible that future will cast new light on the situation - but that no one can predict.
Hence, publish as-is, reference the other study, say that your result is different and explain why it is different.  There are nicer ways of putting forward why the other party is mistaken, ranging from:

However, if the term is omitted, ...

all the way up/down to:

... which appears to be a typesetting error ...

It's clear that you have your own interests in this special situation that you outlined. Other researchers have other interests. If you believe your work is better, as a physicist/reader I would expect you to publish your work/method or comment their critics in a new publication. Writing privately an email to them is the worst thing you can do for the readers of these articles from both groups and therefore for academia in general.
Don't put your personal interests over the scientific need to publish the flaw you found, especially when you are in a permanent position paid by taxes. You are in a permanent position.

"Writing privately an email to them is the worst thing you can do for the readers of these articles from both groups and therefore for academia in general." It would of course be a bad thing to write a private email and nothing else. But nobody is suggesting that; the suggestions (which are reasonable and conform to what people do in practice) are to start by writing a private email, in an attempt to collaborate on correcting the scientific record.

Moderator’s notice: I concur with @V2Blast’s edit and the previous comments: Please take any meta discussions to [meta]. However note that we already have some discussions going along the line of what you were writing.

I disagree with the edit, the answer is basically completely different from what was originally written.

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


text:
Evaluating a Master Thesis
This is my first time that I am asked to evaluate a master thesis. I  would appreciate if some one  can give me some tips in this manner:

Should the thesis contains any new results (NEW = Something that has not been done before).

How thoroughly should the literature review be?

what dificulty level should I consider while asking during defense?

Thanks you in advance.

Which country? Which field? How long (time-wise) has the thesis been?

@user151413  Field: Mathematics and applied athematics and the thesis is about 4 to 6 months.

And where? .....

@user151413  Lebanon

This is probably best evaluated in the context of the individual institution. Standards differ and both the student and the professor should have a common understanding. Some places it is sufficient to give a good summary understanding of a deep problem or area of research. Others requires some new results, which may be minor or not. Some require publishable results.
So talk to some colleagues and get an understanding of the local culture. It is harder, of course, if you are an external evaluator. In such cases ask someone at the student's institution for a bit of guidance and ask whether you should evaluate based on their criteria or that of your home institution. Some places use external evaluators (also at the doctoral level) to assure themselves that their own standards are correct.
But at this level, the literature review might be more important than other parts, since one of the purposes of the MS thesis is to give the student some practice in carrying out deeper research where the lit review can make or break problem selection.
During the defense, you can be as hard as you like, but you need to evaluate answers for "reasonableness" as much as literal correctness. If the student can demonstrate a reasonable approach to something it may be enough. Requiring correct answers to difficult questions under duress is probably too much. But they should have ready answers to foundational questions, of course.

ad 1, should the thesis contains any new results: Depends on the field. In theoretical sciences, it is perfectly possible that the difficulty of the area is such that no more than a literature review can be expected from a master thesis. In the experimental sciences, experiments may fail so badly that no new results are obtained. Consider that in most systems master theses have fixed duration, as opposed to PhD where you expect the candidate to continue research until at least some new results have been obtained.
ad 2, how thoroughly should the literature review be: Depends on the field. In an experimental thesis, a short chapter with 5-10 references may do. Reading papers and keeping track of references is hard initially and must be learned. Therefore expectations on a master thesis are much lower than on a PhD thesis.
ad 3, what difficulty level should I consider while asking during defense: Start with extremely simple questions. Raise level cautiously, as long as the candidate is able to respond. Be gentle, the more so if the defense is public. The more experienced an examiner, the gentler he is for most of the defense's duration. A few insecure answers are sufficient to distinguish a weak from a strong candidate. Even weak candidates should be rightfully proud of having completed a master thesis; don't shame them.


text:
Potential academic career in very different fields
There's this question about doing research in two very different fields, but my question is somewhat different. I have serious academic interests in two very different fields: one in computer science/mathematics, but the other would be considered comparative literature/cultural studies. I could hardly think of any way to combine those two academic interests (well, I know of digital humanities, but that is not what I exactly want to do).
Nevertheless, I wish to continue research in both areas as an academic, although not necessarily at the same time. Clearly, a possible route is to go one way and then do another PhD and switch mid-career, but I am not sure if this is a good idea. But on the other hand, I am not sure if this is even possible without a mid-career career change.

Linguistics and math have many close connections. Perhaps you could apply math techniques to large data sets from comp lit?

@JonCuster I'm afraid this is exactly digital humanities, which I am explicitly uninterested in.

So, basically, you are uninterested in combining your two interests?

This isn't impossible, but would be very difficult to manage. Trying to earn degrees in two disparate fields at the same time would not really be possible for anyone unless they have an exceptional mind and drive to match. This might be you, of course.
However, assuming that you have the credentials it might not be very possible to actually pursue matching positions in academia. Academic couples usually have a problem finding work at the same institution just due to a mismatch in the needs of various departments over time. One member of a couple might find a great offer while the other can't find anything at the same or nearby institution. That won't be exactly your issue, of course, and you might be able to get one good position in either of your fields and then use that position to make contacts to get something in the other. But I think that depends a lot on individual circumstances.
Your suggestion to pursue one now and the other later seems like a good one. Hopefully you can choose one that (a) is feasible to enter now and (b) will satisfy you if the other options fail.
All that doesn't imply, of course, that you don't have a worthy goal. People who know a lot of things and can write and do on a lot of topics are worth having, though the academic establishment in most places isn't especially well set up to reward them properly. There are a few exceptions, perhaps. Oxford (UK) comes to mind with their college system rewarding diversity of thought.
Perhaps a way to think about it is this. Which of these fields cannot be done without a credential? Can I pursue the other, independently for now, uncredentialed? If that is the situation, it might be a solution. Similarly, in which of these is it more important that I build a reputation? There are plenty of academics in various fields who are also novelists, for example. Not the same thing, I realize, but different mind sets for the two activities.


text:
Does the letter of completion for degree (PhD) allow me to use the degree officially in Europe?
I received a letter of completion for my degree (PhD) from my University in the United States.
"He should be granted all privileges of this degree"
Can I use the degree by now in Europe for applications / official use? Or do I need to wait for the official date when I receive my diploma / transcript?

