text:
Would having two words in my surname in my passport be a problem for US colleges/GRE/TOEFL?
I'm Indian and my full name is X Y Z (such as John Doe Johnson). In my passport, Given Name is X and Surname is Y Z. Would that be any issue? Or should I get it corrected to update Given Name to X Y and Surname to Z?
Would having Y Z as the surname be any issue in the US?

This question may be better suited to the Travel SE

What do you mean by "my full name is X Y X"? Where is Z?

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/104398/how-to-be-properly-cited-with-a-two-word-last-name

Doe is always a surname.

Just always use 'Y Z' as surname.  What causes trouble is when you have some records under X Y and others under X Z. - I used to work for ETS/College Board

@Affe Please consider writing your comment as an answer.

@PatrickT I dunno. Animal names aren't too uncommon. I could definitely see a girl being named "Doe Lastname" in English-speaking countries.

@nick012000 reminds me of the 1941 Frank Capra feature, "Meet Doe Doe."

I am Latino, and as a result have an even worse version of this issue. My full name is of the form
A B C D E, with A and B being given names, and C D  and E being surnames. An extra complication is that D is not a name by itself, it's just a preposition.
I have given the TOEFL and GRE tests before and that has not been an issue. Minor errors may occur depending on who handles the documentation, but they have never been an actual issue. For example, my names have been agglutinated as CDE, AB (surname, first name). In a visa, I had it once written as B C D E, A. In academic papers, it has been cited as E, A B C D; D E, A B C; C D E, AB; B C D E, A. The preposition itself sometimes vanishes leading to C E, A B.
No clerk has ever questioned my authorship, or my documentation in my travels.

Agreed.  I am from the US but have two Italian words separated by a space for a last name.  It has never been an issue aside from some systems (or careless data entry) smooshing them together without the space.

(I used to work for ETS/College Board)
As long as all of your records always use 'Y Z' as your surname you shouldn't worry.
The stories/rumors you've perhaps heard from colleagues happen when the student or their parent is inconsistent, such as:
Sometimes you see a student who has something like a Secondary Diploma 'X Y'  Undergraduate Diploma 'X Z' and TOEFL score 'X Y Z'.  Generally none of these institutions will alter the name on the record so you're down to trying to convince the school you're applying to that they're all you.
(Orthogonally avoid changing what's on your passport at all cost if it's not truly just wrong unless you want to have to fill out the 'also known as' section on every immigration application related to studying outside the country for the rest of your life.)

In terms of moving abroad, filling out the "also known as" section is quite minor haha

Nope. My last name is 2 words, and it hasn't been a big problem in most places. Sometimes at the pharmacy or something, I have to ask them to check my last name as one word though. But it's rare.

Probably not.
In English speaking countries, there is a fairly common practice of giving children three names: a personal name, a middle name, and a surname. The middle name is almost entirely disregarded in common use and official documentation, but people still have them. It's unlikely that any of the staff will find a name of the form "A B C" unusual at all.
Most likely, if any error occurs at all, the university staff handling your application will simply assume that, upon receiving an application with a name taking the form A B C, that A is your personal name, B is your middle name, and C is your family name, and enter your name into their systems as such. It's unlikely to result in any difficulties in applying, but it might result in them only entering the first letter of B into their systems under "middle initial" or omitting it altogether.
If this occurs, once you've enrolled, I imagine that you would likely be able to just show up at their student administration office and get them to change the name stored in their systems. Students change their names all the time; women in English-speaking names often change their family names when they get married, and transgender individuals often change their personal names when they come out and start transitioning. As a result, it should be a fairly straight-forward process for them to correct any mistakes recording your name in their systems.


text:
How to cite this article composed of sections, each written by different authors?
I have a question about citing this article. In case you cannot access it, it is composed of different sections, each written by a different author. I would like to refer to one of the sections in Harvard style, but how do I do that? Do I do this?

