text:
What is a "provisional transcript, stating your provisional grades"?
I am set to do a masters degree in the UK starting in mid September this year. It is exactly one year long.
I intend to do another masters after it which begins in October next year.
The structure of the course is we are examined on 4 modules in January and examined on 4 modules in June. We then write our dissertation from June to September. The weighting of the dissertation is 4 modules.
My problem is that I will have all my modules marks by September but not the dissertation mark.
I will get my certificate around November time.
I emailed the course director and he said that
"as long as you can get a provisional transcript, stating your provisional grades, before September, you are fine for the programme".
Does this mean that even if I do not get all my marks back before September, I am still eligible to apply and be accepted on the course?
Does provisional transcript mean an unofficial transcript with all my grades?
Or does it mean a transcript with my grades so far?

Provisional transcript: The school's current best indication of your classes and grades, subject to correction if necessary.

Ok, so if I get a conditional offer for my second masters, they wont know if I have met the terms because my final grade will be published after the start date of the new course because of my dissertation.

That's correct.

So then I will have to take a year out? Or do they only care about my module marks and only use them to work out if I will meet the offer? Is that not a big risk though as someone may completely fail the dissertation?

They understand that risk. They're doing initial screening now and may make you a provisional offer,  conditional upon your finishing.

oh ok. I think I understand. I will apply after my first semester results so basically the offer will be based on my potential?

Ask around at your current school to find out what kind of official transcript you can get for what you have already completed, and then forward that asking if it is enough (with a list of the courses you are currently attending, and your immediate plans on other courses). If not enough, they might ask for further details, like partial grades and an explanation of grading system in your courses, but there you'll have to provide what they require.

Provisional transcripts usually include an explanation of the grading system.

@JoErNanO, I meant more in the line of "midterm grade is so and so, which is this part of the grade"


text:
Reasons for not releasing mark schemes for past exams?
On my course my university provides past exam papers but does not release mark schemes and I know this is the case for other universities. I am dyslexic which makes reading hard, and for my high-school exams I used exam papers with the mark scheme as a self-study method, (meaning I attempted questions and used the answers as a source of information on that topic). Which leads to what I see as one of the main arguments against not providing mark schemes; by providing exam papers you give students an idea of what they need to study but not the information they need to know (i.e. the answers) meaning they will spend time (which could be spent on learning other things) looking in text books for answers.
So what are the reasons for not providing mark schemes to past exam papers?
Edit
Just to clarify some points:
Firstly I am from the UK hence the phrase 'mark scheme'. When a wrote the question (which was a while back know) I guess I was more tending towards the idea of a mark scheme as example solutions rather then a 'grading rubric'. I must admit 'mark scheme' was probably the wrong phrase to use in the question. Just to keep the question consistent with the answers, the interpretation of a 'mark scheme' as "any method that allows the student to work out what they are expected to write in the exam" works best.
Also a while back I did email the relevant people at my university about the situation concerning 'mark schemes', also explaining about my dyslexia and how I learn best. They replied by simply saying that the review the situation every year, but gave me no further information for the reasons behind it.

What is a mark scheme?  It sounds like a grading rubric, but then from your question it sounds like you are asking about something different, namely example solutions.

They don't release marking schemes for past papers because they always re-use past paper questions.

If your university is a diploma mill there will be a lot of predictability in the exams .They wont have critical thinking if the exam is predictable which might be OK or even beneficial for social workers and family court judges .At a proper university there would be very little predictability in the exam so giving answers wont allow stupid students to pass anyway .Remember that most university grads enter the workforce where the questions asked of them are totally unpredictable .

@Autistic I wonder how many exams you've tried writing. Academics on the whole would love exams to not be predictable, but coming up with interesting questions the right length and difficulty repeatedly is hard. Also, if the questions vary a lot then students frequently complain and perform very poorly.

I strongly second @TrevorWilson's request, as the question is not comprehensible in its current form. The term "mark scheme" sounds like it is some systematic way of grading solutions to questions, whereas most of the answers seem to talk about publishing (exemplary) solutions to questions. These are two fundamentally different things; the former must essentially consider all possible solutions without necessarily explaining them, whereas the latter just provides one out of many possible solutions, but possibly with some further explanation or rationale. As such, this question is very unclear.

Jessica B   I have only written little tests for job applicants in the electrical engineering sector .Over the last 20 or so years I might have written 1 or 2 per anum .

@O.R.Mapper I have tried to clarify what I mean by 'mark scheme' in the question, please let me know if there is still confusion.

I'm not aware of any particularly compelling reason not to provide solutions for past exams, but here are two possible reasons:

Providing solutions encourages students to study by learning isolated facts.  If they have to look things up, then they are more likely to absorb some of the context at the same time.  (Looking things up takes more time, but you typically learn more than just the one thing you were looking for.)
Some students find it very difficult to resist looking at solutions when they are provided.  They will think for a minute or two about a problem and then check the solutions and convince themselves that this is exactly what they would have done if they had spent more time.  In some fields (such as mathematics) working out a solution oneself is usually much more educational than reading someone else's solution.  Withholding solutions is inconvenient for students, but the inconvenience may push them towards better study habits.

Only your professors can tell you why they do not provide solutions; without knowing the specific situation, all we can do is guess.  It can't hurt to ask them and to explain why having solutions would be valuable for you.  They may not have strong reasons and might decide to start providing solutions.  (And, as Dave Rose points out in his answer, you should also get any appropriate accommodations for dyslexia.)

If the instructor obtained a test bank from a publisher, the publisher may disallow them from disclosing anything related to the test bank incl. answers, at least as far as the U.S. goes. Garland Science comes to mind.

The main point here is that you have dyslexia, and therefore the university and consequently your professors should know about it; as they can help you navigate better throughout your studies.
You need to address this through student services. They must have staff that deal with dyslexic students. they will then contact your professors and let them know about your dyslexia and the way you need to study to achieve your goals.

I'm guessing you are from the UK, given that "mark scheme" is a phrase I heard there and not anywhere else. Anyway, I asked this same question when I was doing my undergrad. My answer will be centred on the UK university system, because this is likely different in other places. If this isn't you, disregard my answer.
They re-use exam questions. Not the same ones every year, but every few years most lecturers recycle questions as long as the content of the course has not changed. Sometimes the numbers or the wording are different, but the methods and the content are often the same. If they released the marking scheme and the solutions, it means that you could simply memorise the answers instead of actually learning the content.
The entire idea of exams is to determine how much of the material of each module you have understood, and often that means the ability to answer a question you have never seen before.
I always thought they were being very generous by giving students the past papers (without solutions), because at least that gives the student an idea which of the content to learn in the course, and which is less important. If you have access to 2 or 3 years of past papers, it's easy to see which ideas repeat and which do not. Then you can focus on your learning on the things you expect to see.
And a bit of unsolicited advice, because I discovered my dyslexia during undergrad and I feel your pain here. I echo what the poster above says about contacting Student Support, because you can at least get extra exam time and study skills, which is very helpful. I was even given a note-taker, so I could relax and pay attention in lectures instead of spending all my effort un-dyslexiing my notes. If you're dyslexic, you may need to study a lot 'more' (in terms of hours) than the average student, to make up for our brains being wired differently.
You should not be wasting time checking textbooks for answers, because what is important are the methods. If you learn the background [insert field name here], you will be able to solve most questions. If you only learn answers, you can only answer those specific questions and you'll be overly reliant on the material from the past papers.
Edited to add: Here's what worked for us. See if your lecturers are willing to release a 'sample exam' along with solutions, or at least if they're willing to go over the solutions for it in your revision lectures (the ones right before exams). Granted this isn't a lot of time, but it's still helpful, and it's the closest my lecturers ever were to releasing the marking scheme or exam solutions.

by providing exam papers you give students an idea of what they need to study but not the information they need to know (i.e. the answers) meaning they will spend time (which could be spent on learning other things) looking in text books for answers.

This line suggests that you might have misunderstood the scope of exam papers. You should not treat the past exams as "these are the subjects I need to learn and I can ignore the rest" [i.e. information they need to know], but as a way of testing your knowledge against the past year exams.
Now, if you need to look in the textbook for the answers this is typically a sign that you don't know how to answer that particular question, and that you should probably spend some extra time with that topic.
Releasing the answers leads to the following simple issue: often students will read the answers instead of solving the problem. And many times the answers will seem simple, and the students will get a false impression that they know the material; but understanding an answer is not the same thing as
being able to answer the question in the first place...

I agree with this. There is a huge difference between learning how to answer exam questions and a rigorous understanding of the methods behind those answers. In the first case, you get a slightly different exam question and you're screwed. And it misses the point of an exam in the first place.