Interesting fact thank you!

@Roland Even with the degree awarded, the OP can't call themselves "Dr." in Germany with a PhD from the US.

@Roland Sure, and exactly because of that it is important to know for anyone who this concerns that with a PhD from abroad, the issue is not resolved with the award yet.

Well but PhD I can call myself

Perhaps you can apply for jobs already (explaining that you already finished your PhD). You could even receive a job offer, and start working on the immigration procedure.
However, many official applications (to the goverment, etc.) require you to submit a copy of your Diploma registered with Apostille. This is also true for many attractive immigration programs.
Don't forget to get this Apostille before departing from the US.

I think my university uses Parchment, is this the Apostille you are talking about?

Hi @stephanmg, thank you for your question. What I meant to say is that your diploma must be certified by a traditional Apostille according to the Hague Convention. I am not sure how the Parchment system works, perhaps it is also accepted. You should consult with government officials, or obtain both certifications for the future.

I see. So I could ask my University administrators?

Yeah, you could ask the University staff. They might have heard about the immigration procedures for Europe. Since the US is a large country, perhaps the Apostille requirements are less strict. However, you should double-check that the information provided is valid for the particular immigration programs or procedures that you will follow. Contacting somebody who went through the same process in the past might be great.

I have a European citizenship and living in Europe. I only got my degree from a US university and I think then the diploma/transcript should be sufficient?

Then I guess you should be fine with the degree in any official form :)

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

It is best to assume that you don't have it until it is officially awarded, just in case anyone checks.
But you can be honest in any application and say that all requirements were successfully completed and that you have a letter from (whoever) that it will be awarded (on date). Or similar.
Since the starting date of any position is still in the future, I assume it will be after the official award date. It should be fine in all but the most extreme cases.

So, the letter will be enough to show for the application? I have a job which I could accept but it requires the PhD degree. So best to talk to the employer to clarify?

That would be wise. The dates might matter. Or maybe not.

Okay, I hope the Professor does not mind be bothered by these formalities, just want to be sure. Otherwise I probably should ask for a later start date after the degree has been officially conferred.

Ask what is possible before you suggest a later start.

Will do thank you!


text:
Should I write a personal statement that is department-oriented or research-oriented?
I majored in computer science and I am writing a personal statement to apply for a PhD in computer science. The research direction I'm interested in is somehow related to computational biology in which I have some relevant experience and I have found some computer science programs in this direction.
Now I am not sure if I should write a personal statement that is department-oriented or research-oriented.

Application in which countries?

United States of America

What do you think is involved in making your personal statement department-oriented versus research-oriented? What would the contents be under each of those descriptions?

@BryanKrause A large part of them would be similar but I don't know if it is a good choice to include biology experience in the department-oriented statement, as it might be considered irrelevant by the committee.

If you will hold only a bachelors degree your statement can be quite general, aligning with the department in general - even quite loosely. If you will hold a masters it should be somewhat, at least, more specific and perhaps related to the research of some group (more than one person) of faculty.
The first task in most US doctoral programs is to pass comprehensive exams, not immediately begin research. There is time for reflection and refinement. You will eventually need to align your dissertation research with those of an advisor, but that isn't normally the first task.

Caveat: There are a few exceptions in the US, especially when your funding is initially coming from some specific research group's funding under a specific PI. In that case, you need to think about that and about how your ideas fit with theirs. But even then, for a bachelors holder there is a long road ahead with many options.

I would try very hard to find a place where they align.
Given that you already have a relatively clear research interest, you should try to find programs (and maybe even a potential mentor in each) that are strong in that area. I think this will not only make you more likely to get accepted (although I have no data on this) but make you have a happier PhD experience once you are in.
I did this .... And then, the semester after I got in, the mentor I had in mind retired. But I still think it's the right approach.

You may want to focus on your research interest with particular professor or group of professors to increase chance of being accepted by one of the faculties and emphasis why the department is a better fit for you. Usually dept can only accept students if faculty's interest and students' interests match for advising and mentoring process.

Thank you. It's very constructive.


text:
Advice for how many conferences humanities PhDs should be presenting at per year from experienced hiring committee members?
Do people who have been involved with hiring at colleges and universities know how many conferences papers PhD students (in the humanities) should be presenting per year in this job-market? I have started out with 2 per year (usually one at my institution and one external) but am unsure if this is a bare minimum or the ideal number.
If it matters, I am working in the theological/religion/philosophy fields.
Thank you!


text:
Agreed to contribute to a paper, turned out to be more work than they said, now I think I should be upgraded in the authors list. How I proceed?
So, this is a story that has a lot of minor details and twists and turns that are more complex than I am able to write and keep you, the reader, with your attention.
I was invited to participate in a paper, after the initial idea and some execution began to happen. Basically it was an online survey and the group back then realized that they were not going to be able to analyze that amount of data in such a short time before the publishing deadline. The first author contacted me then, to help with data tidying, summarization and visualization, and some basic statistical tests.
By the time I was fully committed, some information was slowly revealed. I realized there were some issues with the data itself: questions that were not properly configured for statistics, wrongly designed questionnaire (questions had non-mutually exclusive answers when they should have) and there were in two languages, meaning the answers of one language had to be translated or converted into one to make proper data analysis. There were several open-ended question that got more than a thousand answers that needed to be categorized by hand. The core scientific questions that could be solved with the data were simply non-existent, they hoped that somehow the questionnaire itself would post-hoc yield some results.
I brought the tools and knowledge in statistical software (which none of the other members of the group had, but the "courtesy author" that had minimal participation in the work). I brought interesting insights that were original and of my authorship. All the tables and figures that were actually useful were initially proposed by me and they ended up in the final manuscript. Over 4000 lines of code were written in R.
To be fair, I did not participate in the write-up or the results, nor in the introduction and discussion sections. Whenever the manuscript was sent for revisions, I participated and gave feedback on the topics that were being discussed. I gave the feedback that was required at the time and even gave a final typo and grammar review (500+ mistakes were there). When the manuscript was being recirculated, I was probably too naive to not see that in the authorship order, an "These authors have contributed equally to this work" asterisk was on 3 of the 6 authors and I was not included in that group. I only noticed that in the last review before sending it to the editor for final approval. There was not a meeting where this was discussed and decided.
Do you think that I have the right to ask for a change in the author attributions?