Last Name, Initials. (Year) Name of section, in (list all the authors), Name of article,
Grove Art Online. Link

Or this?

Last Name, Initials. (Year) Name of section, in Name of article, Grove Art Online. Link

what is the function of your writing?

An undergraduate essay.

Function of OP's writing is "undergraduate essay" which I assume means that the grading criteria don't include correct referencing.
In that case there are two approaches:

most likely any way you cite/reference is OK. Nobody will likely check the quote, and if you quote directly then they will be able to find it using text search
when in doubt ask your instructor or TA, as the are the sole determiners of what is "correct". When you will submit that essay to an editor for publication - ask the editor. When you submit it as part of thesis - ask thesis committee.

As it happens, I am penalized for incorrect referencing, so the first part of your answer (that I can cite any way I want) is not helpful. Also, there are standard referencing formats (in science, the typical one used is APA), so my instructor is not the sole determiner for what is OK. Anyway, I asked my university's librarian, and they told me to use option 2.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to appropriately emphasize the importance of consulting more to a student?
I'm a PhD student and a full-time researcher in my uni. This year I was assigned with supervising of one Bachelor's thesis. My PhD supervisor invented a topic, which is really interesting, but a really difficult one for this level (combination of quantum chemistry and neural networks).
Student, who assigned for that, has a programming background, so he doesn't have much experience in mathematics or a theoretical computer science. Nevertheless, I believed he can catch up and I had some literature prepared for him.
At first he didn't contact me for the first several weeks, which made me pretty nervous and I wrote him a polite reminding e-mail with a consultation suggestion. He came and we agreed on some plan. Several weeks later, on our second consultation he showed just a little real progress, but I still considered it ok, believing, that he's studying the underlying theory beforehand.
The problem is now, that he didn't show up since and I had to contact him again, only to find out, that he was too occupied by his job and that he will be writing e-mails with his progress.
So, I'm afraid, based on his behaviour, that he tries to appear independent and to develop the software for the thesis on his own. That could be a real problem as he will progress too slow without any guidance (he has NO previous experience with his topic, except programming skills).
So, my question is - how can I politely persuade him to communicate with me more often? I really want him to successfully finish his thesis, both because of my "score" during PhD and because I would otherwise feel guilty of ruining someone else's career.

@Nat We'll try to model potential energy surfaces for some simple systems.

@Nat Yes, thank you very much for the link, I'll certainly use it.

Is the student a full-time student with a part-time job or a full-time employee who's a part-time student? I think that could change expectations and timelines.

@mkennedy He is a full-time student, who works in some small private company. In my country you're sometimes "forced" into similar situation, when you enrol to the full-time study programme and then you need suddenly more money. So, to be clear, I understand his possible motivation.

I have a completely different background, I'm in the lab very often and so are my students. Still they can become quite independent and it can be hard to keep an eye on what they're doing exactly.
Suggesting to communicate more and persuading them to ask more questions is (in my opinion) the wrong way to approach your problem. You cannot expect a bachelor level student to learn - all by himself - both running a project and the science that goes with the project. Maybe that could work for the top 1% of students.
I'd start having weekly meetings, and then it's your job to ask them questions, teach them stuff and keep them on track. Suggesting someone to ask questions doesn't really work, so you should really ask questions yourself that force them to communicate about the project.
Really sitting down and discussing the project will lower the barriers on both sides. Your suggestions won't sound like orders, and there will be no e-mail record of their silly questions. Start slow before you start having any real expectations.
At the moment I'd be surprised if they even started with the project.

Right. Once per week meetings with clear intermediate deliverables on a specific timeline.

I'd say you don't have to push it that far. In this case ANY amount of clear deliverables, timelines and meetings would help the project along faster.

Besides the push-oriented approach (definitely do create a plan, define deliverables, and ask questions), I would also invite him to sit in the lab with an agreed schedule. Besides helping him focus, it'll also make you available for questions.

