text:
Getting into the Computer Science Industry
I am a soon to be fourth year graduate student in mathematics (PhD track). Originally, I wanted to work in academia, but am realizing this is an uncertain path. I feel compelled to finish my PhD degree because I have only two years left (next academic year I must attend as well) and am already pretty far in. But, I want to prepare myself in the meantime for the likely possibility that I will not get a job in academia.
I would like to get into computer science. I did a minor in computer science during my undergrad, so it is not completely foreign to me. But, I do not know what I should do next. Should I be applying for masters programs in CS or is there a better path to get into the computer science industry? I have seen that people have been successful with coding bootcamps and what not, but is this the kind of things that most employers are looking for?

Every path is uncertain.

You would find a life of coding, per se, extremely boring. Look around at the things that require an analytical mind. I doubt that you need any additional degrees. But look beyond CS. Finance, for example.

@Buffy I just feel like I am behind the game in finance. I am doing very theoretical mathematics and haven't got a clue of where I would even start if I wanted to pursue a career in finance.

Ask people who hire in the field or who have been hired.  The users on this site are academics, not industry people.

As "computer science" covers anything from front end web development to artificial intelligence so I recommend you try to go in a direction which utilizes your mathematics background. Look into more advanced computer science where your PHD will mean something. In that case you will probably want to take courses rather than the 3 month cram sessions. Those teach you to get a job coding even though you were previously in house keeping. I know because I've worked with them. Some are really good coders. You don't even need a B.S. anymore to do most programming. Do something that is at your level.

Coding is a useful skill but not a career. You are unlikely to need any additional degrees but some self study would be very useful. A coding bootcamp in, say Python, might be a place to start if you haven't programmed before.
But you will need some additional work in algorithms and their analysis as well as computing theory (computability, for example). But with a degree in math you can study those things on your own from books.
It was long ago but I taught myself computing after finishing a math PhD due to the lack of math jobs in academia at the time. Later I was able to get some good instruction in summer courses and such.
But, don't expect any road you take to be easy. An analytical mind is a big help in many sorts of things, but it doesn't necessarily pay you well. In industry you will be more involved in product related activities and you might find it boring. If you are lucky you can get in to some research lab at one of the big places that value such skills as you have.
If you are still a student you can wander in to the CS department and talk to a couple of people (yeah, coronavirus...) and get an idea about a possible path. Just a list of courses that they give with a list of textbooks might be enough.

I take your point, but do I need to be concerned that I have the correct accreditation? Is it enough to just go up to employers and claim that I have done a bunch of additional work in my spare time? I worry that this may not be taken seriously.

I doubt it. With a PhD you have proven that you can learn and be productive. But for low level jobs (that you don't want) it might be an issue. If some place wants to check boxes you probably don't want to work there anyway. But since you are learning something new, don't forget that practice is required. And practice.

@user132498 - what country?  In the US, they'll interview you, and if you seem competent, they'll hire you.  If you don't still seem competent 3 months later, they'll just fire you.

Typically (in the US) you prove that you know how to code, reason about algorithms, etc. by answering technical questions during several rounds of interviews. A PhD in math is a SERIOUS accreditation - you just need to prove that you're good at talking about analytical problems in a non-academic context and that you're not totally clueless about coding etc. (This is even more true in finance - lots of places are happy to hire math people with solid interpersonal skills with no finance background and expect you to pick up what you need quickly on the job).

@AlexanderWoo And in Australia, if they're not convinced that you're 100% ready to contribute the moment you're hired, they won't hire you, because they're afraid you'll take whatever training they gave you and jump ship to another company.

re: "correct accreditation", often a degree in CS is a requirement for jobs, but often it's "or equivalent", and I suspect a PhD in Math + some evidence of coding skills would work in many places. Evidence of coding skills will be important in general: a "portfolio" of projects (on github for example) is a good idea, and can help you make it to the interview stage.


text:
Job Talk, "Present a Calculus Topic"
I am going in for an on campus interview next week. I was told I need to do a 30 minute presentation on a "calculus topic" (the job is for a math tutoring center director at a small liberal arts college). I was told I can use white board space or any other technology. Originally, I thought this meant candidates are supposed to select a section from the standard curriculum and perform a teaching demonstration.
However, when I was given details about the "Talk" I was told to submit a title and abstract. This was slightly confusing to me, as title and abstract usually are more "general audience talks" on a topic people may have not seen, not a teaching demonstration. I sent an email to the search committee asking for clarification on whether this was supposed to be a "general audience talk" or a teaching demonstration (as I would do it in class). I was told the following:
"One of the purposes of the talk is to get an idea of how well the Math Center Director would explain math when working with students, so we would like to see each candidate present a calculus topic.  To be consistent with what we have requested of the other candidates for the position, please select one topic from calculus that you would like to present."
I think this means that it is a teaching demonstration for a particular section in the calculus curriculum, but how would you give an abstract in this case (presumably, they would already know about the material).
If anybody could decipher what kind of "talk" this is supposed to be, that would be very helpful. I have sent a couple of lines of communication, but I am still not completely sure what the "talk" is supposed to be.

Why don't you first ask them, rather than us?

I asked whether this is a "teaching demonstration" of something I would do in class explaining a, or something that "is more general" (similar to what Buffy said, something that develops insight. The quote I gave above was the response I was given. It is still unclear to me which is why I asked here)

Actually, it seems pretty straightforward. Pick a section (short section = 30 minutes) and develop a lecture. For the abstract mention the section and how you want to approach it. Stress motivation and insight rather than detail in the abstract.
My advice would be to take something that will generate insights into the inner workings of things and focus on that in both the abstract and the talk. One of my own favorite topics is how to use derivative information (first and second, say) to get insight into how rational functions behave.
I'd guess that the idea of having you write up an abstract is twofold. One is simply so that the audience can be prepared if they like, but also to get an idea of your writing competence.

Thanks for the information: Should I do specific examples like I would in an actual class (ex. using the first derivative test to find intervals of increasing/decreasing)?

Maybe something like that. Note that simple applications like this are easier to do in a short period than theoretical ones (like the definition of the derivative and its meaning).  Pick examples that don't lead to a lot of complications.

Thanks, in addition should I like to do some "active learning" activities during class (like identifying errors in student work). Do you think that this would be appropriate for this kind of talk?

It might be hard given the time constraints, but you could mention it in the abstract. It is an opportunity to express more about teaching philosophy than can be demonstrated in a short segment.

Absolutely do examples like in a normal class. I've seen active learning done really well in this kind of talk, but it is a bit more difficult to pull off than a lecture. But in general I think you're overthinking this, it's not supposed to be substantially different from a normal class that you'd teach.

I think you’ve understood correctly what kind of talk they’re expecting: a sample 30 minute class excerpt from a calculus class.  I agree that it’s slightly weird to give a title/abstract for that, but the point is they need to advertise your talk and put it on their calendar and that requires some kind of title and abstract.  You might try looking at their seminars webpage to see whether you can find how this was dealt with in the past.  But I would just title pick a title that describes which section you’re covering (e.g. “maxima, minima, and critical points”) and write a short abstract (e.g. “This is a sample calculus lecture on maxima, minima, and critical points.  We will discuss local and global minima and maxima and Fermat’s theorem explaining how they’re related to critical points.”).

The point of an abstract is to convey concisely what you will talk about, and not to tell the reader something new. So write your abstract accordingly.

My question is not necessarily about the abstract, it is more of the type of talk. Is it supposed to be a "teaching demonstration" of how I would explain a topic in calculus to a student or is it more of a "general audience" talk about something that is calculus related. When I think of "abstract" and "title" I usually think of the latter, but it seems like they would like to see more of a teaching demonstration (which I find it weird they would want a title/abstract).

I don't think it's all to weird to give an abstract for a teaching demonstration. I mean - why not? You'd also give an abstract when you give tutorials.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Lecturer asks for argument for re-submission
Our group submitted part 1 of an assignment a few hours before the deadline, only to realise one of our links to the a piece of work was incorrect.
As soon as we found out, we emailed him explaining the situation and asking if there were consequences and if so what would they be.
He replied asking what we think should be done; arguments for and against re-submitting in our case from the perspective a university assignment and as a deliverable to a client.
How could I reply?

If you were a client and received a promised product with errors in it, what would you expect to be done?

@Harry if it was one error and small, I don't think I'd let it affect my judgement. If it was multiple times, I wouldn't have regard them in a positive light.

@Harry Also, if they approached you soon after you received it, rather than you finding out myself and then getting annoyed/confused, would this affect your judgement?

Corrigenda are quite common in academia when it comes to publications. Regarding the university assignment, whether a re-submission is accepted or not depends on the lecturer. You could highlight that you understand the difficulties, e.g. if he allow you to re-submit the assignment, others could ask for the same and he would have to accept this to be fair. Saying this, you could argue that maybe a cirrigendum could be okay because it is the scientific way of correcting mistakes.