Thanks @leonos, jsut edited the question, see if it is more clear.

Oops, ok I will change it as soon as I am able. Thanks again.

@leonos: I don't agree. The question is short enough, and it took me only 15 s to read the whole thing. The details are relevant. @throwaway_academic: Hopefully you get the recognition you deserve for this, and next time be more careful about whom you work with.

“To consult the statistician after an experiment is finished is often merely to ask him to conduct a post mortem examination. He can perhaps say what the experiment died of." - R. A. Fisher

thank @user21820. stephan-kolassa, that exact phrase came to my mind when I found out how bad the survey was designed.

Even with your very important contributions and feedback, what you describe is a (very) poor paper.
You may see the radical improvement, because you know the starting point, however the casual literate reader of such a paper will only see the flaws you mentioned, even when nicely packaged.
Do you want to be identified as an important author of such a paper?
Let it go, you have now a bag of scripts ready to be reused for the next statistical analysis of a survey, wihtout forgetting that you learned a thing or two along the way.
You can surely put it in your cv, the fact that you are not in a prominent position is an advantage that allow you to correctly frame your contribution, if you are asked at an interview about this paper.

Underrated answer.

After speaking with some other key members in my field that I have a relationship, they arrived at the same conclusion and this how I am going to think about it from now on.

The best time to negotiate changes in authorship plans would be when the scope of work changes, but before you've actually done the work. That is, "this seems like it is going to take a lot more effort on my part than I initially expected. I'm willing to take on this work, but I'd like to discuss plans for authorship again".
The next best time is as soon as you realize it. An additional "contributed equally" asterisk seems like a small ask, especially if it's already split between three of the authors, what could it possibly hurt to add a fourth? But, if you've already approved a final version for publication you may be a bit too late. Not that it isn't worth asking, but do so as quickly as possible and prepare to be disappointed.
I would not recommend counting your effort by lines of code, though (it's often much more work to do the job in fewer lines), or by number of errors in text when you didn't originally contribute to the writing. It sounds like you contributed substantially to the data analysis and figures/tables for the paper, as well as editing: that's enough to make your case.

"I would not recommend counting your effort by lines of code, though (it's often much more work to do the job in fewer lines)" seems a bit inaccurate. A repo with a million lines might not be maximally efficient, but it's still potentially more work than 100k lines. It depends on the scope of what was done. Size indicates that scope at least a bit. Rather than referring to the lines of code refer to the scope of what was done.

@TheEvilMetal You can say it's inaccurate, but then also agree with me entirely in the last sentence of your comment :)

Totally get that lines of code might not be an absolute marker of effort, but like @TheEvilMetal says, it is 4000 LC versus none from the rest of the team members, and it is also tons and tons of work relative to what the original survey datafiles looked like (came from a propietary platform that made an effort making the analysis outside of the platform very hard, because they offer their own services).

@throwaway_academic My advice would be to focus on the degree of change necessary for the original files to be workable, rather than the lines of code. As others have pointed out, the need for these efforts also reduces the value of the entire project to questionable.

Unless you are first author or, in some fields, last (senior) author, the rest of the author ordering doesn't matter.
Nobody will look as closely at author ordering as you do.
Play the long game. If you co-author many great papers, that will help your career.  Whether you are listed second or fifth is largely irrelevant.
Little asterisks about so-and-so contributed co-equally are meaningless and will not get picked up in citation ranking metrics.

Little asterisks about so-and-so contributed co-equally will not get picked up in the meaningless citation ranking metrics.


text:
Have chosen a field without thinking much
I am pursuing Masters of Human Resource Management and will complete it within a few months. But it always bugs me that I have not chosen the right field. I went with what everyone was doing. I also think that this seat could have been gone to a deserving candidate who actually wanted to do this course. Such thoughts bother me. Can you please help me out with this, both the issues? I just want peace related to it.

Hello and welcome! Do you know about the Imposter Syndrome? (see Wikipedia) I am very sorry that you feel this way.

I'm not sure if this is sad or funny: Somebody posts that they feel bad in this forum about academia and the first thing that happens is a downvote without explanation.

Over the course of a lifetime a person makes many thousands of decisions, most of them with incomplete information. "It Seemed Like A Good Idea At The Time". Many of those decisions will lead to less than optimal results, so we learn to change and adapt.
You need to give some thought, I guess, about what your goals are and your options. Use the information you now have to try to set a new path. It will take time and effort, of course, but there is little value in continuing on a path that no longer seems right or has value to you. Likely, finishing your current degree gives you more options than dropping out of it, but that is yours to judge. But you have various educational assets that you can employ to change directions. But you need to try to make the best decision you can, knowing what you know now.
As for the other question, of denying your current seat to someone more deserving, it would only be an ethical issue had you set out at the time with the intention of denying that seat to another. That seems pretty unlikely. You did what you thought best. Others concurred with your decision. Now you have more information, and perhaps have changed and grown. Anyone who might have had your seat also had their own options and have, by now, made their own choices. You can't change that, nor should you worry about it. Someone else might be thinking the same way about their choices denying you an option that you might have had. But there is no global, universal, optimization scheme that sees the future and makes the objectively best decision for everyone.
Do what you think best with the information you have at the time. If you choose a path, follow it faithfully, but not rigidly. Let change happen.

I am pursuing Masters of Human Resource Management and will complete it within a few months.

Congratulations! I would definitely finish your program. At this point, you are just a few months away, so there is very little opportunity cost to finishing it.

But it always bugs me that I have not chosen the right field. I went with what everyone was doing.

There is a huge difference between studying human resource management and actually working in human resources. You may find that you enjoy the latter more than the former. At this point, I would give it a try before deciding that you choose the wrong field. You may find that you "got lucky" and actually enjoy the job, even if you didn't choose it in a very careful way.
There is no optimal way to choose a field, and many people do regret their educational choices. But, your field does have the advantage of being something useful that will lead to a job -- far better than many students who major in their favorite subject and are very surprised to find that there are no jobs in Celtic folklore. At a minimum, this may give you some stability while you reassess your options.

I also think that this seat could have been gone to a deserving candidate who actually wanted to do this course. Such thoughts bother me.

So long as you were honest in your admission profile, you have nothing to worry about. We take into account that not every student is going to work in the field they trained for.