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


text:
Can leader position in a team make up for post-doc experience?
Well, the situation is following - I'm doing my Ph.D. currently abroad, while still having a position in my home country. It's not a high-ranked university there, but the research institute itself is a very good, new supercomputing centre (40-50th cluster in TOP500 and getting new ones). Now it seems, that if I'll keep my current productivity level, I could aspire to get a senior position, right after my Ph.D.
That said, I'd love to have a family in a few years, but I'd also like to keep an opportunity to get to a better university in a future (possibly with them).
So, do you think, that accepting (if offered, of course) such leading position, could make up for the post-doc experience, if the subsequent publications from my team would be good?
I'm aware, that this is highly non-standard situation, as I know nobody who would experience it.

EDIT
To explain my situation in more detail - let's say I have an opportunity to become a leader of my own research team in a not-so-good university right after my Ph.D. with a chance to do a good research there, as the  quality of this research centre is much higher, than the uni average.
On the other hand, my long term ambition would be to get a research position at some higher ranked university. So, would this university usually prefer man with some leadership experience or a fresh "post post-doc" from some more prestigious institute?

EDIT 2
My home institute is in the Czech Republic.

It's not clear what you mean by "senior position" or "leading position". Also, I'm not sure that there's any correlation between how big a computer an institution has, and how good its work is?

@Flyto In my country, there are strict professional "levels" in research field - before your Ph.D. you're R&D Support Staff, during Ph.D. then Research Assistant, later Researcher and Senior Researcher. All the levels under Senior are basically the same - low salary and very  little freedom of choices - very often you get assigned to something, which is not your interest at all. As a Senior Researcher, on the other hand, you have your own small team (5-10 people) and you're  responsible for the choice of research topics etc.

@Flyto Also, I don't think, that all the HPC centres are needlessly bad with smaller computers or good with larger ones. That said, larger ones usually correlate with directorship ability to get money and projects, which, in my experience, means a better research quite often.

Thanks for the clarifications adn the edit. I've nominated the question for re-opening. You might find it helpful to edit again to mention which country you're in, as systems can be very different.

I'm not exactly sure what your dilemma is. Normally a post doc is valuable because it helps you get a good position (i.e. not as a post doc). If you can do that otherwise, a post doc seems to me to be of little value. Of course, it can lead to broadening your circle of collaboration, which is a good thing, but there are other ways to do that also.
I think that most post docs would rather be post post docs. With real and secure positions.

Thank you for your answer! The main point of my dilemma is, that I'd love to try to switch to some more prestigious university in the future (possibly abroad), but I'm not sure, if it's even possible after "junior phase" - I have no experience with that, obviously...

@eenoku I don't know what country you're in, and probably don't know the system there, but I think it's unlikely that accepting a non-postdoc job at one institution will get you "stuck" there.

@Flyto Thanks! I've added the information about my country.

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


text:
Is it bad to join the editorial board of a journal on Beall’s list?
These days, many scholarly journals are emerging. Since they are not famous or high impact, they look for less famous scientists to fill their editorial board. This scheme fits many mid-level professors who are satisfied with their routine job, and just need some scientific recognition for official purpose.
However, if you have a big plan for your future, will you join the editorial boards of these journals? When you become a renowned scientist and joined famous journals, will you regret this past decision? Or this is a community service, and we should help new journals too? (Renowned scientists are busy, young scientists should take the job.)
In other words, can serving a low-quality journal as a member of its editorial board be considered as a weak point in your academic career?
I am moreover interested in the case, if a journal is listed on Beall’s list of predatory publishers.

Are you talking about Beall's list journals, or lower tier journals from e.g. Springer, Elsevier, new professional societies, etc?

@Corvus yes I mean Beall's list journals (open access journals). I know it is controversial, but many renowned scientists are also supporting these journals and are their editors.

Here's a somewhat related question I asked a couple of years ago.