@FuzzyLeapfrog would he allow others to re-submit or give the same consequences to other groups who did the same? If we didn't add to our work and instead simply corrected the link, whereas other groups may take this as a chance to make a few additions, would this be fair?

I see, you understand the dilemma, @Hawwa. There was a deadline. The deadline has passed. Extending the deadline for one group, allowing changes of any kind, ... open the doors for unequal treatment. Maybe he wanted you to realize this problem.

@FuzzyLeapfrog hmm yes. I understand all the points. He could either accept the old submission and this would mean one deliverable wasn't marked or was penalised. However, it would also lead to a discussion on penalties, what are they and when are they applied

So, perhaps the most crucial difference is that you currently have an opportunity to fix a mistake. That isn't always an option.

I understand it from the point of view of a teacher too, I tutor younger kids and homework problems are part of that. As a tutor, I ignore the first time, I teach/suggest to them what they could have done and expect them to follow these next time. In this case it's about applying the rule to everyone. Or does he just state that he'll review on a case-by-case basis?

@Harry sure, and in other situations this could be associated with financial implications

I'm interested to know what you'd do as a Lecturer

I would allow the correction because you've realized the error, it can be corrected with little effort, and failing to correct it sounds like it could invalidate otherwise well-done work.

It sounds like the lecturer is trying to use the incident as a learning opportunity, aka teachable moment. He is asking you to argue your case in order to get you to think about the implications of your request so that you will learn a valuable lesson unrelated to the specific topic of the assignment. Probably he is reasoning that the current low-stakes situation is an excellent time to learn this lesson because the consequences of making a mistake are not large; by being a bit harsh or annoying now, he can teach you something that is likely to save you much more severe consequences at some later time in your life.
To clarify, I'm not expressing an opinion about whether making such a demand of you is a good idea, but I suspect that this is the reasoning motivating the lecturer's request.
As for how to reply, I suggest just following the lecturer's instructions and coming up with the best arguments you can. I could offer more specific advice, but I think that would defeat the purpose of what the lecturer is hoping you'd do, which is to think about this issue yourself. (Nor do I think there is a universally correct answer, for that matter.) And again to clarify, by saying this I don't mean to imply that there's anything wrong with you coming here to ask the question, but I sincerely think you're better off coming up with your own answers. Good luck!

yes that was the intention, and I sent a reply!

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


text:
Responding to a prof's email about acceptance in a PhD program
I just got an early email from a professor letting me informally know that I've been accepted for the PhD (CS) program at his school in the US. I only just applied to very few schools (actually just two), and this school (and prof) was my top choice. Should I just excitedly tell him that I accept his offer? Could anyone advise me regarding the proper protocol for responding to such an email. And what sort of a reply the prof might be expecting. For example, could I immediately ask about the research projects I would be likely to work on in the email? Would he be expecting that? Or should I just keep the content limited to the fact that I accept this offer and am excited to work with him. Are there any other key things that I should ask him. I live outside the US and am not sure about the exact protocols at the moment.
Thanks!

I'm at an R1 and have been sending those happy informal e-mails to students ahead of the formal notification from the graduate school. And I've been corresponding with a few who have responded.
My expectations are that you should be thrilled but I also think you should hold your cards close to your vest, just in case. For example, maybe your 'B' school offers you a much better financial package. In that case, you can ask us if we can match. And even if you don't have a competing offer, you have leverage while you haven't made a decision.
You could also ask if there is a campus visit day for prospective students. We plan ours in mid-March and it's a good way to meet other grad students and your future advisor. You might be able to get some travel funding to attend.
If you're going to say no, you should say no as soon as possible, as you might open up a slot in the waiting list for another student. But if you're thinking about saying yes, then there is no disadvantage and considerable good reason to delay saying yes until near the deadline. Advisors not only know this - but if they are good advisors, would advise you to do this.

Thankyou so much for the reply RoboKaren! I have not heard from the second school as yet, not even for an interview, so I am not sure whether I hold any sort of leverage in that sense. I plan to say yes,  but does that ever seem weird? To explicitly say yes? Also, can I ask him about the funding he has available for me?

No need to say yes, just say that you're excited to learn more about the program and the professor's work. Say yes when you make the formal response to the program.

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


text:
Do Tier-1 grad schools have a GPA filter
Is it true that Tier-1 schools in the US use an automated GPA filter before an application is even reviewed. Especially for international students?
If so, how does one go about getting past it and having their application reviewed?

In contrast to the two existing answers, at my tier-1 university the answer is yes.  Admission to any graduate program at my university requires a GPA of at least 3.0/4.0 (or equivalent) for the last two years of undergraduate study.  The requirement can be petitioned, but successful petitions are rare. (And yes, this means that I could be admitted to my own graduate program.)

@JeffE: Humm...my undergraduate GPA is 0.1 higher than yours, so ordinarily I doubt I'd be admitted (or even be considered), but maybe with a successful petition?

In my experience, no. The only automatic filter is for the university's minimum required TOEFL score; this requirement is imposed by the university and is not under the department's control.
Furthermore, for international students coming from academic systems that the committee is less familiar with, the GPA is less informative. If you weren't familiar with the Italian system, for example, it would be hard to know what a grade of 27 represents. So in these cases the admissions committee is likely to rely even more on the letters of recommendation. For a successful application at a "Tier-1 school", the letters likely need to come from someone knowledgeable about the reality of such a program (perhaps they received their PhD from a comparable department, or taught there in the past) and make a convincing case that you could be successful there. Even an extremely strong letter saying "This is the strongest student in Country X this year" might not be sufficient, if the committee doesn't have sufficient information to compare that with other applicants.
Source: I have served on grad admissions at a Tier-1 math department.

The TOEFL requirement is imposed by the university's interpretation of the U.S. government's visa laws (the visas require "demonstration of proficiency in English," and having applicants take the TOEFL or IELTS is by far the easiest way to do this.)

In our case, I believe the university is also seeking to assure the quality of the teaching done by graduate students, who sometimes serve as teaching assistants. (In particular, our minimum TOEFL score is higher than many other schools.)

At the places where I've worked, we don't actually filter out the applications with low TOEFL scores, though there is a university-wide minimum.  It's also not impossible for us to admit someone whose TOEFL score is too low.  What would have to happen is that a faculty member would have to volunteer to interview the candidate and write a compelling memo about how their English is better than their TOEFL score suggests.  The university might or might not accept this argument (it depends on how much trust they have in the department and faculty member).  We rarely try this.

@Andy: And of course, doing this also satisfies the visa laws.

I cannot speak for every graduate program; however, in my experience the answer is 'no.'  The candidate is regarded as a total person and the GPA defines only one part of them.
Regarding getting past it: if the filter does exist those who put it in place believes it adds value.  The only true way past it is to have a higher GPA than the filter.  Apart from that, you can reach out to the department that you're interested in to show that you are more than your GPA.

Interesting to receive down votes with no rationale.

I did not downvote, but one reason might be that answering from your experience is not very useful if you do not include what that experience is.

I agree with @Tobias.  Moreover, I know that some tier 1 graduate programs have GPA filters and some do not, so without further scoping your answer is not especially helpful.


text:
Do American Christian Universities and Colleges offer as high quality education as other countries?
I'm asking specifically about Science courses.
The Kurt Wise case does not reflect on Harvard though it's a Christian University, I understand that. He rejected it because he was convinced geology was biblical, not actual.
It's just that since high school (a few years after 9th grade, translated), the factor in common in discourse has been that proponents making claims incompatible with what I've learned all have Christian Universities as their Alma Mater.
I'm from Sweden and can study in the United States, anywhere in EU, and Switzerland but not Norway.
I would like to finish my studies in the United States. Am I being overly cautious? Are there differences as to what I will be taught, depending on which University?
My application would be for geology with archaeology as minor.

Harvard is a Christian university?  I mean sure, it was founded as such, but in what sense is it still?

It's hard to speak in generalities, so won't hazard an answer. But there are certainly examples in both directions. Notre Dame, Georgetown, and Boston College come to mind as Catholic colleges with excellent reputations; I seriously doubt religion affects their science classes. At smaller, less well known colleges, I would likely share your concerns. Then there are schools like BYU, which have a fairly good academic reputation but rather strict moral codes that students are obliged to follow (e.g., no beards without a beard waiver).

The big ones participate in the same rankings, research, and recruitment competitions as everyone else. It's a big diverse pool but a very competitive one. You can trust the metrics as much as for any other school.

The statement that Harvard is a Christian university is incorrect. In the US there are private universities that are not religious.

Uppsala University was also founded as a Christian university.

Indeed - the fact that Princeton was founded by Presbyterians to train ministers is pretty meaningless 273 years later. Dickinson College, though chartered by the Pennsylvania legislature, is a private non-denominational college.

Christian universities in the United States are tremendously diverse.  The fact that a particular university is "Christian" tells you only that it is not a government owned university.  Almost no other conclusions can be drawn from a Christian identity.
Each university makes its own curriculum.  A science department at one university may exclusively teach science based on religious beliefs.  A science department at another "christian" university might not employ anyone who knows anything about christianity.