Thinking about my own choices:
I don't like giving out solutions mainly for the reason already given: students will tend to look at the solutions over working them out themselves, which means they do not learn as much. Or worse, they never actually get round to looking at the solutions at all, in practice assuming that having the answers filed is good enough (although I doubt they realise this what they are doing).
Not giving out the mark scheme (which in my case comes on the same page as the solutions for exams) is for a different reason: marking is not as deterministic as students like to think. No matter how carefully I try and write down what the correct answer should be and what the marks are allocated for, I almost invariably find that the solutions produced by students do not match what I've written. To give marks that fairly correspond to the work a student has produced, you have to look at the range of answers given and fit them as best possible to the marks available. Sometimes you realise that your mark distribution doesn't quite match where the students had difficulty, so you slightly re-distribute the marks over the parts of the solution. Whatever you do, there will be answers that are hard to classify as one mark or another. The key point is that you end up with something accurate enough, given how large an effect the marks will have in the end and given time constraints (eg it is not worth me spending an extra 5 minutes on a script over a mark that will count for 0.1% of the module).
But, while some students recongnise this, many don't. They insist on arguing over every mark, which takes up time and energy for the marker and is potentially unfair on other students who have the grace to accept their mark.
(I'm not saying here it is wrong to challenge marks that seem a long way out - everyone makes mistakes, so I have not problem with students pointing out sections of work unmarked or marks added up wrong. I'm talking about the students who try an argue that their answer should be just on the other side of the boundary for getting a particular mark.)

Perhaps not very relevant for first year exams, but certainly later in the course is that there is no well-defined marking scheme. In the UK system the level of marking (the degree classes) is generally based on rather esoteric concepts such as depth of (conceptual) understanding or reflectiveness of the approach.
Especially in open-ended essay style questions it is not too hard to provide a guide to the answer that is clear for expert markers as to the expected points that students make. The actual answers by students are generally very diverse and require expert assessment (no dumb application of marking scheme) and counting "points" may be counterproductive, especially where students have learned to overload an answer with "possibly relevant" information.
While it is certainly true that reusing exam questions happens and can be beneficial (you can improve the questions over time), providing a marking scheme that students can not use to self-mark or answer guidance that needs expert understanding is not helpful at best. It is more likely to be counterproductive. An approach I may experiment with instead is to discuss in class format the answers given by actual students and the reasons for marks (multiple answers for the same question).

There is no firm policy here, but most colleagues post the solutions to exams, and I post relatively detailed grade breakdown too (sometimes with several solutions, and occasionally even with solutions from the students, when someone comes up with a different solution).
Having the solutions and grading is relevant to allow students to complain about grading mistakes (yes, they do happen). And it cuts down on complaints, not all outlandish "solutions" with low grade land on my desk for regrading (and later explaining why the grade is low).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it more difficult to score a Tenure Track position in the US when applying from outside?
I am currently located in central Europe. When I was hunting for an assistant professor position some months ago, I was also planning to apply to some US institutions for Tenure Track positions. However, one senior professor with some experience working in the US told me pretty much straight-up that this will be a waste of time, as "US universities do not hire people from outside the US/Canada on Tenure Tracks". Relativizing somewhat, stated that "of course exceptions exist, especially if they personally know the applicant, but generally you will get onto the reject pile immediately as they don't know your school well enough.". I was counselled to apply for a postdoc at an US institution first, if I really wanted to get into an US school.
Looking over the CVs of some existing assistant professors in good schools the statement could  be accurate (almost nobody with the job title Assistant Professor seems to come directly from outside the US - many graduated somewhere else, but the last position before was almost always an US institution).
In your experience, is this sentiment correct? Does it even make sense to apply for a TT position in the US from outside (under the assumption that your CV is reasonable for a TT in the first place, of course)? Computer Science is most relevant to me, but any information from any STEM fields would be interesting as well.

Great question! I've heard a similar statement a few times, and I am interested as well. I am curious if it can be answered with numbers (e.g. parsing CVs, though it can be hard to distinguish if professors at Ivy League graduated from it because it is so good, because of cultural fit, or because less-networked applicants (or from less prestigious universities) are looked down a bit (and even a bit may mean no tenure, is such a competitive game).

@PiotrMigdal I am thinking about doing some semi-formal number crunching for my blog - basically, just going over some good schools and checking where the current assistant professors have graduated from and where they were immediately before they became professors. Will update the question here if I get around doing that.

US universities do not hire people from outside the US/Canada on Tenure Tracks — This is simply false.

@xLeitix You might be interested in F. Gargiulo and T. Carletti, Driving forces in researchers mobility (2013) (I've learnt about it during seminar John Dudley's seminar Surviving in Science: What They Don’t Tell You about Careers in Research!); they key message ways that you need to have great graduate school OR first postdoc. Though, I don't remember any US-specific details. (Anyway, ETHZ is certainly a place you can name-drop. ;)) BTW: looking forward to hearing about your analysis.

This might largely depend on the field, but in my field, if you did a PhD outside of a US university, you really do need a stellar record. Your application will be looked at with skepticism, and you need to demonstrate that your research will have an impact in the US, and that you do have a competitive record (if all your pubs are in regional journals that nobody in the US has heard of, for example, people won't take you seriously). Of course, schools hire outsiders, but this is quite rare and the European scholars I've seen in US universities are very very accomplished people.

While the "I don't know your university" element can have an influence on whether your application gets summarily dismissed to the reject pile, it's less of an issue than one might think. We all travel to Europe and Asia for conferences now, and meet colleagues who come from different countries. I can probably name the top few universities in my field in many European countries, as well as personally know people in each of them.
But there's a more mundane logistical reason for potentially avoiding applicants from other countries: expenses. There's always a risk in getting someone to come for an on-site interview, but with a foreign candidate the expense and logistical work (visa processing, payment methods and so on) are more onerous. We always want to find strong candidates, but when there's a large pool of highly qualified candidates in the US, it can be convenient to focus on those that we expect have a chance of actually making it through the interview process and coming.
There's also the question of whether someone from Europe (as opposed to someone working there) really does want to come to the US, or is just casting a wide net. But that can be addressed in candidate statements or even conversations.
None of this means that foreign candidates are disqualified. Far from it. But it creates a moment of doubt.

Agreed. If we have two otherwise equal candidates competing for the last slot on the short list, but one is from out of the country, then we might slide the domestic one ahead of the foreign one. "Equal" is so hard to define, though.

I'm going to speak out of personal experience. I did my PhD in Japan, and then started doing a Postdoc in the US, my University in Japan is regarded  in most rankings as a better institution that my current one in the US (not by much, but still).
I applied roughly to the same number of postdocs while in Japan and now, that I'm changing gigs as well. In Japan I got only 3 replies. While now I got many more replies and much more requests for interview.
So there's that to that. I'm also Mexican, with a valid travel visa (yes, they asked that), so we as part of NAFTA can get relatively easy working Visas (we only need a letter of acceptance). Also, a trip from Mexico City to LA is cheaper/shorter than a trip from Washington to LA
I think our experiences have many differences, but in my personal point of view, yes it is easier to get positions if you are already in the US.
Also, to be blunt, few people in the US are going to take you seriously if you do not have at least a postdoc (in whatever institution). Even James Watson (Nobel Prize Laureate) did a Postdoc.

"few people in the US are going to take you seriously if you do not have at least a postdoc (in whatever institution)". That's a separate question I think, and I'd disagree with that.

To be honest I've never met anyone in a Tenure track position without a Postdoc. I know Terrence Tao did not do one. But that's too atypical a case. I do think is a nice coffee topic. BTW, I meant any postdoc, US or foreign.

@Leonpalafox It depends highly on discipline. In computer science, for example, getting tenure-track without a postdoc is not uncommon (though it's becoming less so).

concur with above. In my field, postdocs are rare, and it is more standard to go from ABD to assistant professor.

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


text:
How much does "having publications" mean to a undergraduate direct-PhD applicant?
I am an EE student specializing in Communications and Networks (actually a bit more on sensor networks/signal processing) who plans to apply for a direct PhD program in the top US universities.
I have seen some undergraduates who have been directly offered PhD programs by the top electrical engineering (EE) US universities, e.g. MIT, Stanford, and UCB.
Needless to say, they all have a super high GPA and some have very good GRE scores. (I say some instead of all here, because MIT does not require GRE at all!)
Besides these two characteristics, they have also published several papers whilst undergraduates. Maybe just by coincidence, they are all from Microelectronics. As a layman in Microelectronics, I heard that it would be relatively easy for an undergraduate to publish a paper in this field, because a lot of publications are experiment-based.
But it seems quite difficult for me and other peers who also specialize in Communications and Networks to publish some work during as undergraduates. It seems that publishing something in this field requires more knowledge that is out of the scope of a undergraduate.