Note that if you happen to come to the conclusion that a journal from Beall’s list is not predatory, you should inform Beall about it.

Just to note the notions of Beall's list journals and open access journals are far from identical. There is a number of good and even more of just decent open access journals which are not on Beall's list.

You conflate many things here: new journals and low-quality journals (I know journals that had several Fields medal winners in their very first editorial board, and every signs they where to be very good), and as has been mentioned predatory journals and open-access journals.

"many renowned scientists are also supporting these journals and are their editors" and some of them don't even know it!  Some of these scam journals put the names of prestigious people on their editorial boards without their knowledge or consent.

Some Open Access journals offer to pay $1000 to renowned scientists to publish "spotlight articles". http://www.collabchem.com/2013/08/06/being-paid-to-publish-in-journals-an-incentive/
I didn't see this particular publisher on Beall's list but...

Joining an editorial board is a form of endorsement as well as a service to the community.  You should never become an editor unless:

You understand how the publisher and journal operate, and you have good reason to believe the operations are competent and professional in every way.
You know the other editors, at least by reputation, and are certain that they are actively engaged in running an academically respectable journal.  In particular, you have talked with other editors about how the journal is doing and what is involved in joining the editorial board.
You honestly believe that publishing papers in this journal is good for the research community as well as the authors (and no well-informed person could describe it as junk, corrupt, predatory, or exploitative).

If you know enough to be sure all three conditions hold, then it doesn't matter what Beall says.  If anyone questions the respectability of the journal, you can convince them they are wrong.  Over time, the reputation should improve.
If you aren't sure, then you need to investigate further.  You have no business joining the editorial board of a journal you aren't prepared to endorse.  (I'd even go so far as to say it's unethical to lend your reputation to a journal that doesn't deserve it.)  If the journal is predatory, then being an editor will look bad.
When I've joined editorial boards for journals I know well as a reader and author, I've still had discussions about expectations for editors and how the journal works from the inside.  Becoming an editor is a substantial decision that should be based on careful consideration.  Nobody will be offended if you have questions or just want to talk.  (At least, if they are offended, then you shouldn't trust them.)
There's also the question of whether becoming an editor of a low-prestige journal looks bad, assuming it's not predatory but just publishes below-average papers.  One key question is whether the journal publishes papers you are interested in, papers you or other people you respect consider worth reading and citing (even if they aren't exciting or important papers).  If so, then being an editor sounds worthwhile.  If not, then what's the point of being an editor?  If the papers aren't worth reading, then listing it on your CV risks making people think "This person either has low standards or is willing to do pointless work just in order to be an editor."  That's not a disaster, but it's not a particularly flattering assessment.

+1 for "whether the journal publishes papers you are interested in".

One should note that "you need to investigate further" could very well include contacting Beall directly and inquiring as to why the journal or publisher is on the list. There's a fairly wide range of behaviours represented there and it Beall does not indicate what the offence was or when it happened, so finding that out is a good place to start on investigating the journal and publisher.

I can think of many reasons to become involved with legitimate even if currently lower-tier journals. For example, you may find the editorial experience a useful way to network. You may gain better insight into the publishing process. If a journal launches in exactly your specialty, where no journal existed before, you may have every reason to contribute to making it a success--and it may not stay lower-tier. These positions may not look great on your CV, but should not be an embarrassment either. The main issue comes down to how much time it is wise to devote to such endeavors.
However, I cannot see any advantage to becoming affiliated with a predatory Beall's list journal. Even if a few top-notch people have agreed by mistake to serve on the ed board (or have been listed without their permission, as sometimes is the case), having your name there makes you look inexperienced or gullible. Few if any of these journals are going to persist in the long term, so it is not like you're getting in early on a good thing. Listing editorial positions with these journals on your CV simply suggests you have nothing more positive to describe. And finally, these journals are exploitative of science and of scientists. Why would you wish to lend your name to that?
Disclosure: I am on the editorial boards of three journals, all open access: two top-tier and one mid-tier (from a top university press) that I would like to see become top-tier.