In part, this is because Christianity in the United States is tremendously diverse.  The fact that someone is Christian tells you almost nothing about what he or she believes (perhaps beyond a few abstract theological statements whose application to anything else varies greatly).

@AlexanderWoo Even then it might not tell you much, depending on your definition of Christianity- for instance, the Mormons consider themselves Christians, even though they don’t adhere to the Nicene Creed, which was literally written as a definition of “what counts a Christianity” within a handful of years after the Roman Empire decriminalised it.

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


text:
Is it beneficial for the applicant to mention other universities she is applying to?
Going through the application process for several Master's Degrees, I have come across universities that ask what other programmes I am applying to on their application forms. It has been already discussed that there is no obligation on the applicant's part to answer them, but what is the best thing to do from a strategic standpoint?
Do universities frown upon applications to a lot of other places because of the risk that a candidate they admit will accept another offer? Do they gauge the level of confidence/ambition based on how selective other programmes are? How does it affect one's chances? Are there any other considerations?

From a strategic viewpoint it's best not to reveal this information. Revealing this information would not benefit an applicant in any way.
For example, if you tell a second-tier school that you're applying to lots of first-tier schools, it becomes a bigger risk for them to give you an offer.
I would suggest omitting this information from your application if possible.

From a perspective of a former member of such selection committees at several occassions, I would say that this information doesn't really harm you. It is foremost an interesting information for the institution where you applying. The institution gets information with which other universities its competing about applicants. For smaller/less known schools/uni it can be a good sign if the applicant also indicates that she/he applied for more prestigous schools. This could trigger a question in the interview such as "why are you applying here?" (saying that it is just a backup is not a good answer ;)  However, it can also be an advantage if you give good reasons (in the interview or your application) why professor X or research lab A at this specific institution is perfect for your research project. Thus, the members of the selection committee see that you are indeed interested in this school (although you applied for other more prestigious schools as well) and would take the offer.  Partially, I agree that this information is a kind of risk, but based on my experiences from such committees (in Germany), this information is not really relevant in the selection process. There might be applicants who reveal that they have applied for >20 institutions which is either an indicator for the strong interest in pursuing a PhD or a just massive try to get into a PhD program without any clear focus. For the selection committee, such a case is hard to assess
To sum up, there are other factors which are far more important and you should focus more on a strong letter of motivation, an interesting research project and nice letters of recommendation (and complete and accurate application documents) than whether revealing information on other applications or not.


text:
Research between different campuses of the same university
I was recently applying for a tenure track position at a university.  I had found people who had adjacent research interests, and thought it would be good to mention them as possible collaborators for research.  However, I just found out that these researchers work at a different, smaller campus under the same university structure.
How common is collaboration between different campuses of the same university? To clarify, in my case,this isn't a state university either (for example,university of X- cityA vs university of X- cityB... these do tend to feel more like separate universities altogether), but rather a private university with various campuses and satellite locations. I'm sure that this is dependent on the university culture, but I wanted to see if anyone had any experience with this.

I don't think any generalization is possible.

Well how far are they?

It's pretty common also, at least in my field, for people to collaborate between institutions, even those located on different continents.

Some questions you could try to find the answers to: (1) Do, in fact, researchers in this department collaborate with those at the smaller campus? See if you can match up research interests and look up their lists of papers. (2) Can you find other evidence that researchers at the smaller campus engage with the main campus? For example, do any have links to its seminar or colloquium schedules on their webpages? Or do they give talks at the main campus? Do any of them claim to have advised students at the main campus? etc. etc. etc. Would take some googling, but that probably can't be helped.

Also, reading Vladhagen's answer: looking up grant databases, e.g. from the NSF, can you find any grants with faculty from the satellite campus as co-PI, or vice versa?

Not what you asked, but I would really consider whether it makes sense to list "possible collaborators for research" at all. To me, empty statements like "Bob's research is interesting; I might try to work with Bob" only underscore that you have no actual plans. Prospective grad students can get away with statements like that (they're not expected to know many people), but at your level, if you list collaboration with someone in your job docs, I expect that you actually know them and have discussed possible collaboration. (But of course, academia is a big place, so your mileage may vary).

@cag51, I am currently a PhD student who is now on the job market, so while I do have a network of people through my advisor, it's still not quite large yet.  the university isn't R1 and the people hired there come from my tier institution or lower, most without postdocs, so I might have more of a chance.

@AzorAhai, the campuses are located at opposite ends of the US, though the one I'm applying to has a big online presence.

@academic  both researchers are also somewhat new.  Their main collaborators seem to be previous advisors and people from their older institutions.

With the growing prevalence of networking technology, collaboration is easier than it ever has been before. I would think that collaboration across two campuses of the same university would be even easier. It is very probable that funding and resources can be more easily shared and that graduate students will have even an easier time working in such collaboration. I see nothing that would impede collaboration here.
I have worked with a national lab (which, although not a university, can at least somewhat resemble academia a little bit) that had two locations. We collaborated commonly between campuses. It made funding considerations quite simple and we produced quality research.


text:
Can a Professor move a class an hour earlier?
My professor moved class from 1:30 to 12:30 and I missed class and a big research presentation i was supposed to give.  Is he allowed to move class like that?

One would assume that the instructor asked the students in the course if that was OK, and he didn't hear otherwise. So, you should clarify if that is the case or not.

If the university allows them, yes. We cannot really say anything more.

When did he announce the move?

This would be very unusual in the U.S.  At the very least I would expect him to notify everyone by email.

It depends on your University's policies. At my University, professors are not allowed (see [1]:34-83). Your University might have some stipulations regarding this (e.g. was it done with due notice? what happens to students who were absent the day it was decided?).
Your best choice would be to check the policies and see if you have the right to give your presentation during office hours or at another time.
References:
[1] http://senate.psu.edu/policies-and-rules-for-undergraduate-students/34-00-course-scheduling/#34-83


text:
After admission, should I thank a recommender who I suspect wrote a bad letter?
I have strong suspicion that one of the professors regardless of the professional relationship we had was not very nice in the recommendation letter. This is after knowing him at a personal level and how perfectionist and judgmental he is of other people. But let's not get into why I chose him to write my recommendation letter, you can assume I had my reasons. I got into the master's program I wanted which is one of the top in the US.
But that was the only program I got into while other programs ranked much lower declined me. My grades were good and my record was good the two other recommendation letters were good for a fact, so that only leaves me to assume that this top college did not weigh in so heavily on his recommendation letter to make their decision.
But all this is speculative, my question and concern is, should I let him know that I got into the program I wanted regardless? I want to do this as a courtesy and a thank you message. My fear is that he might go as far as approach the committee and ask for my admission to be re-evaluated. Or bad-mouth me to colleagues in that university if he knows I am attending.

Do you know if the people behind the master's program you got into would be familiar with how perfectionist and judgmental this guy is? Maybe he knew they knew how to interpret his letter.

RE: "But all this is speculative..." Be careful there; too much speculation may result in some egg on your face.

I can just "assume" you had your reasons, but I'm going to continue to believe that they were silly reasons. If you have no new information about this professor than you did before, then you effectively asked somebody that [you think] would not support you to write what [you believed] would be a bad recommendation letter. Why on earth would you do that?!

@BoundaryImposition Yes, I agree, this makes absolutely no sense at all. First, OP selects a professor where he suspects that he will give him a bad recommendation. Illogical, reasons or not. Second, being rejected from lower-ranked institutions, but accepted at a much higher-ranked one, he still insists on his belief that the reference was bad. All with only vague circumstantial evidence. It looks as if fate had conspired to create the most absurd combination of OP/prof/committee rationales and event outcomes. As advice, I suggest, decide: either be courteous, or be "paranoid", but not both.

Lots of judgment from commenters without giving the OP the benefit of the doubt.  He implicitly acknowledges that having requested a recommendation from this professor seems unwise on its face but implores that you stipulate he "had [his] reasons".  I believe the question also asks us to operate on the assumption that the OP is right in his characterization, and that being given, the suspected scenario would seem far from ludicrous and overly paranoid.  After all, let's not forget the OP knows this professor far better than any of us.

@tjbtech: I gave the OP as much benefit of the doubt as this tale would allow. If indeed the OP knows the professor well then they made a ludicrous decision to begin with; if they don't, then their assumption is baseless. Either way, something just doesn't add up here.

Giving "benefit of the doubt" means erring on the side of taking the OP's word, given the limited synopsis possible in this format.  I also do not see any "assumption" on his part at all - only carefully expressed speculation which has been framed as such.  It seems awfully like you're the one making assumptions, especially to go so far as to criticize the OP's decision as "ludicrous".  That, to me, is ludicrous in itself.

@BoundaryImposition: If the professor were the only academic in a position to discuss a major accomplishment of OP, it might make sense to have a letter that talks about that, even if accompanied by negative judgements about e.g. OP's writeup of said work.  Perhaps OP can't take his work to another academic for review due to burdens such as a non-disclosure agreement.