Do most of the EE undergraduate successful applicants have publications? What about in the Communications and Networks field?
If an applicant has no final results (papers), but a 9-month research experience, will the experience help? By how much?
How can a undergraduate applicant outperform a master applicant who holds some publications during his/her master study?

Remarks:
Any generic answers are warmly welcome!

Related: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11825/is-it-mandatory-to-have-published-papers-while-applying-for-phd

@F'x  Really confused... Mine appears earlier than his and is more detailed and well-considered. Then why no one answers mine?

@perfectionm1ng Because blokes like me who would happily answer a "generic" question would also want to not mislead you. I don't work in an EE department, and I don't know squat about how those departments choose their students. I'd rather be quiet than to give you information that is not really useful for your specific case.

@perfectionm1ng, if you want a generic answer from other fields, please indicate so. If you want a specific answer for sensor networks, please indicate so, as well -- although in that case, your question will likely be closed as too narrow. Short answers: 1. [no clue]; 2. yes, it will help; 3. not possible.

@perfectionm1ng Sorry, I didn't answer yours, I actually haven't seen at since it was published while I was sleeping. Then again, 1. if you want to apply to top-tier US universities, needless to say that you're entering into a fierce competitions and publications would definitely help you to get a program. 2. Of course it will help, as you have seen from the inside how a lab works. 3. I would say it is hardly possible, as the Master's student probably has more knowledge and experience in the field.

@StasK: Yes, #3 certainly is possible.  A strong undergraduate with no publications is much more likely to gain admission than an applicant with an MS who has published crappy papers.  (I'm assuming, of course, that the admission committee actually looks at applicants' published papers.  Mine does.)

While I can't comment about microelectronics or EE specifically, I should point out that many US graduate schools admit external candidates only to a Ph.D. program; there is no option available for admission to a master's program en route to a doctoral program. Consequently, the students met the requirements for admission to the school, period.
Research experience is always helpful, particularly because it gives you a potential letter of reference from someone who can directly comment on your skills as a researcher, which is the biggest thing that graduate departments are looking for. They want candidates who are capable of doing high-quality research, and having confirmation of that—whether or not there are papers already written—is a vital component of that process.
I would also suggest it's probably not worth it to try to compete with faceless peers whose credentials you can't guess. That's a hopeless endeavor that will just make you frustrated and dispirited. Just do the best job that you can with the resources available to you, rather than worrying about "keeping up with the Joneses."


text:
What to do when you are a promised a research-based research associate role but are required to act in an IT support role?
First some background. Two years ago I joined a research group as a research associate. My intention in obtaining that position was to publish with the group and build some academic capital, but in the two years I have been there, I have been steered toward support work and software development, and away from research.  I have not been included in any of the group's publications and have had to publish unrelated work on my own.
I subsequently found out that to justify the Ph.D. requirement for the position I hold, my employers added a few sentences to the job description to suggest that research would be the central focus of the work. Within my group I am seen as a system administrator and IT specialist. This is apparently what my employers really wanted.
I’m also acutely aware that I lack the superior eloquence of my more persuasive colleagues. (This inability would hamper me not only in academia but in virtually any career.) My superiors cannot be persuaded that the system I have been assigned to create, intended to demonstrate (nonexistent) technical capabilities to a skeptical funding agency, has already been executed by several competent, experienced and well-funded teams of more than one person. The project is an all-consuming, deeply anxiety inducing death march for which I am underqualified. Against this, I have at least three competing projects which cannot receive the exclusive, full-time attention each deserves, and I am continually interrupted with trivial software installation requests and technical failures rare enough not to have been documented in the ever-expanding global online archive of technical minutia, to which StackExchange is a prominent contributor. The perspective is that information technology hasn’t specialized in the past 30 years–nothing is too trivial to undertake (except for them) or too specialized and technical to require immersion and consistent practice. It is the menial and urgent work of cleaning digital bedpans.
I don’t have a family or children–I did not want them. I wanted to work in an environment where I could be paid for research. The compensation is $24K less than the administrative position I previously held. I feel that it is self-defeating for me to continue supporting professors, postdocs, and postgraduate and undergraduate students. There is little incentive to promote an individual assigned to projects that provide funding for the group, and to activities that support the research efforts of others, but which are unlikely themselves to result in publication.
But since my work as a mental technician is valued, I'm wondering whether I might as well seek better compensated employment outside of academia, where I would not have the indignity of supporting persons whose career opportunities are foreclosed to me.

Yeah academia today seems too competitive. In my opinion, one should only go into academia if they are truly the best of the best. Industry seems like a better fit (people will value you more than in academia). Or consider liberal arts colleges. These are environments in which there is more emphasis on teaching. Generally, the order of importance is (i) teaching, (ii) research, and (iii) service. This type of environment may be less cutthroat than major research universities.

I have been steered...away from research.... my employers added a few sentences to the job description to suggest that research would be the central focus of the work. — You are being abused.  Don't walk.  Run.  (But don't make the mistake of confusing your abusive situation with academia in general.)

I'd suggest that you apply in the next available admissions cycle, to institutes that actually take in graduate students to do research - or, if thats not feasible, take a job outside of academia and before quitting, make sure to have a very candid conversation with the head of the research group, regarding your experience...

I am sorry to read about your problems in academia, and I hope you find a better environment whether you decide to stay in research or opt for a different career path. No matter what you eventually decide, choose your next employer wisely. The private sector is often idealised as far as salary or recognition is concerned, and if you think you will never find yourself in a similar situation there, you are in for a rude awakening.

I have worked in academia and industry and have had good and bad experiences in both. The current job pays a substantially below-market salary. This may be the worst aspect. It was my error to believe that the trade off of salary for a potentially engaging research position was worth it.  My impressions of intellectual aridity in industry and the stultifying bureaucracy of administration have kept me from going back. The salary would be all right if it were a faculty position, or even if the projects were better matched and involved publishable work.

@VahidShirbisheh which one of the alternatives are you?

@VahidShirbisheh Sorry to hear this--you seem accomplished and so I would have guessed the former.

@VahidShirbisheh Not strange to me, since I have heard similar things even from historical figures in mathematics. Now that I have experience with researchers in scientific (and less empirical) subjects, I am more likely to suspend judgment on what should count as strange, pending a methodologically sound survey of customs and attitudes. It's not a mathematical theorem that your attitude would be a little strange if you were in the first group, is it? (Not that you said it was.) I'm not being facetious or a wise guy--the scientific and mathematical methods are institutionalized differently...

So how did this all end, if I may ask?

The answers so far have many good points: you are being abused, you have been misled, you would do well to seek employment elsewhere, perhaps you were not assertive enough, and so on. But I believe none of that matters much compared to your decisions from this point on. You sound like a person who prefers to think ahead and plan important decisions rather than improvising—many researchers are thinkers who want to weigh their options and take their time to come to decisions. If you wish, you may plan for retribution and for taking a fight, but in the end this will not make your current workplace any more healthy for you to work in. I would suggest the following concrete steps of action:
Find the job advertisement you responded to, the written job description, your letter of application with any supplements (even if it was just an email), your employment contract, and any other documents (including emails) that pertain to the decision to accept your current employment. File these together in a place where they are safe and where you can find them if needed. Make copies. Assert to yourself that you were promised something that was not delivered.
Gather the articles you have written or started to write, regardless of whether they are published or not. Also, make a list of other work you have performed during your employment. For example, list the features you have implemented in the software system you described. File them together in a place where you can easily find them. Assert to yourself that you have performed well in your work despite the situation.
Look for a new job that is certain to either include research opportunities or to be totally unrelated to research but limited enough to allow you the mental capacity you need to conduct research on your own. Perhaps this position can be found within your current university, but in another group. Choose carefully and ask direct questions about what is most important for you: "how many days a week will I be able to work on research?", "how many days a week will I have to do overtime?", etc. Ask to meet one or two of your potential co-workers and ask them if they believe you would get what you are looking for. Be friendly and remember it is not their fault your current supervisor is misbehaving. Assert to yourself that you can consider the options in your own time and that the responses to your direct questions are what matters in your choice, not feelings that you are fabricating out of previous bad experiences.
Agree on the date when you will start in the new job, taking into account the conditions of your current employment. When you have signed the contract for the new position, immediately notify your current supervisor that you will move to another job and ask for a prioritised list of tasks that you should complete before leaving. Complete these tasks to the best of your ability and ask for a letter of reference. Assert to yourself that you have fulfilled the conditions of your employment and are entitled to a reference.
If your supervisor asks for a reason for you leaving, or becomes unreasonable, explain shortly that based on the job description, you thought you had a research position but it has turned out to be a technical position. Your supervisor is likely to try to bargain with you, and try to promise you more research opportunities in the future. Don't trust this promise—it comes from the person who misled you and who cannot be trusted. Stay firm but polite and state that you feel it is time for you to move on. Keep repeating this if the supervisor insists: you wanted to do research but the position is technical, and it is now time for you to move on. Assert to yourself that you have no obligation to explain your personal choices.
If your supervisor does not write the letter of recommendation, politely but shortly remind him a few (three) times (do it over email and save the emails), but then let it be. He will owe you one, and if you ever meet in the future, he will be the one who didn't behave properly. Assert to yourself that you have resolved the situation by your own actions and that any remaining problems are not yours.
If you got a new research position, engage frequently with your new supervisor and agree on writing a joint article. Make it something simple that you can complete soon. Focus on getting that article out, even at the expense of other assignments. Then keep repeating the exercise, taking on larger and larger projects, involving other members of your group. Share your successes and failures in your new job with your supervisor and your peers, and listen to their encouragement and advice.
If you didn't get a new research position, relax in your new job. Don't take on new things and just let your supervisor assign tasks to you. However, always carry out those tasks well. In your spare time, you can now complete the work you had started before, and build a small portfolio to support you in applying for a research position. Assert to yourself that you are not going into the game that your supervisor went into—you proceed in your own pace.
The most important thing after getting out of your current situation is not to bring with you any maladaptive behaviour that you may have developed as a result of the stressful and unreasonable environment you have worked in.
Good luck!