Yes, it's bad. I was invited to join the editorial board of a journal. I looked up the other people on the board, many of them well-respected scholars. So, I agreed. The first paper they asked me to review was a surprise -- I learned that the journal did not practice blind reviewing. Then I learned that the publisher is on Beall's list. I immediately resigned, and was relieved to be removed from the board and the website. I also removed all reference to it from my CV.
It's pretty well known these days that these predatory journals are proliferating. They have a terrible reputation among scholars, their editorial practices are shady, and there is no benefit to being associated with them. In fact, it will hurt you.

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


text:
Public engagement – why, when and how?
I believe in public engagement and personally, I think all PhD students should engage in some form of public engagement. During my PhD, I’ve done activities at primary schools and participate in a few public engagement events in the UK. Now, I have another job, in another field (PhD in allergic diseases and current job is cancer-related), so to do public engagement and attend any scientific conference related to allergic diseases, I have to take days off work.
This year, I have the opportunity to present the work I’ve done during my PhD at one large conference for non-scientists. I was wondering how public engagement is seen by other scientists. The benefits of doing public engagement are not as evident for the presenter as attending a scientific conference as there are more opportunities for collaboration in a scientific conference.
I’m mostly wondering how public engagement is seen by other scientists (related or unrelated fields). Do you think it’s an advantage to have public engagement activities in the CV, presenting your work for non-scientists, or do you think it’s better to have a Twitter account, a blog or write short articles for non-scientists?

I would suggest raising this question in chat. It’s iffy because you’re requesting an evaluation of a specific conference, which is something we don’t like to do here.

Thank you! I actually don't know how to do that. Do I need to create a room chat? Could you help me or point me to an explanation?

There’s a link to the main room chat in the drop-down menu at the top right.

I will actually edit the question to make it more general and applicable to every field.

Related questions: How can a researcher improve his contribution to society? and Why are contributions to the education of the broader public not valued much within academia?

Interesting questions @scaaahu. Thank you for those! I see that, at least on Academia, people are interested and see value in public engagement, which is great. I know there are a lot of blogs out there and I've certainly considered that several times. But should one only blog/present or should engage in all different methods available? Blog, social media, activities, presentations?


text:
Tongue slip problem in presentation even after a good amount of practice
How can I overcome the tongue-slip problem in conferences, meetings and seminars? I have read many discussions regarding conference presentation, such as delivering a good presentation, staying confident during presentation, avoiding nervousness, maintaining time and many more. But I have not found a proper answer to the tongue-slip problem.
I recently faced it in a presentation, only once, but in my title slide. The word was extreme, which I could not pronounce even in 5–7 seconds and felt much shame, finally pronounced it as esteem. I had previously done very good practice such as in front of a mirror and closing my eyes. I would also like to mention that I have used the same word several times very clearly in past conferences and also used same word very clearly in my next slide onwards.
How to overcome this problem? Many times I face similar problems, maybe with different words, but I have been noticing that it always happens in first few minutes of a presentation.

Thank you @Roland. Well said!! That people are at a conference for the science and not to mock.

Tip from an occasional performer:  if you ignore the slip and continue, most of your listeners will do likewise.

Next time you're in a talk given by someone very respected, try to listen out for this sort of thing.  They'll make dozens of slips, maybe even have a complete block and have to drag up a word from their memory even though it's key to their work.  You've heard lots of talks in which people do that I'm sure, and it hasn't affected your respect for the speaker or their work.  In fact you don't remember.  Once you get into your flow you're fine, which is great, because the first minute or two are introductory material in which there's less room for misunderstanding than when you get to details.

Out of curiosity, are you a native speaker (of the language you use when presenting)?

@ChrisH This. Some of the scientists I respect the most in my field occasionally get tripped up. It's the nature of speaking.