My apologies to the Celtic folklore professors who I'm sure are about to complain about my example... :-)


text:
Do physics graduate programs recalculate undergraduate GPA's for admissions?
Do physics graduate programs recalculate undergraduate GPA's for admissions?
This is quite common among medical schools but I would like to know if this is a common practice by natural science graduate programs. I have searched quite a few resources online and haven't found a conclusive answer. To clarify my question, recalculation means including EVERY course taken, even the first attempt of courses retaken for a higher grade (because of a grade of D- or lower when taken the first time).

I would guess that, independent of field, most places do some recalculation, even if informally. Some people/committees just put more emphasis on some things than others.
There is also the situation that grading systems vary widely, especially if there are international students involved.
However, if you have a specific worry that you took a course and did poorly, but then later re-took it and did fine, then that may show up, but it may not be the devastating issue that you fear. It might raise questions, but such things occur often enough that you aren't unique. You may need to explain the situation adequately and indicate that in spite of past problems you are a good candidate and likely to be successful.
There can be a lot of reasons for a bad grade. But most people will look at the entire record, not just something that is anomalous.
The only exception might be if the institution has so many applicants that it has to use crude measures, such as GPA cutoffs, to get the pool down to a manageable number.


text:
Do CS PhD admissions consider the time it took to get a degree?
In my case, I have the option to either extend my Bachelor's or get a Master's before applying to PhD. Since both options will take the same amount of time, I am concerned that the admissions committee will hold me to a higher standard if I do end up getting a Master's, even though I would technically be finishing the degree in fewer years than normal. Do you recommend that I still go for the degree even though I will definetly want a PhD in the future? Is this something that I can/should clarify in my SoP if I do go for the Master's?
Edit: Turns out that I will need a Master's for some of the PhD programs I am interested in
Edit 2: I'm in the US

Which country is this?

I won't comment on what you should do, as it is a personal decision. I'd suggest making it on your judgement about what is best for your education.
But in a case like you describe I can't see any reason for a committee to think that either was an advantage or disadvantage.
In some places, having a MS is sort of expected for doctoral admission. In others it isn't. I think the time would only be a factor if it took an extraordinarily long time to get a degree or there was a long gap between the previous degree and the application. That usually requires explanation but isn't necessarily disqualifying.
I assume you would probably learn a bit more by working toward the MS, but you have to judge that. But I think you can make the decision based on educational principles without feeling at risk.


text:
Who should fund conference trips based on internship research?
I am a full professor at a university in the US, working in computer science. Many of my PhD students these days apply to do an internship during their PhD, which I always let them do. However, I have an issue with the way the companies typically deal with publications that arise.
Specifically, the following has happened several times now. My PhD student will do a 4-6 month internship, after which they will return to their PhD. They will then continue working in their spare time on the internship project, perhaps for another 3-6 months part-time, in order to get the research to the stage where they can write up a paper. Then, they will submit the paper to a conference. Note that I am not involved in this internship research at all; I have not helped with any supervision and my name is not on the paper.
If the paper is accepted at the conference, the company then tells my student that they cannot fund their trip to the conference, because they are no longer employed by the company. The student then asks me if I can fund their trip, because otherwise, they would not be able to present the paper, or in the worst case, they would have to withdraw the paper.
But I only have limited budget to fund student travel, and usually I would have to reserve it for funding trips based on the student's PhD research. I find it very disrespectful of these big, wealthy companies to expect a non-profit university to fund a trip in order to promote the company's research. But if I tell the student that I cannot fund their trip, I feel like I am not supporting their career and development.
So my minor point of complaint is that the students will often carry on working on the internship project once they return to their PhD. And my major point of complaint is that the company expects the university to fund any conference trips to present any publications from the internship.
My questions are: Is this a common issue? And if so, how do other academics deal with this?

Get a small contract in place with the company that is enough to cover travel costs up front.

I am an employee of one of those big, wealthy companies (henceforth BWC), and believe me, I feel your pain. I already find it great that BWC would let your students publish their research, I can tell you from hard-won experience that this can be quite a struggle once the legal function gets wind of it! (So here is your answer to "is this common?": at my employer, I would not even try to apply for funding for an ex-intern, because I know it would be absolutely hopeless.)
Now, of course we can't tell you who should fund your students' conference travel, there is no objective answer to that. What we can do is discuss the matter itself, and suggest possible ways forward.
First off, funding someone who is not employed any more at BWC is indeed a major pain, for internal and external reasons. This is just something that runs counter to all financial processes in industry. You will pay employees, sure. But if someone is not even working for you any more, then what you would need to do is to have a highly non-standard contract with them specifying payment to third parties (i.e., the travel cost), but no payment to the ex-employee themselves. The rationale would be that this is a benefit to BWC, sure. But then all kinds of regulatory issues crop up: if there is a benefit, isn't the employee again working for the company? If so, are you running afoul of minimum wage laws, because you are not paying them anything? What about benefits? What if something happens on that trip and insurance is claimed? And all this becomes even more nightmarish if the travel happens in a different year than the original contract...
Bottom line: while this issue is indeed infuriating, it is not simply because of obstinacy, laziness or greed on the side of BWC. Paying for your student raises real issues at BWC, which would necessitate a major effort to address, and conversely probably do not happen often enough to set up a dedicated process.
OK, so what can you do about this?

I would say that understanding the issues up front is key. Discuss this issue with any student before they apply to internships. Better to have this out in the open before they invest a lot of time, which may indeed go to waste in terms of a publication.

If you have an onboarding information pack for new Ph.D. students, you may want to put this info in there. If you discuss it in a meeting, send them an email afterwards so you have something on file in case anyone misremembers this. Recall the conversation (e.g., sending out that email) when they do start on their internship.

The most realistic solution would probably be for the student to pay for the conference themselves. Yes, this sounds harsh. But they will presumably be paid at BWC, and they can then decide themselves if they want to pull down, say, 2000 USD per month for three months, or essentially get 1000 USD per month plus 3000 USD altogether for conference costs. Sure, this is a more painful way of thinking than having a contract that up front says "1000 USD per month plus a budget of 3000 USD for a conference" - a question of framing. The key thing, again, is having this conversation with them before they invest their time.
Of course, BWC may actually not be paying that much. Maybe your student is working at a PNP (poor non-profit) at a nominal wage. In which case, there will be even less money from PNP to fund a conference, and tapping other sources of funds (see bottom point) becomes even more important. In this case, "I worked at PNP, and there are no funds there" is a good argument in applying for a grant.