But let's not get into why I chose him to write my recommendation letter, you can assume I had my reasons. So let's not assume anything. You had your reasons, he spent time writing the letter. Thank him, because he did what you asked him to do, although he was not obliged to, not because what he might or might not have mentioned in the letter.

This question is kind of much ado about nothing, why hold a grudge?  Thank the guy and as Elsa sings: "Let it go! Let it go!"

Yes, you should thank and inform your letter writer, and no, you shouldn't worry about some bizarre and unrealistic "re-evaluation" of your admission.
Comments: It is very unlikely that your writer wrote a negative letter. In general, one only agrees to write a letter if one has something constructive or positive to say. Having read lots of letters, I'll note that even judgmental and perfectionist people put their criticisms in context, comparing to their general assessments of other students or researchers. (I.e. this person isn't perfect, but he/she is better than most others for the following reasons). These letters, in fact, are often the most compelling.
As a further comment, you're being very uncharitable in assuming bad intentions of someone who agreed to write a letter for you!
And a final comment: no university is going to care to "re-evaluate" their admission of you, even in the stunningly unlikely event that someone asks them to, except in cases of actual fraud, criminal issues, etc. Everyone involved has better things to be doing with their time.

@BenCrowell: Ugh, the worst.

-1 like @BenCrowell said, this situation is not something that falls under "in general".

@BenCrowell The OP's only supporting evidence that this professor might write a negative review is their "perfectionist and judgmental" character - the OP never said anything about nasty. Your situation, which I agree is completely ridiculous, is not the same as the one the OP is referring to.

@BenCrowell I'm really very sorry you experienced such mistreatment. Should've quoted Luke 6:27-38 to him.

@jpmc26 I had to look it up. I am particularly partial to 37-38: “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

@jpmc26 why are you assuming he was a "bible" type of hardcore religious?

@Mindwin Christianity is the most prevalent religion in the Western world, so I'm more playing the odds than assuming. Even if not, I think we can all learn to be less harsh toward those outside our religion and beliefs from the passage. Part of the point is that being religious doesn't mean doing evil to people who are not of your religion.

@jpmc26 Unfortunately what some people consider  morally good, like crusades, is considered morally evil by others. Better not to make assumptions.

The fears you describe go way beyond your characterization of this person as perfectionist/judgmental into extreme pettiness. To go to those lengths would be to put a lot of effort into sabotage. If I were the committee/professors at your new institution on the receiving end of comments like those, especially from someone who I knew previously wrote a recommendation letter for the student, I would lose respect for that professor and their opinions, not for the student, and I would wonder why they are spending so much effort to bad-mouth a student at my own institution.
I think you have little to lose by a polite thank you and informing that you will be attending University X, unless you have other reasons beyond this professor's perfectionist/judgmental tendencies. You probably won't need their recommendation in the future, so no need to worry about that.

Yes.
If he wrote you a good or even half-hearted recommendation, a sincere thank-you is common courtesy, and will cement his good opinion of you (it's even possible he wrote you a glowing recommendation -- your biggest boosters sometimes come from surprising places).
If he wrote a neutral or bad recommendation, he's more likely to remember your graceful response and think better of you (and it's still basic courtesy).
If he despises you, wrote you a strongly negative recommendation, and you got the job anyway, a polite and sincere thank-you will be the most galling retort you can send.

That last paragraph was exactly what I was thinking :)

@EricStucky strange seeing you here. I agree as well.

I would let him know I got into the program and thank him for the recommendation. You are now officially admitted into the program and there is nothing he can about it.
Assuming he wrote a good recommendation, you thanked him and that is that. If he did write you a bad letter, then the committee decided to admit you regardless of that recommendation and he cannot do anything anymore.
I suggest you thank him and move on. If you have a strong suspicion, then be careful in the future.

There is no objective requirement to inform or thank the professor.
Given that your reasons for perhaps wanting to inform/thank this person are a bit suspect (maybe part of you wants to go "Nya nya, I got in, in spite of you"), it would be wise to limit your contact with this person as much as possible (but without drawing attention to yourself).
Just let all of this wash away with the tide.  Not long from now you will be enrolled in a new program and you'll be able to forget all about this person.

Yes, simple manners dictate that when somebody does something for you because you asked them to, you at the very least offer thanks.

@ScottSeidman - Not sure why you said "yes" -- I actually advocated for not thanking the professor given the context, since it would be healthier to give this person a wide berth.

You seem to think that because you were not accepted at the lower ranking universities, this professor must have written a bad recomendation letter. You seem to fail to acknowledge the possibility that those other universities did not like your profile that much for whatever reason. It's also relevant to have in mind that admission process is a subjective matter, conducted by human beings with a lot of imperfections.

I didn't say I know he wrote a bad recomendation letter because I was rejected. There are reasons not mentioned and beyond the point of the question

This fails to answer the question at all - that is, should the OP notify the professor of his acceptance?  And while he failed to acknowledge that other schools might have had their reasons for rejection, neither did he state otherwise.  Seems you're reading more into the question than what was written...

Well, he has received a lot of answers about the original question. I then explored this impression that I had while reading the question.

@DannyBrowsku In fact, it's very clearly written in your question "so that only leaves me to assume that this top college did not weigh in so heavily on his recommendation letter to make their decision". This seems to imply that the only possibility is that the  lower ranked colleges weighted heavily on the LoR.

Yes it is a courtesy to inform recommendation letter writers about your results, more so when you've got a great admit.
However, you never know what criteria were used by the admission committee to select you, and what was your ranking among applicants. Who knows what effect that professor can have on the selectors once he knows of it.
So there is NO need to tell him now. You can do so when you've started studies at the institute.

+1 for the last paragraph.  If you're worried about a reprisal where the professor recommends re-evaluation, then plan to go ahead and thank, but just wait first.  Then you should be safe from that particular threat you're concerned over.  I'm not used to hearing about colleges reversing decisions after they admitted someone, but I would find it to be even more unlikely that the admissions process could remove someone after they are an actual student who has started classes.  (Or, if you're really worried, maybe wait until the first classes are graded and you've started your second classes.)

You should definitely perform the courtesy of thanking the professor for writing the recommendation. This could be done before (or regardless) of having been accepted to any program. Had you been rejected to every program it would still be good form to thank those that had taken the effort to write a recommendation.
I also submit that you may write a letter thanking each professor for their letter without stating to where you were accepted and to where you will go. You can be more general, for example, and express that you will work diligently to honor their recommendation.

You should thank your recommenders regardless of whether you got into a program.  This is the least that is required by simple manners.  You should let your recommenders know where you're going because its a simple courtesy that costs you nothing.
You have no reason to wonder if the recommender wrote you a strong letter.  Such issues are best addressed when you request the recommendation, and not after.  I can't imagine why anyone would take the time to write you a bad letter instead of just saying no, and if the reviewer wasn't in a position to write you as strong a letter as you wanted, that's on you, not the person who agreed to help you.

If I (right or wrong) sincerely believed a person should not be admitted, I well might write such a letter.  Saying, no is in effect "I think you should go, so I'll allow other people to put you where I think you shouldn't be."


text:
Are there any practical reasons at keeping record of my past university work?
After graduating from university is there a practical reason I would want to keep record of my previous assignments? I have a hard-drive full of them. Are there more practical reasons I don't see other than the sentimental value?

What do you plan on doing? Perhaps if you plan on going to academia and want them for a template for your own courses. Or, technical notes might be helpful for industry (e.g., engineering notes or lesson plans for a teacher). My own rule of thumb was to keep notes if the material contained in them could not be readily found in textbook.

Yes.
(1) You might have to prove to people that you took these classes. Transcripts may become unavailable or untrusted.
(2) Perhaps you'll find something of use for your own research or writing in them. Happened to me at least twice in graduate classes. (For example, a lemma I proved in homework turned out to be useful in a proof I wanted to write up elsewhere.) Of course, you probably will not want to reuse them verbatim (I cringe when I read my writing from 10 years ago), but they still can be better than nothing.
(3) You might eventually want to revisit one of the classes you have "casually" taken, for example because its subject is leaking into yours. By looking back on your homework, you'll get a quick impression of where you have left it (although this is only a good thing if you have been learning it reasonably thoroughly; if you were sloppy, then it might be better to start from scratch).
(4) In order to encourage your own students to submit LaTeXed assignments, you will want to provide a usable blank LaTeX template for them. And where do you get such a thing? (Well, there are several places, but one is in your own homework folder.)

Where did you get point 4 from? The original question made no mention of LaTeX.