Many thanks--will get back to work (after this online  bellyaching) and put your plan into action.

+1; First of all, you were "led" by false promises, and should not be subject to them if you dont want to, and if you dont find it to be fulfilling enough. If the pay is low, the work is boring and the expectance of your dreams' fulfillment is close to nil, just leave. I think this response is well thought, well explained and is worth an acceptance.

Thanks for the clarification in response to my answer, as below.  I wish I could do +n for this answer. BEST WISHES for your future.

+1 Just beautifully written and entirely true, I cannot disagree with anything at all. Oh, maybe suggest one clarification: on paragraph of "prioritized list of tasks to complete before leaving", perhaps make clearer that this isn't open-ended - you'll work on them as best you can, in order, until your last day of work previously determined and communicated.

Your writing certainly does not betray a "lack of eloquence"; in fact, it's probably better than most of the computer scientists I know!
That said, as JeffE has indicated, you are being mishandled by your employers, and I would strongly encourage you to find a new position as soon as possible. However, it is important to point out that your situation is not academic versus industrial, but instead good employer versus bad employer. The distinction is crucial.
In any position, there will be parts of your job that are less appealing than others; the absolute "dream job" which you're happy about 100% only exists in Utopia. The key is to make sure that the important parts of your job give you more satisfaction than the less desirable aspects take away. Here, this clearly isn't the case. That does not mean that you can't find what you're looking for, either in industry or in academia. What it does mean is that you need to find it somewhere else than where you are, because it's clear the job isn't going to change in any sort of meaningful way in the short term.

Thank you for your response. The grant driven aspect of the work has led my supervisor to set wildly unrealistic deadlines. One case in particular could fairly be called abusive--I was not consulted. The result only could have been failure. I don't believe I have ever experienced the level of anxiety and panic I had before the deadline was lifted, thanks to a scheduling conflict at the funding agency where a demo was to be produced. I suspect that such predicaments will recur indefinitely. My coworkers have called this project a nightmare.  Rightly or wrongly, I am too traumatized to stay.

You are being taken advantage of.
You should check the rules at your institution relating to authorship.  It sounds like you have made a significant intellectual contribution to the papers that were published, so you deserve to be listed on them as an author.  There are means by which you can have yourself rightfully listed as an author on the papers.
The practice of more established academics taking advantage of postdocs and research assistants is widspread in university departments worldwide.  Your situation is all too common.
It does however sound like that you "walked into" the situation a little bit, and that you should have been more assertive and forthright from the start about your role in the team, your contribution to the papers that were published, and your rights as an author.
You should move on and view the situation as a learning experience for next time, and improve your self confidence and assertivenes.
Btw not sure what not having a wife and kids has to do with anything apart from you are able to take more risks with your career?

This sounds terrible and also highly questionable on the part of the research group. To provide help is difficult since the question really is one for you to solve in the sense that you need to think about your options. As I understand you stand very good chances of getting employed if you decide to leave your current position so employment does not seem to be the issue. This is a positive aspect of the situation because you have a "way out".
The decision is whether you value to continue with research (in its true sense). Added to your will is also the market of research positions. A careful check of what is out there and also possibly some contacts with groups/persons that are working on topics that within your sphere of interest. this allows you to sound out your possibilities so that you could set a time frame on your decision, when to pull the plug.
So i think the decision is exclusively yours and it hinges on probing your interests and the possibilities around you. I hope this is of some assistance.

Perhaps the situation in Ireland is different from other parts of the Commonwealth.  But I would have thought that the role of "research associate" would be that of a support person and not on the track to acquiring a PhD nor a means of building up "academic capital".
In my experience, you'd first need to acquire a PhD as the first step to building up your "academic capital" - another term for publish or perish (aka get funding or perish)
In the absence of more information it would appear that there is a difference between what you thought you were being hired for and what your employer hired you to do.  Another point ... you say "employer"; is that an academic institution?  or some enterprise undertaking research?

I have a Ph.D. There are other postdocs in the group with the same title who focus on research. However, I was informed somewhat after the fact that the group really wanted a much more qualified technical support person than it could otherwise obtain without changing the title. For the administration to approve the position, the candidate was required to have earned a Ph.D. The job description had to include the duties normally expected of postdocs: work on original research, publish, assist with grant preparation, etc. The actual duties deviate significantly from the approved job description.

Ireland left the Commonwealth in 1948.

"Research Associate" can be a very wide-ranging title. Where I work, it often translates to "postdoc", and sometimes to permanent research staff.


text:
Can reference letters be sent in after the application due date? If so, how late it can be?
I am applying for Ph.D. programs for fall 2025. I found that most universities' application deadlines are before the end of the 2024 fall semester (or slightly later). Does that mean that it is impossible for me to seek reference letters from the courses I take this fall? Is it possible to deliver the letters later than the deadline of the application?

This may strongly depend on the country and perhaps institution. However, I would generally assume a deadline is a deadline, especially for competitive applications. Note that this is different from whether you can get recommendations letters for the fall semester - if you stand out from your peers, you will stand out long before the end of the semester.

Is there a reason a professor cannot write a letter for you while the course is ongoing?  (One possible reason would be that the professor has no contact with you and no information about your performance other than the final exam, but in that case, the letter is going to be fairly uninformative no matter what - yes this disadvantages students coming from cultures where professors have little contact with students.)

united-states
I have seen applications where the deadline for letters is after the due date for the applicant. This may be more or less common in your field.
I have never been on an admissions committee, but I have heard that some applications will informally accept letters late because they are professors too, and may need a similar courtesy later. However, it is impossible to predict if the programs you are applying to include this courtesy if they don't mention it.
Nevertheless, this is all on the order of a week or two. If applications are due Nov. 1, then no, you don't have time to finish fall semester before asking that professor to write you a letter.
You may need to take this into consideration when asking someone to write you a letter. You are correct that if you ask a month before an Oct. 15 deadline, a professor may not be willing to write you a letter based on a few weeks of work.
In short, assume the posted deadline is a deadline, and take it into consideration when selecting letter-writers.
An aside, I know many faculty whose standard for who they write a letter for is more than a single class.

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


text:
ArXiv DOI and publication
I have submitted a paper to arXiv but it has been declined for the following reason:

Dear arXiv user,
Previously, our moderators requested that you only submit articles that have already appeared in a mainstream conventional journal. This article does not contain a valid journal reference or DOI (that resolves to a journal's website).
Therefore, your article has been declined.

So I created a DOI with zenodo: zenodo10.5281/zenodo.13785388
Is this a good way to do it? Will arXiv now accept the new version of my submission?

Hmmm, does your DOI resolve to a journal's website? The message you got seems unusual. Perhaps it has to do with dissatisfaction with your previous submissions. Is that the case?

I have already published 4 articles to arXiv and they never asked a DOI.