However, note that "self-paying" out of their intern salary at least keeps the door open to apply for other funding. They can with a clear conscience tick the box "I do not have other sources of funding". There may be additional funds at your university for conference trips, or the conference may have travel grants, etc. These are still an option for your student. (And of course, people will still grumble about having to subsidize the student, rather than BWC paying - but per above, BWC has already paid the student an amount that could probably be considered as covering a conference.)

Finally, a word to you as the professor: while it is natural and commendable that you feel responsible for your students, your research and travel funds are limited, and you need to draw a line somewhere. You would presumably not fund some other Ph.D. student in your school whose research does not overlap with yours, either. So do not feel bad about declining a request for funding. Just make this clear from the get-go, and help your student with applying for grants.

Bottom line: discuss this issue with your students before they embark on the internship, and have a plan ready so they know what they are getting into, and ideally already know where to apply for funding.

From a company's point of view, they got what they want once the student left the company. Publishing results does not help them. It is less about paying a trip for a former intern, this might be the excuse that is served you, as it is easier to swallow. They are not interested in all the work after the intern left!
I think an internship is a great learning experience for the students. It should be part of their education and is helpful. Please keep on sending students to internships!
What might help:

Publish in journals instead of conferences. This keeps the costs down. This might work or not work, depending on your field.
It might be possible to get funding for traveling to conferences. Help the student to find such sources (funding agencies, field-specific organizations, the conference itself, your university) and help them writing the grand proposal. What a lovely learning opportunity!
Do not limit the scope of the paper to the internship. It might be possible to add further aspects, align the research with the topic of the student's PhD topic, you might add insights (and become co-author), and the paper would feel less about lost workforce.
Tell the students before they apply that you are not or only partially able to cover their future travel costs. They could save some money from the internship to pay for their travel afterwards.

Normally it's not expected to fund the trip using your research grant money if the work/paper has nothing to do with it. (As you said, they did not work on the project as their RA commitment.)
For most of the cases I've seen, either the students apply for school-level grants, e.g., for career development; or they invest into their own future.


text:
Which letter of recommendation to use for graduate application?
I am currently studying in a CS Bachelor's program in the EU and applying for CS Master's programs next year. I have successfully asked 4 people for recommendation letters, but I don't know which one should I use for application. Here are their description:

Letter from the professor of a course related to planned Master's studies. Very good grade.
Letter from the professor of a course not related to planned Master's studies (still in the same discipline). Good grade.
Letter from the professor of a course related to planned Master's studies, but it's a course during the current semester. It has been just half a semester though, so I'm not sure if they have enough information to write about me. Good grade (for now).
Letter from my supervisor during last year internship (in the industry), very related to planned Master's studies.

Personally, I feel like the last one can say the most about me. The professors just barely know me as someone who took their class and got a good grade. However, I have heard that employer's letter are usually not preferred for Master's application. Most schools require 1-3 recommendation letters, so I think I should come up with an order of their "strength" to   use for the application.
Any suggestion for which one should I prioritize would be helpful.

Have you looked for similar questions here?

@BryanKrause I have looked but found mostly situations where people return to Master's studies after working for some time in the industry, so they have a hard time finding an academic referral. For the letter from a professor mid-semester, I could only find this: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/54270/asking-professor-for-letter-of-recommendation-before-finishing-class

Maybe try https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Brecommendation-letter%5D+who

None of these are great. The best letter writers are people you have worked with enough that they can honestly and confidently predict your success in graduate study. If you know any of the professors outside the classroom then they might be ok. The internship person might be ok if they have had graduate study and know what it is like.
If the masters you plan is course (not research) based then the professors might have a good idea, otherwise not.
Pick the ones you think might be the most positive if all else fails. You can judge that better than we can.


text:
M2 in France = MPhil Equivalent in US/UK?
I did my PhD in the UK. During my third year, I was an exchange researcher in Paris (PSL).
As I was keen to get further qualifications, I enrolled as an "M2" student (2nd year of a Masters) and, after completing all the course work and a thesis, I was awarded a Masters.
I'm now applying for postdoc fellowships in both the UK and the US and I am not sure how to indicate my French degree on my CV.
I fear that "MA" might not do justice to the work I did, which was very research-focused. I feel that "MPhil" is probably more adequate, but MPhils don't exist in France, so technically, that is inaccurate.
Can I put down "MPhil ('M2')" on my CV, or would that be misleading?

You should name the degree exactly as it was awarded by the institution. Anything else is misconduct. Let others make "equivalence" decisions.
You can explain, but not change titles, that the work was research heavy and point to publications if any.
But, use the wording of the French institution as shown in any of their official documents such as a transcript.
Note that those evaluating such things are pretty sophisticated about it and will object to anything that seems "fishy". I wouldn't even try to say that it is equivalent to xxx, but only that it involved extensive research - i.e. a description of the work, not a title of the degree.

You can, of course, provide links to official documentation about the nature of the degree from that institution. Even if they are in French, people can deal with it.

You have to put the exact title, in French. This is what was awarded to you.
You did not get an "M2" but probably a Master (sorry, I got carried away in the previous version and referred the wrong word) -- it depends on the year and generally speaking French academic labeling is a heap of mess 1. Please write it exactly as it is on your diploma.
After that you can try to provide an equivalence based on the Bologna classification and go for something like "Master in Philosophy" (with a reference to the Bologna classification). Hopefully the committee will have some equivalence map as well.

1 Mostly because we feel that our education is so unique that it requires incompatible titles and no other can provide the shining it deserves. Anyway.

Mastères are usually delivered by private institutions, as a non-standard Master-ish diploma; in this case this post is wrong because ENS Paris doesn't deliver any Mastères, they deliver regular, standard, state-recognized Masters, and they are able to do so because they are affiliated with Université PSL

@zdimension: Master, of course Master - I even mentioned it later. Corrected, sorry, sorry.

@leonos yes yes, see my other comment. But M2 is not a diploma, Master is. M2 is just the 2nd year (after the License and M1)


text:
Include figures from publications in thesis (Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0)
I would be interest what is common/best practice to include figures from published papers/literature in my thesis (Which will be published open-access). The figures of interest are copyrighted by (Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0).