@RichardErickson - I think that was a specific instance of a general occurrence. I constantly reuse various formats, some of which have persisted through decades with occasional updates to (at the time) glitzy new software packages. TeX is particularly good since what you did 30 years ago still works today just fine (unlike certain other common formats - good luck with WordPerfect).


text:
Does staying in a Master's program for too long look bad on PhD applications?
I am currently a (USA) Master's student studying biochemistry. I intend to get a PhD after my Master's but I am doing a Master's first because my husband is going to finish his PhD and want to move to another city before I would be able to finish a PhD at my current university (this was planned from the beginning, I applied to the Master's program, not the PhD program).
Normally, people in my program graduate in 1.5-2 years. I could graduate in that time frame and find a tech job in the area or I could continue my research in my program until my husband finishes (~3.5 years from the time I started). Given where we live, I think the job I could find would be a job that will help me develop additional lab skills, but probably not result in publications.
My advisor is happy for me to stick around and it would be convenient for me to do so, but I'm concerned that it will look on a resume/PhD application like I was either lazy so it took so long or just bailed from a PhD and dropped to a Master's.
I understand that if I had a fantastic publication record it might make up for the long Master's program, but I expect my publication record to be average.
In summary, does it look bad on PhD applications to extend the length of my Master's program instead of getting a job as a technician for 2 years?

I'd say it depends on the references, who would you be interested in being a technician for?

It seems to me that the strongest argument in favor of a 3.5 year master's degree you mustered was "it would be convenient for me to do so."  You said yourself that you don't think the extra time spent will pay sufficient academic dividends; rather, you are hoping to break even but worried that it will look bad.  I think your worries on this are plausible: 3.5 years is a long time to spend in a master's program.  The explanation of wanting to stay in the same city as your husband is certainly reasonable from the greater perspective of life, but I have a hard time seeing how your advisor could swing that in a really positive way in a recommendation letter.
Why don't you want to spend a year or two working at a "real job," presumably making real money, and (bonus) developing skills that you could then use in a PhD program?
Pro Tip: staying in grad school because it's easy, or because you're vague on the alternatives, is pretty much never a good idea.  The time dilation experienced by an insufficiently motivated grad student is amazing: it is not an exaggeration to say that many grad students spend a year doing what a really passionate (and capable, and well-trained) student could do in a month or even a week.  Again, that is not an exaggeration: I've seen plenty of instances.  The thing you're allowing a 2:1 (or 12:1 or 50:1) time dilation on is in fact (a big part of) your life.
Of course, the flip side of all of that is: tell us again why you can't do good or great work rather than average work?  And also talk to your advisor about it:

My advisor is happy for me to stick around...

Not great or even good.  She either has an overly self-centered attitude to student mentorship or somehow has gotten the impression that you're not a very serious student.  But you could be if you wanted to, right?  And if you're really not...then just finish up your degree and move on.

+1, there are really no reasons to stay there doing your masters. Finishing up and volunteering in the same lab would already be much better. But staying there for two years while you could be earning $80-100k as a tech is ridiculous. It's real time you're wasting.

I think it's good for American students to take a look at the European system regarding time frames: potentially a 3 year bachelor, 1 year master, 3 year Phd at an institute where everyone is pushed to finish on time with perhaps 1 in 10 students having a 3-month extension.

Thank you for your insight.  I'd like to offer the following clarification in case it wasn't clear. I expect to have completed the requirements to graduate in the next few months (1.5-2 years into my program). If I were to continue, over the course of the next two years I expect to publish more, but I use the word average to express that I expect to have a typical level of productivity over the course of 3.5 years, nothing out of the ordinary compared to what most graduate students accomplish in that time frame.

Completion times vary greatly between students, labs, and disciplines. Australia and NZ follow the UK/Europe system with 1 or 2 year masters and 3 year PhD but they're rarely competed during that time as they still need to be examined. Our Biochemistry dept has slowest thesis submission rate on campus so up to 3 year masters are not unusual in biochem here.

It depends if you come out of it with strong publications for the extra time or really needed it to fulfil the degree. Of course, it won't matter much after PhD if you do well then and build up a strong CV.
The main immediate concern is really financial. Why continue as a student? If your advisor is happy with your performance you could work for them short term to continue the project (and publish). This is commonplace in my country.
If you're planning on doing a PhD and have a good relationship with your current research group other may be worth considering. Speaking from experience  (as I've been completing my PhD for the past year with my fianceé in another country), long distance is hard bit it is a viable option for many people. That's a personal choice and I won't pressure you into it but it's worth considering if you feel the career opportunities are worth it.

With "long distance", are you suggesting that I stay in my current group and get a PhD, while moving elsewhere with my family?  If so, that doesn't work because my work involves hands-on experiments with cell culture.

My partner works on cell culture as well, I understand that it is not possible to work remotely. I was actually suggesting a long distance relationship but that depends a lot on your personal situation.

It wouldn't work for my situation (we have children)


text:
Length of Ph. D. Application CV for Mid-Career Professionals
I am applying for a Ph. D. program after a 10 year career of secondary classroom teaching - I have held several positions in that time should I cut some of these teaching experiences out to make my CV fit one page (the teaching experiences are not at the college level, and not necessarily directly in the program I am applying for).

What are the positions?

2 english teaching positions and 2 school librarian positions.

Are you applying for a PhD in relevant fields?

Unlike an American industry resume, an academic CV does not have a length limit.  It would be appropriate to list all your teaching experience.

A PhD applicant doesn't yet have an academic CV though

The CV they submit with their application should be an academic CV.

I am applying for a Ph. D. program after a 10 year career of secondary classroom teaching - I have held several positions in that time should I cut some of these teaching experiences out to make my CV fit one page

Rather than cutting them out, why not list them, but omit descriptions, e.g.,

2018 - 2020 Department Head, School, City
2012 - 2018 Senior XYZ, School, City
2000 - 2012 XYZ, School, City

The descriptions can be pushed elsewhere, e.g., into an opening sentence. Alternatively, if you were at the same school, then something like:

2000 - 2020 School, City
I concluded my teaching career as Department Head (2018-2020), having served as Senior XYZ (2012-2018) and XYZ (2000-2012). Blah, blah, blah.

Even if you weren't at the same school, you could use something similar, e.g.,

2000 - 2020 Secondary classroom teaching
I concluded my teaching career as Department Head (2018-2020), School, City, having served as Senior XYZ (2012-2018), School, City and XYZ (2000-2012), School, City. Blah, blah, blah.

The key idea is to include all positions. Don't omit material, gaps don't look good. Compress instead.

Most academic CVs don't have descriptions.

@AnonymousPhysicist I must be looking at the wrong ones then: Perhaps that's country-, discipline, or seniority-specific.


text:
Should a research proposal contain a discussion of my past experience and achievements?
I'm used to "research proposals" being purely focused on future plans and specific research aims, and not a place to talk about myself. However, now I'm making an application for a postdoctoral fellowship which asks me to submit only three documents: my CV, a cover letter, and a 4-page research proposal. In my previous applications of this kind, there were additional documents that explicitly asked me to justify why I want to work there, what my previous accomplishments are, etc. but this one doesn't have any guideline.
Is the research proposal an appropriate place to try to sell myself and talk about my experience? Or should all of this be contained to the cover letter? I would appreciate any insight about what the typical expectations are regarding this.

If your next research steps are a continuation of your current line of research, then a quick summary of work you've already done on the topic is a great way to work it in naturally, provide context for where your research lies in the field's line of questioning, and explain why you think this research is worth pursuing (look how fruitful it was in the past! Self citation).
The etiquette is probably field dependent. Fancy grants and fellowships require specific tailoring, but for a normal postdoc in my field, even just submitting your research statement as a research proposal wouldn't be too rude or strange.


text:
Funding is from TA - What to put for funding acknowledgment
Most journals require you to state your funding sources. I am a current phd candidate, submitting a paper as sole author, and my funding currently comes from a teaching assistantship, which is paid for by the department, not my advisor. I feel that people usually list any grants/awards in their funding acknowledgment. What am I supposed to put? "Supported by department X in X university?"

I have seen papers say "No particular funding supported this research." You should check with your advisor

Do you have other financial support for your research? Computer, desk/office, other support personnel?

I have an office and laptop, but those are also paid for by the department and not my advisor.

Then at a minimum I'd credit the department for funding.

If the department is your affiliation on the paper, then I don't think it's necessary to separately acknowledge it for the office and computer.

A TA doesn't directly fund your research. It funds you, personally and allows you to be a student. Your research hasn't been funded specifically other than the fact that you may have an office, etc. There is probably a tuition waiver, which is a sort of general funding.
You could list the department and university generally as you suggest. You could probably also list "none", but the department might be the better option.


text:
Should an academic with autism and adhd disclose that to a potential employer
In the context of applying for an assistant professor position, should an academic with autism and adhd disclose that to the university during the hiring process? If so, and the application package includes a diversity statement, would the diversity statement be a good place to raise that issue?
About a year ago, whilst in the midst of a mental health crisis, I asked a related question. This question from 12 years ago is also sort of relevant. One important detail: Asperger's syndrome was removed from the DSM-5 in 2013 (actually, it seems the medical profession understands autism very differently today compared to just 10 years ago).
The argument for not bringing it up is simple. Autism and adhd are seen as negative traits, so it would be a detriment to call attention to them. It seems to me that not bringing it up is the "correct" answer.
The argument for bringing it up is also simple: I see the world differently than a "neurotypical" person, and that can be a good thing. Specifically, I'm better at coming up with creative ideas, focusing on small details and seeing subtle patterns. It's clear how those traits could be useful for a research heavy position. More generally, it seems that autistic and/or adhd people (and more generally, people with mental health issues) are underrepresented in academia, so I could be an example of academic success for those types of people. This answer feels more "right" in the sense that it is closer to reality. I would prefer to write a diversity statement involving this idea, but frankly, I feel like actually sending out an application package with that diversity statement would be stupid.