My paper has been declined. So the problem is solved. Thank you for your help!

our moderators requested that you only submit articles that have already appeared in a mainstream conventional journal

I believe this is a request because you've sent them a lot of junk in the past, and they are tired of your abuse of their archive.
Zenodo is not a mainstream conventional journal. It's not a journal at all. It's not that arXiv needs you to provide them with a DOI because they have some special need for DOIs. Instead, arXiv is tired of vetting your junk and only has the patience to deal with your next submission if you've gotten someone else to vet it already. The important part of their request to complete/fix is "already appeared in a mainstream conventional journal" not "This article does not contain a ... DOI".
If you do not understand what a journal is, it is unlikely that you are producing content that is appropriate for arXiv. You likely need a mentor in research to do any useful research. See also I believe I have solved a famous open problem. How do I convince people in the field that I am not a crank? which is relevant even if you do not believe you have solved a famous open problem.

The problem stated by arXiv is that "This article does not contain a valid journal reference or DOI (that resolves to a journal's website)".
Zenodo is not a journal, so creating a Zenodo DOI will not address this problem.

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


text:
My Misleading PhD Application Experience
This is just my personal experience, and not everyone will go through the same thing. After completing my Master's degree, I decided to apply for a PhD program. I began the application process and reached out to several professors. This story is about one of the professors with whom I had a Zoom meeting. We spoke that year for about an hour and a half on a weekend, according to the U.S. time zone. The conversation was excellent, with many questions asked and answered. The professor explained that many people apply, around 70-80 applicants, and only three to five are selected. He asked me questions about myself, my understanding of cultural differences, and whether I thought I might experience culture shock, and what might cause it for me. Most of the questions from his side were about this. I also asked questions about access to information since I would be coming from outside the U.S. Unfortunately, I found out later that the university required official documents, but I only had provisional ones at the time, and they didn't accept my application. I informed the professor that I would probably apply again next year, and he was supportive and encouraged me. I won’t deny that I was impressed and really wanted to work with him because our research interests were so aligned. Moreover, very few professors work in this particular field.
The following year, I emailed him again, informing him that I would apply with my official documents. He responded, assuring me that he would do his best. He emphasized again that the program was heavily committee-driven, which he had mentioned during our previous conversations as well. I didn’t doubt this because the program's website also stated that decisions were made by a committee. I knew that in some universities, professors have more power, while in others, the committee plays a bigger role. After submitting my application, during the months of waiting, I came across a post on Reddit where someone shared a link to the university's statistics, showing the number of applicants, acceptance rates, and their GPA for all departments. I checked my field and was shocked by the discrepancy in the numbers. The year I spoke with the professor, the number of applicants never even reached 70; it was around 50...30 applicants... And contrary to what the professor had said, seven students were accepted in one year, and in the year I couldn’t apply, six were accepted. Additionally, the average GPA of accepted students was quite low, even though the program’s website said that lower scores were still acceptable. I became suspicious, but I kept it in the back of my mind and moved on.
When I finally received my decision, I was rejected. I emailed the professor, asking for the reason, and he said the competition was tough. He gave me some numbers again, saying that 90 people applied that year. He said he defended my application, but the committee made the decision. I thanked him and mentioned that maybe my documents were weak. He replied, saying it was just the competition. However, I still had doubts because of the conflicting data. I told myself that if I wanted to find out the truth, I should investigate the 90 applicants claim. Initially, I decided to let it go, but I couldn’t stop thinking about it since I had worked so hard to get my official documents and apply. So, I sent an email from a fake account to the program director, expressing my interest in the program and asking whether a professor's support could still result in rejection by the committee. The director's response surprised me even more and confirmed my suspicions that the professor had been misleading me all along. The director explained that admissions were based on the professors' funding, and if a professor supported you, the committee would usually approve after a review. He said that most students who were accepted had followed this route. Essentially, the professor had a lot of power, especially if they had funding. The professor had told me during our meeting that the funding for students came from the program itself, and when I asked again, he confirmed this. I didn’t doubt him because I had seen that a couple of other universities where I had met with professors clearly stated on their websites that the program offered full funding.
What the professor never mentioned and completely concealed was the fact that if he didn’t have funding, he couldn’t accept a student at all. To be 100% sure, I asked the director how many people had applied that year and how many were accepted. He told me that around 60 people applied, and they accepted five. The only thing I did was to send the information the director provided to the professor using my main email account. I was furious because by telling me that the competition was high and the committee was the decision-maker (aside from all the false information he had provided), he had indirectly told me that I wasn’t good enough for the program and that my resume wasn’t competitive enough, even though he claimed he had tried his best and the committee rejected me.
I contacted the director again from my main email, explaining my situation, and asked what my exact weakness was. The director replied that the professor didn’t have funding, and that was why I was rejected. He also apologized for the situation. When I sent this data and pointed out the discrepancies to the professor, his only response was to say that the number I provided, i.e., 90 applicants, was normal and tried to justify it, even though the university’s data and the director’s statements were clear. Finally, in his last sentence, he admitted that he didn’t have any funding.
Looking back at our meeting and the questions he asked me, I can now see some red flags, but at the time, I trusted him—what else could I do? He was a professor I genuinely wanted to work with. I could have picked up on certain things from his Google Scholar page as well, like the fact that he had published very few papers, and there were huge gaps between them. However, we can't judge solely based on this because some professors focus on other aspects of their work. But even if his intentions were good, he should have told me the truth. He had been at the university for 33 years, so it’s impossible that he didn’t know how things worked and what the process was like.
How could you I identified the red flags earlier, and what advice would you give others to spot them in similar situations?
It's was ok to have 90 minutes meeting?
What do you think motivated the professor to mislead me?
To the professor, if you ever see this post: You were not worth the effort or the honesty I showed throughout this process. I just wish I understood why you did this to me and what your goal was.
He is a professor in urban planning at one of the top ten universities in this field.
How should I proceed?

Welcome to the site. It sounds like a very complicated experience. However, this site is specifically for Q&A, not general sharing of experiences.  Do you have a question that the community could answer?

Not the place to rant. And you are being unfair to a supportive person

@nateEldredge Thanks I added some
Is it ok to have 90 minutes meeting? My other meetings were never that long...

@Buffy in what way? And how?

‘It's was ok to have 90 minutes meeting?’ Yes it was.

"He had been at the university for 33 years, so it’s impossible that he didn’t know how things worked and what the process was like." From experience, that is not impossible in the least.

Not impossible but very rare... likely zero ...when you're in the committee for several years...he knew the true reason of rejection he knew the process...

You are making a lot of assumptions and implying the worst.

The problem with this kind of questions is exactly what @Buffy mentions, making too many assumptions and implying the worst or that some foul play is involved, and we only have one side of the story, and were not present at any interactions, so it is easy to be misled by rejection (pain), people here are trying to give you advice to move on, and you should do that,

Ok but you're checking this every minute like you are interested...as you say you're not please don't leave any comments here

I have moved on and just shared my experience nothing else...I don't want others to experience what I went through

You’ve asked for help from others. Gratitude for their comments, whether you agree with them or not, is appropriate and civil.

Let it go.
You didn't get into a program and that hurts. The professor in question was somewhat disingenuous, and didn't want to directly give you a hard rejection.
The difference between 30, 40, 50, or 90 applicants is immaterial, especially in a live conversation working on memory. Likewise the difference between 5, 6, or 7 acceptances is completely irrelevant. None of this is worth spending any thought on, to say nothing of an extended cloak-and-dagger investigation.
Find another positive prospect and pursue that instead.

It was the hardest rejection I have ever got in my life...I think being honest about the funding situation was the best thing he could do

I've added an answerable question at the end of your post and will try to answer that...
I seldom answer "questions" that I've voted to close and I seldom respond in detail to rants, but I'll make an exception. This is too long for a comment stream, though it might well be deleted.
First the answer and then comments on your rant. I'll assume you want a path to success and will try to give an outline.
If you want to get accepted into a doctoral program you first need to understand and comply with the rules and processes of the place you apply to. These vary widely in the world, but in the US the standard (not universal) is to apply to an admissions committee. Individual professors not on the committee may have no say whatever in the outcome, even if they would like someone admitted. And, even when on the committee, only have one vote and must still consider balance and fairness based on application materials. See the various answers to the canonical question on doctoral admissions for detail on the various standards.
Next, cast a broad net for programs. Don't apply to just a few and don't apply to only similar institutions. If you cast a narrow net, being rejected by one is (somewhat) correlated with being rejected by other similar places.
Next, note that competition is fierce in some fields, but I don't know about yours specifically. If the field is small with only a few relevant institutions the competition can be fierce even with small numbers.
Next, note that if 60 apply and 5 are accepted (not especially unusual) then 55 people are in your same situation.
Next, make your application stronger if possible. In the US that means, to a large extent, getting very strong letters of recommendation from those who know you and your work well and can honestly attest to your likelihood of success in the program and in the career.
Your statement of purpose should also contain the appropriate things, being forward looking. What (sub) field are you interested in, which suggestions for possible research if you have that. Also, career goals are useful to include. Don't repeat the CV and don't give excuses for anything lacking or negative.