It would depend a bit on the specific form of "open access" which doesn't have a clear meaning, but is a set of principles and practices. The license on such shared work can be no more restrictive than the original. That is probably the case, but it would be worth checking the specifics. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access


text:
Science Ph.D. to a sociological post-doc?
I am finishing up my phd, with a heavy climate change/plant physiology/molecular focus. Would it be possible to now enter a more sociological post-doc (e.g. connection between economic models and climate change, or gender vs. climate change, etc.)? How disparate can your phd and postdoc be when your phd is in a hard science?
My goal after my postdoc is a teaching position at a liberal arts college focusing both on hard science, and sociology if at all possible.
Any advice is greatly appreciated!

The only issue is finding a post doc that will accept you. That is up to them, of course. You will need to sell yourself and whatever skills you have. Some department that is happy about cross-disciplinary studies would be a good place to look.
Another possibility is to use a more science-y post doc and use the time and contacts to develop more of the skills used in sociology, though I'd guess that you are pretty familiar with statistical based research already.
The next issue would be to find a liberal arts college that wants those skills. Again, one that values cross disciplinary studies would be good. Many top places will put value on that. Again, you could start heavily committed to one of your skill areas and gradually move to a wider base through your research and taking advantage of teaching opportunities.
In general, though, I'd say it is do-able, but will take both a wide search for positions and a good way to present yourself to advantage in each case.
Finally, develop a wide circle of collaborators who can help you meld and move between the areas.


text:
Is it ethical to deny someone co-authorship who had not had the chance to contribute to the text itself?
Since I am a fairly new researcher in the process of building a track record for myself I'd like feedback on whether I behaved correctly in the following situation.
I was part of a small, short-term research project (~6 months). My main contributions to this project were as project lead, i.e. project acquisition, developing the research question, planning the research, and selecting the appropriate methods. Throughout the project I was involved in substantive discussion with my two colleagues who did the leg work of performing the experiments and analyzing the results.
After all the data was collected and partly analyzed, I went on a 3 month hiatus to focus on finishing a university course. During this time, my colleagues wrote and submitted a paper about the results of said research project without my knowledge. When I came back, I found that the paper was already close to acceptance without any chance of me contributing to it.
Since I believed that I contributed significantly to the knowledge generated in the paper (beyond "just" project management), I asked the lead author to put me on the author list, and he agreed. The second author did not however, with the argument that it would be ethically wrong to include an author that has not contributed to the text itself. While I generally agree with this sentiment, I had no chance to contribute to the text because no one told me that the paper was being written.
After a heated discussion we agreed to disagree. Now my coworker would, although begrudgingly, agree to put me on the author list. However, now I am on the fence since part of the journal's author inclusion criteria says "[involved in] drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content [...]", which I objectively didn't do. Should I stand by my co-author claim, or would letting it go be the more ethical thing to do?
Update: Based on a discription of my contribution, the journal editor decided against my inclusion. We have discussed this issue in my research group and are now looking for ways to avoid these situations in the future.

I think if you contributed to the research then they made a mistake submitting without contacting you

Your co-worker's claim is backwards - they are the one being unethical by denying you authorship on a paper you contributed significantly to. It's not ethical to take the work you did, write a paper without telling you, and then leave your name off of it.

If you were not asked to participate then your co-authors are the ones who need to consider whether they are being ethical. You should have definitely been given the opportunity to be an author considering your contribution. If I were in this situation, I would write to journal explain the situation and ask that to be allowed to proof read the paper and make small edits. If you find something big that needs changed the paper should be withdrawn.

Is "involved in drafting the work..." the only inclusion criteria? I think that's listed to include people who weren't involved in, say, the experiments generating the results but who contributed to data analysis, presentation of the work, etc.

Has anyone just asked the editor handling the paper what should be done?  If they say you satisfy the journal's conditions for authorship, then you either get authorship or you explicitly waive it; if they say you don't, then you don't (but you should still be able to get at least an acknowledgment entry for your contributions and conversations).  Since you say "verge of being accepted", the editor may also be willing to give you a bit of time to review the submission to see if there is anything you think should be changed (concluding "no" is still a valid contribution to the production process).  This may delay the acceptance and publication time tables, but probably not significantly if you deal with it in short order.
Beyond that, there are a few professional decorum/procedure issues that led to this situation.
For something that's on your side (though also theirs), there is the issue that apparently you went into working on this project without discussing authorship matters in advance.  As you have probably learned from this, and hopefully the other two have as well, that's a bad idea. Always try to work out in advance what the expectations and conditions for authorship on (potential) resulting papers will be. As this may vary by journal even within the same field, this may require some advanced consideration on what journal(s) you might try to publish in.  It's hard to set that in stone, but it gives a working framework and a forum to make clear your expectations for your role and participation.  It's entirely possible that your collaborators originally envisioned you as a non-author, and they never critically reevaluated that position until you brought it up late in the process. Maybe they've grown so accustomed to other collaborators waiving authorship when they go on long breaks they mistakenly failed to check with you.  Those are failures on their part, but either way discussing authorship in advance likely would have prevented any such problems.
How a hiatus/vacation/etc. impacts that is also something that should be discussed in advance, at least once you know one is on the horizon.  Sometimes a contributor may simply waive their inclusion and let the others go ahead and publish without them, others won't; better to know/communicate which one is which in advance.
Some papers effectively get held hostage indefinitely as one co-author refuses to relinquish authorship but never finishes the tasks they need to for one reason or another. Which brings me back to something I said in the start: if the editor says you qualify as an author, then the only way the paper can be (ethically) published is if you are listed as an author, or you expressly waive your inclusion in the authors list.  They can't ethically just remove you because it was inconvenient to clue you in on the process.
So, yes, ask the editor and go from there. It takes the issue out of the contentious grip of you and your collaborators and puts it in the hands of an objective and neutral (hopefully) third party with the authority to make such decisions.  The editor will be glad this issue was brought up before publication rather than after, at least.

While the other answers are very useful, in retrospect this is what we should have done: resolve the dispute by letting a neutral third party (the editor) decide.

I disagree with this answer because editors are not supposed to act as judges for authorship disputes.