My physics professor once called it the "Large Hardon Collider", and we all (he included) giggle and moved on. It wasn't mocking him, it was simply a humorous mistake.

This would be a great example question for the Public Speaking proposal at Area 51.

@Superbest. No! I am not a native speaker of english, but I can speak and communicate fluently in english.

Years ago, I transcribed raw film footage to earn a little extra money. These transcriptions had to be verbatim, with all the ums, ahs, stuttering, etc. included. It's surprisingly difficult to do a verbatim transcription, because there is a strong tendency for listeners to hear what is meant, rather than what is actually said. We transcribers had to listen to things three or four times to record the speech exactly. The first time I listened to something, I wouldn't even notice the mistakes!
Some of the transcriptions I did were of people famous for being well-spoken, people I admire very much. I was surprised to learn that they make frequent speech errors/hesitations/disfluencies, just like the rest of us.
As a result of that experience, I realised that while we are all painfully aware of the imperfections in our own speech, others hardly notice them at all. Most mistakes are filtered out by the listener's brain, and aren't truly "heard".

@Hurkyl "where did they bury the survivors?"?

It sounds to me like you're asking how to eliminate simple "slip-of-the-tongue" mistakes, which I think is the wrong way to approach this and likely to be counter-productive.
Let's instead start with the assumption that sometimes you are going to make these simple mistakes.  First, recognize that it's not just you: everybody does.  Some people have more or less than others, and it's likely to happen more often to people not presenting in their native language, but everybody has problems like this sometimes when they're presenting.
Now the real question I would advise you to focus on is this: given that you've already made a mistakes, how do you minimize the impact that the mistake is likely to have on your presentation?  The answer is simple but challenging: just correct it and move on.  Why is this OK?  Because almost nobody but you will have noticed and cared in the first place.

Many people won't even notice the type of mistake you are talking about. Our perception of speech is strongly influenced by the larger structure of the content.  The type of mistake you are describing, e.g., "esteem" instead of "extreme" will likely not even be perceived by most listeners. Our brains are tuned for noisy communication and will simply fix it to the words that "ought" to be there.
Most people who do notice won't remember, as you move on with your talk. The linguistic glitch will simply disappear from memory, since it was far less important to anybody's comprehension than it felt to you in the first place.

In short: nobody worth talking to will care.  In fact, the biggest reason to even bother correcting the word is for your own personal comfort, not for anything about your audience.  Just fix it, let it go, and move on.  Doing that may be difficult and take some practice of its own, but it's absolutely the right thing to do.

Even if someone notices and remembers they won't mind -- the vast majority of people listening to a conference talk will have done something equivalent or worse.

For my most recent presentation, I realized as I was practicing that I would start to feel anxious and lose focus. Instead of trying to practice until I no longer got distracted, I deliberately pushed myself until I felt anxious, and practiced continuing confidently anyway!

@Kevin Self-imposed exposure therapy? Nice.

just correct it and move on. -- For such simple mistakes it is probably best to not even correct them. As you said, most people will likely not even recognize it. By correcting yourself, you just point them on the mistake.

I'm not sure if this is really an answer, or if this kind of plug is allowed on SE...but I would strongly recommend looking up your local Toastmasters chapter(s).  Toastmasters, in essence, is a public speaking club for adults.    While you can practice plenty in private, there's just no substitute for giving a speech in front of an audience, which Toastmasters can give you in a very friendly and encouraging environment.
The basic run-down of a 1 hour Toastmasters meeting goes like this:

Some members give a few speeches
They do "Table Topics" - the Topics Master asks random questions to the members of the meeting, who then must give a 1-2 minute long impromptu answer.
Some members give oral reviews of the speeches given during the meeting.
At the end of the meeting the leadership team gives their reports.  Some of the leaders include the 'Ah-Counter' and 'Grammarian'.  The Ah-Counter will inform you of filler words or phrases you commonly use and give you tips on eliminating those from your speech.  The Grammarian will inform you of any improper grammar you've used(they'll be gentle if you're clearly not a native speaker).