To respond to the rant. I think you are being unfair to this professor. They tried to be helpful and in your own words they were  honest with you. They said the acceptance was up to a committee. They spent time with you, which not everyone is willing to do. They may have no say in the process and, as in some places, it might have been improper to intervene if they aren't on the committee. In some, but not all places, a professor can have some influence, but there is no reason to blame them specifically if they don't. And, even committee members seldom get a decisive vote, though practice varies.
It is also common in many (most?) fields in the US, that professors don't provide funding. The funding comes from the department or the university, often in the form of a Teaching Assistantship, or possibly (rarer) a Research Assistantship. But that funding is independent (normally) of the question of acceptance into the program. In some fields (math, CS) nearly every accepted student gets a TA since there is a huge need to support the undergraduate program in the field. That may or may not be the case in urban planning. Funding is probably harder in fields that don't have a corresponding large undergraduate program and likely depend on grants, which can be difficult to get (and maintain).
Your comments about funding and what you describe as the professor's statements suggest to me that the professor might just be new (to the application process) and not familiar, yet, with how things work in that department. What they describe is common, as I note here, but not universal.
It isn't surprising that the professor didn't have accurate numbers about applicants if they were not on the admissions committee. I never had such information and might be guessing based on random comments from colleagues ("Darn, we're flooded this cycle..."). It would take time and effort to eke that out and the numbers change.
I'm sorry you are frustrated, but you need to stop blaming others and up your game. If you do that you can find success. But if you exude anger always then few will want to work with you.

He was on the committee and is...he wasn't transparent about the process and wrote ...I found the funding problem after rejection not from Prof but from the director

I know funding from uni is common but the it wasn't the case in that uni and he knew that from the beginning... And you're really biased ...I had the right to know the truth...

Rage is not a superpower. Effectiveness is. Find a path with more likelihood of success.

I just shared my experience and asked some questions... that's all


text:
failed phd admission promise
I got cheated for months in believing a professor's nonsense and lie, he did mentioned that if I could prove continuum hypothesis then I can gain admission for the university math phd.  The university is NUS. I just can't believe that they actually cheated me for it , and I have wasted for months in proving it. Just think about the effort and amount of time I have lost for that. I don't understand

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

This is not a place to discuss the accuracy/validity of your proof.

While it probably wasn't appropriate it also seems to have been a test. I think they saw something in your "application" that suggested that you weren't ready and that they gave you an extremely difficult, maybe impossible task, just to see if you would recognize it as such, which you did not.
Had you replied "Very funny!" rather than wasting months on an essentially impossible task you might have fared better.
They didn't lie to you. Had you provided a proof you would probably have been granted a degree and become world famous overnight.

As a mathematician, I'll guess that the CH depends on the axiom system used. There doesn't seem to be contrary evidence with standard axioms, but there might be with a slightly(?) modified system. Non-Standard Analysis has this property. It uses a modified axiom system to demonstrate the "existence" of "epsilons".

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

Am I understanding the Wikipedia article on the continuum hypothesis correctly? It asserts that the CH is independent of ZFC, i.e. it (or its negation) could be added to ZFC without affecting its consistency. This seems to suggest that the CH cannot be proved or disproved, which would in turn imply that Had you provided a proof you would probably have been granted a degree and become world famous overnight is impossible (?)

@Allure, ah, if life (and math) were only so simple. A valid proof would imply a flaw in Cohen's work, which won a Fields Medal. Extremely unlikely, but not necessarily impossible. I haven't followed up on this but a model of sets in which the CH definitely did not hold would be interesting if  it were consistent with ZFC. I don't know if such exists.


text:
Is it damaging to have a Withdraw on a continuing education transcript when applying to PhD program?
Currently I am taking a fairly relevant course (self-paced, online) from a continuing education (CE) service of a U.S. regional institution. Today, I am planning to drop it because:

I was also taking another course (term-based) and I work a full-time job. It has been hard to handle the courses for me, and I might not make it before the deadline of the course,
I was taking the course to refresh my knowledge and thought that it would offer new knowledge, but after several modules, it looks like the course has a lot of overlap with one I took few years ago in college.

My question is, will a W be damaging to my application when it is the only thing on the transcript from this CE service? and how should I address/explain this if I need to?

For US admissions, at least, I wouldn't worry about it. A W isn't a failure. The explanations you give here are enough, but it seems unlikely you would even be asked.
If you had half a dozen withdrawals, it might raise questions, but would, again be unlikely to be disqualifying in most cases.
Admissions judgements are based on more important and relevant things.

Thank you, I was very worried because I would have a separate transcript with only a W on it. If I understand correctly, I won't have to explain it in my SoP?

Don't use the SoP to explain the past. Make it future looking. What are your goals for grad study and thereafter?

Thank you, I was using the SoP to mainly discuss my motivation, goal, and plan. It is reassuring that I don't need to explain a W

A few words about career goals can also help, IMO.

A graduate committee wants confidence that you won't flunk out on coursework and waste the resources the program has pumped into you.  A W will hurt if you have too many C's on the rest of your transcript.

Actually, too many C's is an issue even without any W. Especially in core courses. That would need serious explaining.

Thank you both! I actually did not get a C in undergraduate study so I guess I am safe


text:
Volunteering the French-English translation of old research monograph in math - ethical, copyright issues and Latex source?
I am only starting to learn the French, but I already need to read 1971 French mathematical book (https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=0344253), others wanted to read it too.
I am considering the idea about my pet project in which I could translate parts of this book in the English language and put them into some blog page (I can make my personal blog page for this). But I have many concerns. Is it ethical to do this, because it will not be the professional translation (this is math monograph and that is why it requires a bit less translational art than other domain, so, it can be less of concern)? What about copyrights? And can comeone provide me with Latex source (author is deceased, I am not sure that Springer keeps Latex source for 50 years old books) in which I can update the French text and keep the formulas and (category theoretic) diagrams intact.
I am aware that I have to open separate questions (in their respective Stackexchange sites) about copyrights, about Latex source and maybe about French terms. That is OK and I may do this.
But this my question is about the idea itself - is such pet project acceptable, can it succeed, are the publishers and authors open to such ideas? I.e. this question is about the problem - whether to start such pet project at all or I just need to learn French and to do private translation and disregard any benefit to the community which can arise from such public translation project.
This book is only one example. I have several other (more recent) books that are very interesting but in French and whose English availability could be great.

LaTeX was relesed in 1984, so the LaTeX source must be younger than 50 years :)

I guess - it is easier to learn French than to read even a one math monograph. So, maybe everyone interested already knows or will definitely learn French.

@TomR Or there are professional translations. Or no one cares about this particular monograph enough and find related work elsewhere. Oh and yes, for a project like this, even if it was produced 20 years ago, it is quite unreasonable to expect LaTeX sources: one would either have to find a good parser or reproduce formulae themselves.

@Lodinn Actually I can not remember any French math book that is translated into English. Yes, there are lot of translations for books in philosophy, etc., but I feel that mathematicians better learn foreign language than wait for translation. I know that Russia/USSR had excellent culture of translations to-from Russian language, but I guess that was more about how they handled necessity to purchase 1000+ copies for their country and less about language barrier (how they call it). Just to add, I have no problem reading math texts in Russian. Now I have to learn French.

The work is likely still under copyright in France. According to this (which may be incomplete) works published before 1997 were protected for the lifetime of the author + 50 years, and Jean Giraud appears to have passed away in 2007. Other countries is a different issue, as works might not have received protection at the time unless registered. All in all, it might be easier to just ask for permission...

@EarlGrey And TeX was released in 1978.

@TomR Counter-example: Bourbaki

@TomR Actually I can not remember any French math book that is translated into English Actually, there are many: for a few examples, the books by R. Godement, this other book by H. Brezis, ...

or this other book by M. Berger. Just to name a few, but you can easily find other examples.

I did something similar with an old French language paper I wanted to make available to a broader audience so I translated to English. The translation is available on my web page. I have not gotten in any trouble for doing this, and from an ethical point of view I am at peace with my decision. I am motivated by the desire to make the world a slightly better place.
I can’t advise you what to do, but this is what I did, for what it’s worth.
P.S. LaTeX did not exist in 1971, so be prepared to typeset your translation from scratch.