Your objecting co-author has the causality backwards here.
It is incorrect and unethical to say that only writers can be co-authors.
Instead, my understanding of the ethical position is that every contributor to the paper must be given an opportunity to contribute to the writing and revision, since the manuscript is presenting their work. That contribution might well be as small as: "I read your draft and don't see anything that needs changing."
By your account, you have contributed significantly to the scientific content that is being presented, and therefore your co-authors must offer you co-authorship and an opportunity to contribute to the revision.
In submitting the revision, the lead author will need to explain to the journal that you were omitted by mistake in the original contribution. Any other position would be an ethical breach of authorship.

And, to leave out someone who has contributed intellectual content is plagiarism.

@Buffy - not plagiarism (since nothing was cribbed/copied), but definitely not kosher...

@JonCuster The OED defines plagiarism as "The action or practice of taking someone else's work, idea, etc., and passing it off as one's own; literary theft." which definitely describes this situation.

"Your objecting co-author has the causality backwards here." This 100%.  If the experimentalist were on hiatus while the project-manager and number-cruncher hastily wrote up and submitted a paper - excluding the experimentalist from authorship - it'd be crystal clear that those two authors were in the wrong for not including the third in the authorship process.  And the same goes if the number-cruncher decides to solo write up the team's results in secret; they don't simply get to scoop their team's work and be sole author simply by "virtue" of excluding the team from the writing process.

@llama This situation would generally be described as an authorship dispute rather than plagiarism, because the other authors were part of the collaboration rather than third parties.

I would dare to say this varies enough by field that I could disagree.  I'm my field, the ideal is both writing and final review (and significant contribution to either design or execution or both).

@MikeM What do you think is the difference between that and what is written in my answer?

@jakebeal -- I understand your answer to say that it isn't necessary to be a writer for authorship -- "incorrect and unethical to say that only writers can be coauthors".  I am saying in my field the standard is that indeed you contribute writing, among other criteria.

@MikeM Point being that if you did everything to be an author but then were never consulted when a paper was written up and submitted, then the reason you aren't an author isn't because you don't deserve being author.  It's because the others were acting unethically (by design or accident) and denying you authorship of their own accord.

@zibadawatimmy -- I hear you, but I don't think the answer as written is limited to that.  I agree that is important.  But I disagree with the part of the answer that says writing is not required for authorship, because it seems like that is intended as an absolute rule but I say there are fields the do require writing.

@MikeM I don't think that we are actually in disagreement. Every field requires a significant contribution, and the degree to which writing per se is required depends strongly on the nature of the work that has been conducted. Even in fields like computer science, mathematics, and philosophy, however a) some authors may write far less than others, and b) it is blatantly unethical to exclude an intellectual contributor from authorship by choosing to exclude them from writing.

Authorship norms vary by field. But if you made a substantial intellectual contribution to the paper, you should be an author in my mind.
What has gone wrong here is that the paper was written without giving you the opportunity to critically revise it. After all, if your name is on the author list, it's your reputation on the line if there is something wrong with it, so you shouldn't be there with at least checking the content.

I didn't vote on this either way, but part of the problem is that it's not their name on the author list.

Fair point, i'll edit the answer

I am not qualified to offer a full answer on the merits of how authorship is defined for academic publications.
But I do enjoy tracing word etymologies, however, and in the case of a seemingly obvious word such as author, I found this origin.

author (n.) mid-14c., auctor, autour, autor "father, creator,
one who brings about, one who makes or creates" someone or something,
from Old French auctor, acteor "author, originator, creator,
instigator" (12c., Modern French auteur) and directly from Latin
auctor "promoter, producer, father, progenitor; builder, founder; trustworthy writer, authority; historian; performer, doer; responsible
person, teacher," literally "one who causes to grow," agent noun from
auctus, past participle of augere "to increase," from PIE root *aug- (1) "to increase."
From late 14c. as "a writer, one who sets forth written statements,
original composer of a writing" (as distinguished from a compiler,
translator, copyist, etc.) ....

https://www.etymonline.com/word/author
In other words, you definitely helped author the paper in the original sense of being one of the team who brought about, made, or created the paper -- even if you did not contribute specific text for the first draft of the "written statements" of the paper itself.
Nevertheless, going back to my lack of qualifications, I do know enough about publishing in general to have learned that specific journals or fields can have many specific authorship requirements (independent of general dictionary word meanings), including what is needed to be included as an author of a paper. For example, does this journal have a separate contributor list for papers, etc.
To that extent, I most agree with zibadawa timmy on technical grounds (discussing with the editor) and because those grounds are most likely to remove contention and emotion from the equation.
But on purely ethical grounds, I see it this way, and here I do think some emotion is justified in the sense that something was not handled correctly regarding your authorship and should be corrected. Surely your contribution to this paper ought to be explicitly recognized in some form.
Yes, it would have behooved you to lay out your hiatus plans and actively ask the others to let you know if they were going to plan a paper submission while you were gone; but even if you did not do that, your hiatus did not relieve them of the obligation to either (1) let you know they were planning the paper and discuss how to include you (author or acknowledgements/contributors) or (2) wait for you to return if they had no way to reach you during your hiatus.
Just my two cents.


text:
advisor seems to have taken my work
I'm a PhD student, and my advisor published what appears to be the theoretical frame I came up with for my dissertation as a standalone paper with some other people (not me).  It seems (to me, though who knows) like I was going to make a reasonably important contribution to my subfield, so I'm even more cut up than maybe I would have been. And now I have to finish my dissertation as other people are now using this theoretical frame on data similar to mine. There is also, of course, a small chance that my advisor came up with the same idea as me, but it smells wrong, since we don't work in quite the same area. (My feeling that something is wrong is bolstered by knowing that he very definitely screwed me over in another incident.)  How do I handle this? Do I have to cite his paper? I cannot switch advisors --my department is small, so there isn't someone else who can advise me in it. I'm also too close to done. I have no desire to fight; I only want to survive, preferably with some of my dignity intact (i.e., some way not to cite my advisor's paper). I'd be grateful for comments from folks who are well along in their careers in academia, since I think part of my problem here is really not understanding academic culture.
Context: I did a masters in another subfield before starting my phd; my idea is basically drawing a common set of ideas from the master's subfield into the new subfield (where they are almost never used); I cited all of these things in my dissertation proposal, which I turned in before my advisor's paper came out, and which my committee read. The tricky thing is that I could still see my advisor saying the idea came from him - which is false and unlikely, since again, they don't know my other subfield. But still, I am terrified as well as angry.