The top answer from the question you asked a year ago answers your question here, too. Just sub in "adhd/autism/Asperger's" for "mental illness." Especially relevant is the discussion of whether the point of the DEI statement is for you to show how you are diverse vs for you to show how you will encourage DEI in their program.

Unless you are required to do so by law, I wouldn't volunteer such things. Your responsibility is to deal with the issue using medical help and such.
I think that in the US it isn't required and can't be asked.
Accommodations are needed for some things, but that is an issue for later.
FWIW, quite a lot of high functioning academics, some at the top of the field, are "on the spectrum". They find ways to deal with it and many others don't know recognize that these folks have such issues.


text:
Will bad grades in non-math classes affect admission?
I'm an undergrad student at a fairly well known math program (top 20). I have taken several upper level undergraduate courses (real/complex analysis, honors abstract algebra) and graduate level courses (commutative algebra, topology) and I also did some independent learning with one of the professor here in homological algebra, and I did very well in my math courses (All A and A+). However, some of my geneds are not very good (I don't feel like I'm interested in learning them because I think they are useless and I would rather spend time learning math by myself rather than study for the exam). My question here is: How bad will it be? Will those general education courses hurt my chance of admission for grad school? Thanks

In brief, in the U.S., "not much".

@paulgarrett: Thank you for your answer. How will a math department view a student with some bad grades in the non math courses?

Maybe as undisciplined or quirky... but/and many/most people at that age (and thereafter) fit that description. The question is about whether one will succeed in math grad school, not about broader scholarship, intellectual breadth, physical condition, hair-style, politics, or anything else (although, perhaps surprisingly, some of these issues enter in practice).

It would help if you would be more specific about how bad the bad grades were, and ballpark what the gpa ended up being.  However, in general terms, Nicole's answer is a good general view of the situation.

In France, the answer would be no.

What courses are they? If you're applying to Applied Math programs, bad grades in physics courses might weigh quite strongly against you, while bad grades in music or Japanese will probably be ignored.

I'm not in your discipline, so I'm not sure how much this is similar...When we evaluate doctoral and master-level students for admission, we first check if their GPA meets the minimum criteria. If it does, then we look to see how well they did in courses that would help them succeed in our graduate programs. If your GPA hasn't suffered too badly because of the non-math courses, they might not hurt you.  However, I would caution not to mention to admissions personnel/reviewers that you believe the non-math courses were "useless" so you blew them off. That doesn't sound very professional- if asked, I would say that you focused more on the math courses to prepare for your graduate studies, which took time away from your other coursework.

My answer is based on limited experience with being on graduate admissions committee at an R1 university in the US.  My sense is that it won't make much of a difference, though the effect can be lumpy.  Most people will probably barely notice, but probably there are people who will think that this reflects a worrying lack of discipline, as this can be a big problem in graduate programs.  Most professors have had bad experiences with students who think that requirements shouldn't apply for them, and that they can blow off ones they don't feel like doing; giving that impression will not help you.  So, it could be a problem if you are right on the edge between admit and not, but it's a little late to worry about it now.


text:
How rampant are "smart drugs" in academia?
Is it common for people in academia to use "smart drugs"/prescription medications to help them be more productive? Or do most people just use things like caffeine to be more productive?

My hay-fever medication also makes me more productive.

Quantum mechanics problem sets often required a beer or two back in the day...

The answer to this question surely varies widely by country, academic institutions, seniority level, etc. - quite difficult to give a general answer. I think the best you can hope for references to some articles on the matter.

@JonCuster They still do, Jon. :)

Are you asking about professors in research? Or undergrad freshmen student freaking out about finals?

Mathematicians take coffee...

I enjoy a glass or four of Sauv Blanc.

Cocktails help with grading papers, but it has some side-effects in terms of error rate and getting up early the next morning. Caffeine is as close to universal of a "performance enhancing drug" as there is, from coffee and tea to supplements and "sports drinks". Sometimes there is a funny smelling smoke near the library, but I'm skeptical of whether or not that might actually "improve" academic performance. And I doubt very many conference papers were completed without the assistance of at least a mild sugar high. This is all to say...I think you are going to need to be more specific.

This informal survey by Nature in 2008 found "large-scale use" of cognition-enhancing drugs by their readers.

Related: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29318/reference-on-abuse-of-stimulant-medications-among-professors-to-enhance-academic


text:
Where can I submit my undergraduate thesis?
I am now a teacher. I am aiming to submit my undergraduate thesis to any journals or publications or conferences. Where can I submit it online?

How about starting with a journal relevant to your field? Seeing as you didn't tell us what that is it's impossible to help.

I would start with some of the journals you may have cited in your thesis. Regardless, it's worrying that you have to ask this website, rather than already have some inkling through your research, or asking some of your fellow researchers.

An undergraduate thesis is not normally submitted online as a publication in a journal or a conference. You first need to find out if it is worthy of publication, meaning that it contributes to advancing the state of the art. If so, then you will have to present it or part of it in a style suitable for a journal/conference publication.


text:
Is it usual to write referee reports in the first person?
It is common to write papers in the third person, using sentences such as "The author(s) did this", "the author(s) thank XYZ" etc. Is the same convention true for referee reports? I have noticed that my reports tend to be a mishmash of first and third person, with sentences like "to the best of the reviewer's knowledge" next to "I think equation 123 has a typo". What is the most common convention? My field is math, in case it makes a difference.

It doesn't really answer the question of "how common", but this question seems quite relevant: Should I write a peer-review in third person?

I doubt it matters what you do. You are, in essence, writing to only the authors and the editor. How "common" it is seems irrelevant as a guide.

I think the language of the reviews can be somewhat less formal because this is not the stuff that is going to be published

The question in the body is the opposite of the question in the title.  An answer of "yes" or "no" (which as of now, one of them is) becomes confusing.

Resoundingly, yes.  At least in my field (number theory).  I just looked at the 15 most recent referee reports I received, and only 1 out of 15 of these reports avoided writing in the first person.
Note: I restricted to reports on initial submissions to avoid obvious duplication of referee styles.  Of the 15 I looked at, the reports were written in sufficiently different styles that I'm confident in saying there wasn't too much duplication of referees in this sample.
Added: To address the "mishmash" aspect, in none of these reports did the reviewer refer to themself in both the 1st and 3rd person, but I have seen it before and have possibly done it myself.  The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter.  Referee reports are not formal pieces of writing meant for public display (like parts of grant applications or MathSciNet reviews), and while some reviewers may prefer to refer to themself in the 3rd person (presumably to make the review sound more formal/professional or less personal), I think most prefer to write more directly.

I second the observation within numerical analysis (math) and scientific computing. I'm also not seeing a lot of papers where the authors refer to themselves in third person as "the authors".

@user53923 That supports Kimball's findings

@Azor Ahai You are right I misread. In any case, I second this answer for Theoretical Computer Science. Looking at the last 9 reviews I received, 8 were in first person and the remaining one did not refer to themselves at all.

"Referee reports are not formal pieces of writing meant for public display": note that this depends on the field, there are now journals doing open peer review where the reviews are posted publicly

@a3nm The question is tagged mathematics, and as far as I know, no major mathematical journals post reviews publicly.  Do you know examples?

@Kimball: Ah I hadn't noticed the tag. I don't know of examples in mathematics for now, but given that the trend is developing in other fields, it might happen.

First person is the default in the natural sciences. It's difficult to find an "official" reference for this as a convention. But I have never seen a referee report written in the third person.
On a related note, most style guidelines suggest that active voice makes for clearer writing. If in doubt about your norms might as well pick what makes it easiest for the reader to understand you!  https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/active_and_passive_voice/active_versus_passive_voice.html

I'll add a data point from physics: I've seen thousands of referee reports, and very few reviewers refer to themselves in 3rd person. It's simply unnatural.


text:
What to teach first: theory or practice?
The educational system in which I have studied focuses on teaching the theory/abstract theoretical courses before the applications.
For example, I spent the first 1-2 years of a 5-year engineering program only studying Mathematics, Physics and other basic courses before even getting any hint what the applied problems we will eventually try to solve are. In terms of tools, I first learned and programmed the individual methods and then I used "real-life" software for the first time.
Now, having seen applications, I look back to my basic courses and I think "that abstract topic was actually much simpler than I originally thought!".
It feels like I was just stupid to not be able to fully understand or get interested enough into the abstract topics.
I would feel much better if my university has made me first work on some easy applications, trying to understand the context, the difficulties and the possibilities, then dive into theory and then have the advanced applications that require advanced theory. A kind of "iterative model". I understand that this would probably take more time.
However, I see that university education keeps being like this in the universities I have studied into (Greece and Germany). Strong theory first, applications later. Traditional, "sequential" model.
Does my "iterative model" observation, as a student, make sense from a teaching perspective? What is the current situation and trend in more "progressive" educational systems? If it is not already applied, why not?

first work on some easy applications, trying to understand the context The problem might be that there is no single context and you need different parts of an initially abstract math course in subsequent applied courses.  Also, the point of such course is to teach you to think abstractly. The fact that after 3 years you found the concepts easy, in the right context, means also that you matured enough frmo a math perspective.  BTW, Greek universities are notoriously difficult and abstract afaik.