Instead of "be prepared to typeset your translation from scratch", I would say, "be prepared to use Mathpix" ;-) I also suggest trying out deepl, its translations are really good.

You might start by asking the likely copyright holder, the publisher, if they’d be interested in an English translation of this work. They’re probably not, but they might agree with you that there is a market for it, and ask for a proposal. If they say no, you might ask if you can do one as a project and promise not to distribute your final result.
Everyone else is right. This was likely typeset by hand, and you’ll have to redo the mathematical typesetting in LaTeX yourself.
If you really want English speakers to have access to a free copy, I doubt you’ll get it for free from the publisher. But I do encourage you to ask.

A book from 1971 might still be under copyright. One of the normally retained rights is that of translation. You need to settle this before you publish anything, including on a personal web site (blog).
If Springer holds the unexpired copyright then you need to contact them. They might well give you permission to translate it and, perhaps, have Springer do the re-publication.
Note that a lot of copyright law changed after the publication date of this work. Some of those changes extended the life of copyright.
LaTex is unlikely in any case.
And, if the copyright has expired you can do what you like.

A book from 1971 is still under copyright, unless released by the author, unless you live in Canada or one of the other nations that copyright works for life of the author plus 50 years and the author dropped dead right after publishing it. India is life+60 and most of the developed world is life + 70, with the US being 95 years from publication, so all of those have a certainty of it being in copyright.

I see no ethical issue with this, provided you are clear about the roles of yourself and the original author and publisher (which you would surely do anyway). I fail to see what difference it makes whether it is “professional” (assuming there is such a thing as a “professional” translation to begin with).
There is a copyright issue, though, which you should resolve before doing anything else. This is well-covered by other answers.
If you are in a position to do so, consider paraphrasing the book and releasing your work under a Free Culture License, which avoids copyright issues for both you and those who wish to further build on your work. In particular, you will not have restrictions on what you can do with your own work, as you probably would if you made an agreement with the original publisher.

Paraphrasing is no different than translating, legally speaking. Both will result in a derivative work.

@DanRomik I haven’t got around to preparing a full response, but as this answer is starting to gather downvotes, here is a quick response. What you said is true for a so-called “close paraphrase”, where ideas are expressed in a similar order and a similar manner to the original book. But a “close paraphrase” is not a proper paraphrase to begin with (at least, that is what I remember my school saying, when they were teaching research skills), and it is not my intended meaning of “paraphrase”. This should be clear from the fact that I refer to “paraphrasing” as distinct from mere “translation”.

I have no idea what “close paraphrase” and “proper paraphrase” are. I stand by what I said. Some schools teach students that paraphrasing is okay in the context of avoiding plagiarism in academic work if the paraphrased text is sufficiently modified from the original. Maybe that’s what you’re referring to, I’m not sure. But this has nothing to do with the legal issue of copyright.


text:
Trying to switch fields from PhD in computational biology to postdoc in machine learning/stats, how to increase likelihood of success?
All of the following takes place in a UK university.
I have a BSc in Physics and an MSc in Computer Science. My thesis was on applying various machine learning/statistical techniques to biological datasets. I wanted to do something similar for my PhD, however my supervisor left the university.
I am now in the first year of my PhD in Computer Science, specifically Computational Biology. My work focuses on comparing different techniques (physical/statistical/machine learning) in single cell simulations. I am finding it hard to incorporate machine learning techniques into my work as there aren't many datasets for the kind of thing my supervisor wants me to do and so the machine learning approach is proving tricky.
I desperately want a job/postdoc in a machine learning/stats environment.

Lots of post docs I know switched field after their PhD e.g. Astro-physics to machine learning, dependable systems to machine learning, Biophysics to compiler design. In my case would anyone in the ML community take me seriously? (I thought my Msc would help me out...)
I have taught myself a fair bit of ML and stats, is there anything else I should do to increase the likelihood of getting an ML/stats postdoc?
Would anyone in a stats department take me seriously as I have no maths degree?
Do people that change career areas have successful careers or is this normally a red flag?

Are you planning to do theoretical CS work in your PhD, or will it only be application of known methods? Also, can you clarify what kind of ML/stats postdoc you want - theoretical ML/stats, applied (in what field?), computational biology?

@Bitwise I'm pretty sure that it will be mostly applications of existing techniques. However if I discovered new techniques I'd definitely publish them. In terms of an ML/stats postdoc, i'm not picky, but given my existing expertise I think applied would suit the most. I would prefer a non biological application, but beggars can't be choosers!

is there anything else I should do to increase the likelihood of getting an ML/stats postdoc? — Yes.  Publish.

One question I would ask is if you're in the first year of the Ph.D, but are thinking so far ahead that you want your eventual career to be about ML, why not switch gears and go into ML right now (or after your project) by switching topics/advisors/data sets, or getting collaboration with an ML prof, etc.?

@Irwin this is exactly what I am trying to do, I am trying to make my current work as ML-centric as possible. My supervisor is a big fan of ML, but the problem is getting hold of the relevant datasets.

@RNs_Ghost Just to comment on "there aren't many datasets for the kind of thing my supervisor wants me to do" => why don't you create a high quality dataset for the task? Sure, it is time consuming, but datasets, if useful, can then get highly cited.

My answer is based more on experience from computational biology, but I think it is relevant for other fields:

Changing fields is very common in academia, especially at the PhD/postdoc transition. In many cases it is actually considered an advantage, since you can import your skills, expertise and a certain thought-process into a field in which many people do not have those skills. For example, many physicists, computer scientists and mathematicians have migrated to biology and have made significant contributions. In fact, there are even postdoctoral fellowships that specifically fund this type of field-change.
Regarding your "will they take me seriously" questions: Since you are aiming mostly at applied ML/stats, I don't think you should be too concerned if the ML/stats theoretical community take you seriously. Many theorists tend to look down on applied science - don't worry about it, you can still have a significant impact without advancing any theory. It sounds like in the future you will either belong to the department in which you want to apply the techniques (e.g. a biology department) or will work very closely with people in those departments. In this case, you will usually be considered the ML/stats expert.
Having said all that, of course it is your job to become an expert. Teaching yourself the theory is important, but if you are going for applied science, especially applied ML/stats, it would be a big advantage to get actual experience in using them. There is a huge difference between learning about these methods and actually implementing and using them. You will see that during your PhD you can often expand your research in directions you are more interested in. It shouldn't be too difficult to use some ML/stats creatively in some sub-projects (which could later be expanded).

thanks. If I were to decide that I wanted to stay in a CS department and work on something more theoretical, then I suppose my publications would have to include coming up with some novel techniques instead of just applying existing ones?

@RRs_Ghost theoretical work would either be coming up with new methods, improving/expanding current methods or general theoretical work. Of course when I say "coming up with a new method", I mean this in the theoretical sense, i.e. mathematically developing the method and proving certain properties of it (e.g. convergence to a good solution with the increase of the amount of data).

It depends strongly on what you want to do after pursing a PhD degree. More precisely, if you want to work as a technical staff then yes. It affects your career chances because it doesn't help a company that you are an expert, and therefore they have to pay you more than the average, in a different area and you don't have a proven solid background in the area where they want to be hired.
However, if you decided for working as a manager, sale, marketing or administration (e.g. signing applications) then it doesn't matter in which field do you have your PhD. In some positions, it is required to have a PhD title, no more.


text:
What to do when PhD advisor wants student to work on two disjoint projects?
My PhD advisor wants me to work on two different problems during my PhD. One is the a problem of their suggestion and another is collaborative work with some company. Both the problems are disjoint. I have been given  the option, that if I want to work on one problem  then it should be the problem on for my advisor's collaborative research and I should leave the problem initially suggested. However, I don't want to give up my present problem as that sounds interesting to me and I have already worked for one year on it. When I told my advisor that I don't find the collaborative work interesting, it was suggested that I work on both the problems. However, I am finding it hard to work on two problems. Its like a dual PhD for me. I cannot say anything to my advisor as I'm told I have to work on the collaborative work as my stipend comes from it and else I should leave the PhD. My advisor also does not  advise me when I propose ideas about my previous research. Please suggest what should I do?

Is it possible to find a new advisor?  The situation doesn't quite rise to the level of "don't walk; run", but it certainly suggests that you and your current advisor are not a good match.

And the problem is...? Depending on your field it may be typical (or even - expected) to work on a few different projects. So, is it about projects requiring different expertise (and not enough time to learn both), about workload, about your preference to focus on one, etc?