Another one of those fine upstanding advisors...

@Roland the OP writes now I have to finish my dissertation,  so I presume they cannot switch because it is too late (they have less than several months to go).

@Roland You're right, the OP can switch. But, I don't think switching helps handling the OP's problem.

Are you doing a PhD or a MSc?

@Roland Whether the supervisor can prevent an exit isn't clear and probably institution specific.

@Roland Can a supervisor prevent graduation? Can a supervisor influence grades? It sounds like you're assuming an MSc, rather than a PhD. I had assumed the opposite, since an MSc student developing a reasonably important contribution is less likely than a PhD student doing so. But, as I said, that's my assumption, the OP hasn't answered Erwan's comment

@Roland I didn't claim the contrary, I questioned whether a supervisor can influence grades

I would add these comments to the question.

@user2768 Yes they can. I have seen a case where a non-committee member managed to bring the grade of a PhD candidate down during the public examination by finding a question that the candidate was not able to answer. How much more power can be expected from the superviser is anyone's guess.

The most important thing to have in this situation is an ally. Preferably more than one.
Discuss this with the most trusted person on your committee. This person will ideally be able to tell you 1) if your perception about idea stealing is accurate 2) how to bring this up with your advisor (if at all) 3) how to negotiate with your advisor around fairly getting you on future pubs using your idea 4) how to get the rest of the committee on your side so you can prevent the advisor from any funny business related to your graduation. Good luck!

How do I handle this?

Most likely there's nothing you can do (beyond coming to terms with it), unless there's reasonable evidence that "[your] advisor published [the] theoretical frame I came up with for my dissertation."

Do I have to cite his paper?

If you publish related work or you want to build upon his work, then yes, since his work is required to be cited in the usual way.

He does not have to cite the paper. People omit citing relevant literature all the time. I do not think omitting to cite one particular paper would have any consequences. In the end, it is his choice what to refer to or not.

@Asdf Not citing a known and relevant work is unethical

It seems that the OP does not want to cite the other paper. While this would indeed be unethical, doing something unethical might be better for his peace of mind than doing the 'right' thing. To purposefully omit citing a relevant work is an 'offense' on the level of jaywalking. Sure, it might piss someone off but it is unlikely to have any negative consequences beyond that. If a reviewer or someone else requires him to add the reference he can simply do it. Being forced to do it, I imagine, would preserve his sense of dignity better than volunteering.

@Asdf The OP will remember that they behaved unethically. The OP needs to decide whether they want to carry that burden or do the "right" thing.

In some sense, the advisor's transgression motivates and begets that of the student. Will this is not be acceptable in all systems of ethics, OP should be able to rationalize such behaviour in this instance.


text:
how to apply The Feynman technique efficiently to effectively improve my learning in math and physics?
I have known the Feynman technique two years ago, I tried to use it in my studies. I usually read a text about some topic(usually math, physics) and wrote in some paper what I understood. But I had a bad experience with that, I spend a lot of time, I didn't learn and it caused frustration what makes me leave this technique.
I'm doing electrical engineer graduation so all of my studying is about math and physics, I wanna learn more effectively and efficiently, in other words, well and as little time as possible, just spend the necessary time and no more no less.
Recently I watched a video about this technique and I'm thinking in apply it somehow, but I wanna know to do it in a way that works, and then I wanna ask about your experiences and for advice on how to implement the Feynman technique to get improvements in my learning.

Reading and note-taking will only get you so far. The best way to improve your understanding of topics in maths and physics is to do lots of practice questions and exercises.

@astronat Regarding my experience I got the same feeling.

@CGCampbell I changed the title to be more clear and specific, maybe now it's better.

People learn in different ways, and so take this with a grain of salt: in my estimation, any attempt to learn something "in as little time as possible" is unlikely to yield good results. Indeed, my understanding is that Feynman advocated the opposite: pick something you want to learn, and keep investing time into it perhaps past the point where you feel "finished", so that you learn it more deeply. Good luck.

The other comments are very good. Also, maybe you need an additional textbook. I often find that reading one text will leave me confused or not understanding everything. Reading two may help. Especially reading sections of a second text on the parts I am most confused about.  Different wording or different emphasis often helps me through.

I don't know what "the Feynman technique" is.

There are two key parts of the Feynman method: teaching and keeping a record.
The basic insight behind the first is that if you can teach something effectively then you know it well. Many professors have had the insight that "I didn't understand X until I had to teach it". But if you are going to teach something complex to another person who has (much) less understanding, then you will probably need to resort to analogy and metaphor to get them into the correct mind set.
So, the application to the Feynman method is to form analogies about what you are studying, where the analogies are common (enough) and easy to recall.
But the recording part, using notebooks, is also essential, since writing down your insights engages the brain in a somewhat different way and that reinforces the physical changes (synapsis and such) that make deep learning possible.
So, one suggestion for using the method is to imagine someone, like one of your parents or siblings (unless they are also field experts) and imagine teaching some complex topic to them. Jargon and technical figures probably won't work, so you appeal to what they already know and come up with some analogies that will help them get started. But you don't just do this as a mental exercise. Write it down, as a lecture outline.
The other suggestion is that when you read and take notes (or listen to lectures and take notes) that you follow it up by summarizing those notes in a simpler form, say using analogies that will remind you of what you have just read. In fact, I'll guess that when you read something your mind is already working out some analogies. Record those. Having a "faithful" record (copy) of what you have read/heard isn't the same as learning. You need to engage the brain. Forming analogies and writing summaries are both good ways to make that happen.

There is more to learning that just the Feynman method, of course. This is why instructors give assignments and exercises.  Exercises help engage the brain in another way that is even more effective. It is also why cheating on assignments is counterproductive to learning. Reinforcement and feedback are keys to learning. The feedback is needed so that you don't reinforce incorrect things.

Thanks! this answer is very useful and helped me understand more about Feynman's method, you explained it very well.

Another thing to note is that applying any technique verbatim won’t generate success. It’s important that you take the critical aspects of the method and distort them just enough to be unique to your own implementation.