Maybe a "spiral" (easy application, followed by easy theory, followed by deeper application & theory etc) or a "sequential V-model" (setting a topic, getting from applications to theory and back to applications, then moving to the next topic) would be a better approach for the "no single context". (I invent the terms right now, I have no idea if they make sense)

I think it makes sense but is very complicated. It is very welcome to show a "teaser" of why these concepts are relevant and I think it is done to some extent, but at the end I think it's not avoidable to learn these abstract topics. And when u learn them, then they would seem trivial in the certain context.

Just to avoid confusion: in the approach I suggest, the knowledge width or the ability to think generally (maybe even abstractly) should be conserved. I aggree on the complexity though, but maybe it is worth the extra effort to create a more sophisticated curriculum that helps students understand better, rather than providing students with abstract theory and hoping that eventually they will form relations to applications. Indeed, the teaser is usually shown, but it is not used as a structural component of the curriculum.

In many cases, I think, such abstract courses are being taught by math or physics professors that, naturally, they do not pay much attention to potential applications besides some standard ones (teasers). It requires a lot of effort from the department (and the teacher) to teach in such a way you mention, and this is especially true in big engineering departments. Also, do not underestimate the power of pure math courses in engineering curriculum.

In other words: you are learning (say) Linear Algebra not only to apply it to some subsequent courses later but also to learn what L.A. is about and it's properties. Since the applications of L.A. will eventually come in other courses, many instructors adopt the strategy of teaching you as much as possible of LA and just offer you potential "appetizers" in the way.

I have not seen much progress in this area in a state university a relative recently graduated from with a Bachelor's in physics.  However, I have seen progress in K-12 where I live (U.S.).  For example, several times per year in the 8th grade social studies class, they spend a week having a mock trial (e.g. Sacco and Vanzetti).  There are project-based math textbooks available for secondary students, and one high school in my area takes this approach.

It isn't really a question of either or in terms of theory and practice. Instead, what is needed is theory and practice happening simultaneously in the classroom. The students learn a concept and then they used it immediately in some sort of authentic assessment. To have to what 1-2 years to use any sort of new knowledge is difficult for the average young adult learner and nearly impossible for a mature adult learner. Knowledge retention is most effect through teaching it to others and followed next by the application of it.
Within education, there is a big emphasis on learning by doing or being an active learning. This can take many forms such as the use of projects, problem-solving, presentations, etc. The point is that the students need to learn through actually doing or producing something through some sort of authentic real-world application. The real-world application creates the relevancy that most students need in order to process whatever it is that they are learning. This is particularly true for inexperienced students who have zero practical knowledge.
A major exception to this is the experienced student who returns to gain theoretical insights into their career. For example, if a teacher returns to school for a master's in education, they often experiences many "aha" moments when they see a connection between a theoretically concept and something that happened when they were teaching. Since these people already possess practical knowledge they are even better able to appreciate theoretical knowledge and create a bridge between the two.

I highly recommend to teach practice first.
You can derive understanding for the theory easier from the practice instead of doin it the other way round.
I give you an example from my bachelor programme:
We had a course about data modelling and one lecture was about relational algebra. It was downright confusing for the majority of the class although we had courses in formal models before. The next lecture was about SQL and after that lecture and inlcuding SQL homework the topic of relational algebra was much clearer to the course participants. Hence it would have been wiser to put SQL first and relational algebra afterwards.

This is actually very subjective and it's debatable if it's the correct approach.

So what? That applies to most replies here on this board which are marked as thread answers or get a lot of upvotes. Every answer is subjective if you cannot undermine it with empirical data, which most of the answers do not.

Don't take it personal. I just wonder how you can highly recommend something that dozens of generations of teachers are not able to solve. High recommendation is slightly extreme for my taste in this case, that's all.

I have not taken it personal, I even gave you an upvote before (and you receive one now too). Many give recommendations based on observations and I observed that students gained better understanding for relational algebra after learning SQL although the latter is based on the first. Furthermore I may be mere student but I think everyone is legitimated to highly recommend something. Besides I taught students in the basics of Object Oriented programming and here I observed the same: Simplified examples first, then students understood principles like encapsulation better.

I share your feelings and I like your example. But I really hope to eventually see an answer based on teaching as a scientific field, rather than intuition (from which I am also driven). :-)

@BruderLustig Thanks. My point is that it is not very easy to generalize emphatically based on few examples. I can see merits to both practical and theoretical teachings, not narrowed by a single course. In my limited opinion as various math courses instructor, if I may, practical teaching has short term benefits (excites and motivates the student) but theoretical teaching has long term benefits.


text:
Do I need to get a reference letter from a postdoc host?
I am currently a postdoc and will soon be applying for a faculty position in computer science. I am inclined to not ask my postdoc host for a reference letter when applying.
The reason I don't want to ask my postdoc host for a letter is because I have been a postdoc for less than a year and have mostly worked independently or with remote collaborators. So far I have only coauthored one paper with my host. (It's a good but not great paper.) Also, I am supported by a general fellowship -- i.e. I am not formally "tied" to my host, which means I don't think he feels strong "ownership" of me as a postdoc. It is not a true mentorship relationship.
I think my postdoc host would write a positive letter for me, but it would be weak for the aforementioned reasons -- he simply doesn't know me that well. I have other potential letter writers who would be able to write stronger letters.
What is worse? A weak letter from my postdoc host or no letter? Is this something I should try to explain on my application?
Any advice is greatly appreciated!

How should people know that you did not work together very closely, if he doesn't explicitly writes that in the letter (why should he)? I think people might rather read something into you not having reference letter from him,

Since most schools ask for 3-5 letters, I do not think that getting one from your host will be a bad idea especially since "not" having one from him/her "might" trigger a negative reaction.

What would a potential employer think about the lack of a reference letter for this part of your CV?

These comments are point out the negatives of not having a letter. But what about the negatives of having a weak letter?

You can even out the negatives of having a weak letter (but he did work with you on one publication, so I would not think it should be really weak) by having more additional strong letters. Not having a letter from your main host/mentor/supervisor might rise flags.

Thanks @skymningen It seems like you are saying that weak letters can be compensated for, whereas missing letters cannot. Do others agree?

I agree as well.  If you'd just started it would be another story, but if it's been much of a year, if you don't include the postdoc, it would look to me like a red flag.  Hopefully the letter can highlight the other work you've done during the postdoc even though the mentor is not the one directly involved.  And I agree with the answer suggesting you discuss this with your supervisor.

First of all: It seems you're on good terms with your host. Well, talk to him about this exact issue. He will probably sympathize and either let you in on drafting the letter, or at least agree with you in principle on what he intends to write. (And if he evades then you'll at least know there's something wrong.)

What is worse? A weak letter from my postdoc host or no letter? Is this something I should try to explain on my application?

The answer depends a lot on whether the place/person you're interviewing for might talk to him over email/phone/Skype.

If they will certainly talk to him, then a letter - good or bad - is not very meaningful anyway. He'll tell them what he wants to. So I wouldn't bother.
If they will certainly not talk to him, then your actual merits regardless of his opinion are likely to count for more than his letter anyway, so I'd get the letter from him just in case, and mention in passing that you worked mostly independently. I'm not 100% sure I'd add the letter to the application, it depends on the circumstances.
If you can't tell whether they'll call him up or not, I'd use the letter just to be on the safe side - assuming you actually get the letter in hand and don't have to ask him to send it to them directly (a weird custom that exists in some countries). Better this way then for them to call him up and for him to say "Uh, Dr. Foo? Umm, yeah, he was here, umm, he worked on... let me see.. it was some... stuff, I dunno. We wrote a paper together at some point, it was ok I guess. Not sure what he did exactly."

But frankly I have to say that it's not clear-cut. I, for one, would not put much stock in recommendation letters unless they said something exceptional.
One last point: Perhaps you should ask your host to focus on specific traits of yours, your skills or strengths in some things he's observed, in which case it won't matter all that much that you haven't worked a lot together.