Please edit details back into your question. By deleting the specifics of your situation the question and its answers become meaningless.

I am just passing my comprehensive exam now (3.5 years as a Ph.D. student) and I have already worked on about 4 different projects due to funding...I work on what I want in my dissertation on the side (the 4th project).  My advisor, and another PI that I was doing work with, and myself together wrote and submitted 3 separate grant proposals to continue my initial work, and I wrote 5 fellowship proposals to continue my initial work, and nothing was funded (so I had to switch). It isn't surprising when projects are funding dependent.  At least I have become a better writer...

The most important line in your post seems to be one that you didn't give much weight to: "my stipend comes from [the collaborative project]". From my experience, this is a common situation, where the money for your stipend comes from a project you're not interested in pursuing.
Unfortunately, the only real alternative for you is to write your own grant proposal, which is a significant investment of time for both you and your advisor, and carries the not-so-minor risk that the grant won't be funded, which leaves you exactly where you started, with the added problem that there hasn't been much progress on the existing grant.
The second alternative is to leave the advisor and try to find someone else, but I would recommend against that for two reasons. Firstly, it's hard to find someone else with funding on a project you like. Secondly, the problem you're having now—the funded project is less interesting than the unfunded project—is one you'll likely face again in the future. Your advisor's approach of pursuing both projects is (again, from my experience) a typical way of dealing with this, and it will likely benefit you to have experience with this approach during your PhD years.
I recognize that it means extra work for you, and I don't really have much advice on that front. Try not to think of it as extra work, but rather as extra publications in different research areas. That helps minimize the sting.

Secondly, the problem you're having now—the funded project is less interesting than the unfunded project—is one you'll likely face again in the future. — Really?  Why?

@JeffE - From my experience (in neurosci & various engineering subdisciplines), there are many cases where the overarching grant—which you applied for because it's where the money is—was intended for one purpose, but interesting and only tangentially related problems crop up on the side on a regular basis. Managing the actual grant expectations with the side projects is an art that I never really understood, and got burned by on more than one occasion as a grad student.

But (ideally) that's the advisor's problem, not the student's.  What I find puzzling is the eagerness of the advisor to hire someone onto a project who isn't enthusiastic about that project.  (No, that's not obviously better than not hiring anyone.)

@JeffE: "No, that's not obviously better than not hiring anyone." - I suppose that depends on how strong an obligation the advisor has to fill the position.

It depends on how committed you are to the research project.  Your Ph.D. thesis can strongly influence your future course in academia and research.  That being said, plenty of Ph.D. recipients have gone on to do research in fields quite distinct from their thesis work.
If your funding is tied to one of the projects, it would certainly be easier to find the time to complete your thesis by working on that project alone.  However, you should only make this shift if the funded project is also interesting to you.  There few things as difficult as finishing a thesis on a topic in which you are not interested.
Ultimately, what matters most about your Ph.D. thesis is that you finish it.  If you think that finding time to work on your thesis will be most limiting, then you should choose the funded topic.  If you think that staying interested in your research is the biggest hurdle, then you should choose the topic you are interested in, even if it takes you longer to graduate on account of your other obligations.


text:
As an independent/non-affiliated researcher, what would I replace a logo with on a business card?
I'm currently not affiliated with any academic institution; but - I still get around, interact and need some business cards.
The thing is, without any institutional information, a card tends to look kind of empty if it just has your name, address, email, and phone (and maybe your website).
Also, having an institute/company logo gives the business card a basic color scheme to work with, and anchors to position elements "against".
What would be a useful replacement - content-wise or design-wise - for an institute/company logo?

Was about to write a similar answer with photo... But reverse side may contain your topic(s) of research?

@SolarMike: I was asking about the primary side. Reverse side is a whole other kettle of fish!

Well, hope it goes well anyway.

Consider affiliating with the Ronin Institute: http://ronininstitute.org/ They supply a logo you could use

I have seen plenty of business cards, even for real businesses that do not use logos and graphics and just contain text. However, some are distinctive by the use of coloured card, and other features.
I have also seen personal cards that contain a photo in place of an icon or logo. Really useful to assist contact to remember who the card came from.
Its all about design and function really.

For example, none of these (extremely classy) business cards have any logos:  https://youtu.be/cISYzA36-ZY?t=84


text:
I need some code that was made available by a student 15 years ago, but is no longer online. How can I contact someone in the group to get the code?
I need Matlab code of a method to compare it with the results of my proposed method.
The method which I want to use happened to be available online by a research group in a university in US in 1997  [see here]. Unfortunately, when I click the corresponding link of the method, it gives a server Error message. I've tried to email the person who seems to be responsible for this page, but I didn't get a reply.   This page also returns a server error.
As I urgently need this code, what should I do to contact to this research group?
Also, how can I convince them to give me the code?

Have you tried the wayback machine?  If that doesn't work, look for current contact info for the developers.

What is wayback machine? Also, Do you think I should contact the developer directly? It's a good try but I am pretty sure he wont reply coz he is so famous in his field(maybe top 10). @Kimball

Did you try this (a registration page that looks like it links to the NBI software. Never mind; I clicked through and it didn't link to anything.

Yes, I fill out the registration form, but after accepting the lisence at the bottom of the page it returned me to a server error, i.e., page not found. @mkennedy

Here's the linkedin page of Indraneel Das

Thanks, I wil try to contact him and see what will happen. @mkennedy

sorry sorry, it was another guy, I edited my comment. @mkennedy

Check out this page I found on the "wayback machine"; all the way at the bottom of the page you can find some details.

That package is from 1997! Even in the highly unlikely event that you were able to get your hands on it, I wouldn't expect it to run on a modern MATLAB system without a lot of effort on your part.

@ff524 I have a lot of MATLAB code from around 1997 that still runs just fine.

@MadJack Thanks I found the most recent version of that codes from the link you gave me. Unfortunately, the latest update if for Matlab version 5 and I cannot run it on my 2014.

I got the most updated, version 5, code of the method. Sadly, you are right, there are a lot of errors due to matlab functions modification in the recent versions. Many functions have been removed or severely changed.@ff524

PhD students come and move on, so if you are looking for code that isn't exactly brand new then contacting the responsible professor is usually your best bet. That being said, I would not get my hopes up too much that you get your code "urgently". There is a good chance that even the responsible professor will need to do some good ol' digging before (s)he unearths this material, if at all (and then there is still a good chance that nobody knows anymore how to make it work, or that it does not run anymore on today's platforms). Assume that this is going to be a bit of a project on its own.

well, still at their website they put a form that you can fill out and get the code. it seems they are a big  research team. If they didnt want me to download the codes so they wouldnt put that form and other stuff to address the free package, I guess, its a server error and technical. So I should find a way to let them know there is a problem in their website. @xLeitix

@Electricman "If they didnt want me to download the codes so they wouldnt put that form and other stuff to address the free pack" - All we know is that in 1997, when they put up that page, there was someone interested in disseminating the code. That person is now long gone, and it's highly likely that nobody else cares. The fact that the website still has the form just means that nobody bothered to take it down.

@Electricman If anything, the fact that the form is still there is probably a bad sign, not a good one. It means that the site has probably been completely forgotten and untouched for years. I'm guessing that your requests are all going to some long-defunct email inbox that hasn't been checked in a decade.

The MATLAB R13SP2 Model-Based Calibration Toolbox (hopefully the link works without a MATLAB license/account) contained the NBI algorithm:

To understand the options for the NBI algorithm, some limited understanding of the algorithm is required. For more information on the NBI algorithm, see the NBI home page at the following URL: http://www.caam.rice.edu/~indra/NBIhomepage.html

While the NBI link is dead, it is the same link you are asking about, so it is potentially the same algorithm.
MATLAB R13SP2 (6.5.2) was released in 2003 so is not quite as old as the original link, but it is still old. I cannot find any documentation which says that newer releases of MATLAB contain the NBI algorithm (but nor did I find any documentation that it has been removed). My Mathworks account and license allows me to download R13SP2. The system requirements suggest it should work on Windows XP or 32 bit Linux (you might need an old kernel and glibc).

Yea I saw that toolbox before, But it's not available for my Matlab 2014. So should I contact my university to get the 2003 version of Matlab? Also that NBI homepage doesn't work.I have mac OSX 10.9, but my university only has windows version in the best condition. @StrongBad

@Electricman I would email the Mathworks and ask what version it was removed and then figure out how to get access to that version.

It seems like a good idea. I will do that. Thanks @StrongBad

I found the recent updated codes of that method from wayback machine. the version is still too old, i.e., version 5. there are many many errors due to matlab functions modification in the recent versions and also I cannot have old version of matlab