I'm in math, where things may be different, but I wouldn't necessarily care if you don't have a letter for someone you've been nominally working with for less than a year.  (Usually I would expect to see a letter from your PhD advisor though.)  Even if you were there longer, I wouldn't necessarily expect to see a research letter from someone at that institution, unless a significant part of your work is in collaboration with someone there.  Mostly I just look at what the letters themselves say, who they're from, and what your actual research is.
Reasons to not get a letter from your postdoc host:

you have other references that can write significantly stronger letters
your other references are more or as well known in your area

Reasons to get a letter from your postdoc host:

your host can say good things that your other references can't effectively comment on (e.g., how you're such a great colleague to have because of all the things you've been doing in the department, or how you have certain impressive skills/knowledge needed for your project with your host that didn't come up in your other collaborative project)
your host is more well known than some of your other references

Note: at least in the US, many departments will want to get a sense of what kind of colleague you'll be, not just how good your research is.


text:
Error in the motivation letter
I sent my application to the University of Zurich for my masters studies. However, I just realized that I made a really big mistake in the motivation letter. In the first line of the letter I wrote something like, "With this letter, I would like to express my interest in studying Masters of Science in Physics at the University of Geneva starting from fall 2017."
Does this hampers the chance of getting an admission?

I do not know if it actually hampers, but it definitely doesn't help your chances.

Yes, this is a common and fairly embarrassing mistake to make. That being said, if it's the only thing wrong with your application it won't be a problem.

There is nothing you can do about this any more, so it's not worth your brain and emotional power to worry about. Spare your brain for things you can affect.
That said, having seen such mistakes many times in applications, they do seem to suggest a lack of attention to detail. I wouldn't say that we've ever rejected an application because of a mistake of this sort, but they do get noted if they fit into a bigger picture in the application. If you are convinced that your application is otherwise good, then you will not likely have to fear any detrimental effect.
(I'm going to add that everyone who sits on selection committees knows that applicants apply to many different universities. While these sort of mistakes should not happen, we understand that they do and why.)


text:
Is taking a postdoc for training purposes wise as an industry scientist?
I'm considering taking a postdoc after 5 years as an analytical chemist in the pharma industry (small molecule). This may seem backwards and counter-productive due to the massive pay cut but here's my reasoning:

I am extremely unhappy in my current role; I've been pigeon-holed into developing methods for a rather
niche technique that isn't versatile and incredibly uninteresting.
I've also been pushed into pure project management and doing little
to no science.

When searching and interviewing for roles I want, it has been
highlighted that, while I have industry experience, I am not
experienced enough in mass spectrometry or large molecule work, which
I do not have the opportunity to train at my current job. I've been
searching for 6 months now with several interviews that all came back
with the same feedback about my lack of mass spectrometry or biomolecule experience.

A postdoc position is likely available to me through my personal
network and it would be an intensive way to train in mass spectrometry and large
molecule analysis (as well as some data science and bioinformatics). There is a grad student who currently handles most of the technical aspects of the instrumentation and sample prep (he'll be my immediate mentor) while the PI is more on the bioinformatics and publication side of things. I will be asked to help conduct analysis, maintain the instruments, and write papers (the PI has mountains of data but no time or desire to write the papers).

My logic is that, with 2 years of focused mass spectrometry training and 5 years in
industry, I would be a more attractive candidate and have more
options in terms of where I might land a job (different industries,
possible academic facilities staff, or national labs staff). I would also have materials for presentation that highlight my competency whereas right now, I only have my PhD work (in a different technique) and a generic industry presentation (cannot use company data so I can only give lectures on general topics in pharma).

My long term goal is to shift my expertise to mass spectrometry and either join a national lab, core facility, or build up an analytical department at a startup. Mass spectrometry is incredibly versatile and is a critical hard skill in pharma, biotech, food science, environmental, and other key industries.

Am I thinking about this correctly? Or am I making a mistake be treating the postdoc as a training opportunity and stepping stone?

This probably depends too much on the specifics of the position and the balance between freedom and guidance. Also, your goals don't seem to be especially definite. My best answer might be "maybe". My advice would be to think it out more thoroughly wrt long term goals.

Welcome to Academia.SE. I suggested an edit to change MS --> mass spectrometry to avoid confusion with "master's in science".

I am extremely unhappy in my current role: This isn't really a reason to start a postdoc, you could take another industry position. I've been searching for 6 months now with several interviews that all came back with the same feedback about my lack of mass spectrometry or biomolecule experience: You could outright state your lack of experience at interview, explain that you'll learn, even offer to start on a reduced rate until you have learnt.

@user2768 This strategy hasn't worked thus far. I've been upfront about my limited experience and highlighting my ability to learn quickly (e.g advancing in a pharma career with no previous experience in the techniques used). I think this approach worked for me as a fresh grad but as someone who is mid-senior, I'm expected to lead and be effective immediately.

Sorry, this doesn't seem to be a good idea, especially considering some of the more subtle points you've shared. In general taking post-docs after 5-6 years need not be a bad thing, but people would generally shoot for a prestigious fellowship, not something through personal contacts.
I also want to recommend that you take this just because of how unhappy the current role makes you, but considering your situation I can't. You're in that tricky (not uncommon) position where your PhD, current role and future aspirations are in different fields. As such, you should be very wary about letting go of what you have for something that you potentially may get. There is every chance that the grass appears greener on the mass spectrometry side, and after being trained on it (by a grad student!), you may find that there are difficulties and unpleasant challenges that you aren't currently aware of.
You seem to move towards mass spectrometry in the long term, and I get the uneasy feeling that you're jumping onto the bandwagon without enough thought. Primarily because if you really want to make a big switch, getting a nameless (i.e. without a fellowship) postdoc and being trained by a grad student (and neither earning certification nor being under the wing of an experienced academic) doesn't sound wise.
There's every possibility that I'm assuming too much, so please use your discretion and don't be hasty.

Thanks for the response, however, I think you've glossed over my goals and my primary question, which is whether or not the training may help my career or derail it. My choice to go into mass spectrometry isn't what I'm asking about and the ability to get a fellowship has largely sailed (most fellowships are restricted to researchers within 3-4 years of PhD; I am 5 years out). Furthermore, my interest is not to return to academia; a prestigious fellowship is meaningless to industry; only experience counts.

@Zeejet- Sorry to not be clear enough; I think this will cause almost irreparable damage since it won't add anything concrete that you can show and will constitute a break that may not hold up so well when you're questioned about it. Maybe we are in different countries so the value of a post doc fellowship is different, but here it surely adds credentials (not because of what you learnt there, but because you could secure it). Also some of the most prestigious European fellowships have dedicated categories for senior researchers, have you come across these?

My Bayesian assessment is "bad idea".  You may get others who just want to reassure you, but I feel compelled to caution you.
Move to another company somehow or push your bosses into a new assignment.
If you're really stuck in your role, maybe consider an MBA.  (If you can get into a top 10 school...doesn't make sense to self-fund an MBA with time off otherwise.)  You might hate that even more since it is not "science".  But it is school and training and sort of a break.  I saw a lot of people do that with their careers at the 5 year mark and it really worked well for them to advance themselves and sort of have a clean break from the previous company.  When you interview out of MBA school, you're mostly seen as an MBA and the previous work time is just seasoning, not key.  Also, just emotionally, a lot of people at that 5 year mark in industry sort of feel like taking a couple years "off" and being back in school.
Don't do the post doc.  It's too backwards on age, $$, respect, everything.  And you may not even get the training you want.  It's a mill out there and postdocs are not the customers, are very junior itinerant journeymen.

Your circumstances—personal, familial, professional, life stage, next five years, pandemic—if your decision feels difficult, bless you, because it is. Which, frankly, in a way might make it easier. I’ll be cheering for you!

I'm not sure I understand how an MBA could contribute to the OPs long term goal to do scientific work with a focus on mass spectrometry.

@JochenGlueck Thanks for re-focusing this discussion on my goals.
I think thus far I've been pegged as irrational and misguided in my consideration of a postdoc as a career pivot without really addressing my long term goals. My desire to move into mass spec is also not what I'm asking for opinions or advice on.
I do not intend to stay in my current role or take another role that is similar; the question is whether or not a postdoc can help me transition or whether it would derail my career entirely.


text:
Ask about my undergraduate research internship
I’m planning to apply for an internship. There is a professor who represents the school who asked me to submit some necessary documents. He wanted me write a detailed paper about the project I am interested in, and then he will choose the host supervisor for me.
Before that, I checked the list of professors for this school, and I noticed a professor whose main project is about antimicrobial biochemistry. I want to work with this group, but I am worried about whether or not he will accept any students this year.
At any rate: this “antimicrobial” topic is my favorite, but I do not know any details about what the project entails. How do I write this type of paper? Does he want expect a full proposal? What should I do?

hi! Welcome to Academia Stack Exchange. In order to get positive answers, please try to make it clear what exactly you want to ask, make your question more readable by giving spaces between paragraphs.  In short, make your question more coherent for others to understand.

You should ask the professor you want to work with for instructions.  If he is open to supervising your work, then in addition to helping you apply for the internship, he can also contact the coordinator.  This will increase your chance of success.  If he says he does not want to supervise you, then you will save a lot of time applying for something that cannot work.

I would say every institution want diferent content in such paper. you can ask the professor about what to include in the paper.
for the idea formation. you can read most recent review papers in your interest area. usually those papers talk about many things and you can see what is going in the area and choose something after you know more.