You'll not only get the opportunity to practice speaking in public, but you'll receive immediate, constructive criticism.  The speech projects give you specific, directed goals to achieve so you're not just stumbling from one speech to the next.  Of all the clubs I've witnessed guests are always welcome at no charge, so you can give it a shot and see if you like it without committing to anything.
In addition to the meetings, there are multiple competition periods throughout the year.  If you just attend your club meetings, you get comfortable speaking in front of the same audience all the time.  But if you go to these competitions, you'll be placed in large auditoriums filled with unfamiliar faces, which is good for improving your abilities.
Toastmasters is an international organization and there are chapters all over the place.  If you're in any decently populated area there should be more than one local chapter, and there may even be one at your university.  If there isn't a local chapter, then you could potentially start one yourself.

As a fellow Toastmaster, I approve this plug. :-) But also, I'd like to point out that TM is a non-profit organization, in case that's a factor in the question of whether such a plug is allowed/appropriate for SE.

I have witnessed as a guest once, and I wonder if it's best suit in academic setting. In academic talk, people tend to focus on deep thought idea, while in a Toastmaster presentation, people focus more on the charisma of the speech. If we look at how speakers talk in TED, we will see that they don't use wave their hands, or walking around, or making eyes contact much.

Not Really A Problem
As the other answers and comments have said, this kind of verbal boo-boo is always much more noticeable to the speaker than to the audience. If they actually were to notice, congratulate yourself for having kept them awake and attentive with your lively style and important content.
If the misspeaking is important to the content, merely correct yourself and move on. If not important, ignore it and move on. Do not apologize as that distracts the audience. Intently watch some news anchors or radio jockeys to see how they do just that: correct and move on. Note the keywords: move on.
Prevention
While not really a problem, if it bothers you so much you can take steps to  minimize (but never eliminate!) such misspeaking. Here are some techniques I learned as an instructor.
Syllables
If you know certain words trip you up, replace them.
If you cannot change them because of content requirements, then practice to over-annunciate them. Practice slowly pronouncing each sound separately. Write the word down, misspelling as needed to create these separate sounds.
For example, turn extreme into three or four syllables: x - tah - rhee - mah.
Practice that way slowly. Then re-assemble back to natural speech. But mentally maintain that multi-syllabic structure.
This trick also helps with certain words that your touch-typing hands cannot quite master.
Breathe.
Really, breathe. Occasionally take deep breaths. Feel free to take a moment at points in your talk to stop, take a deep breath. Straighten your back, letting your shoulder blades slide down into place. The physical act of breathing changes your physiology and your mind.
Your audience will appreciate these moments. They need time to digest your content, and form their own thoughts.
Plan for these deep pauses as part of the structure of your talk. After heavy meaty pieces of content, or when touching on something controversial or thought-provoking, plan to give the audience a moment.
Also grant yourself a few unplanned pauses. If at any time you start to feel rushed or anxious or don't quite know what to say, stop talking. Take a breath, and let yourself plan the next sentence before speaking. What seems like a long pregnant pause to you the speaker will hardly be a blip on the radar of attention to your audience.
Another way to work in pauses is to occasionally ask a rhetorical question. Emotionally for you it shifts some of the attention and burden onto the audience members, as you are challenging them to engage their minds. Emotionally for your audience members, it is a mild "wake-up call" reminding them to pay attention. Taking a long moment lets them wake-up and think, meanwhile giving you time for a moment to breathe and turn your body as you pan across the audience.
Rushing is a sure sign of a newbie speaker. And rushing tends to trigger misspeaking.
Speaking to Colleagues & Friends, Not Audience
The idea of an "audience", the sight of a stage and of ordered chairs, tends to provoke speaker’s anxiety. Remind yourself that you are talking to individuals, not an "audience".
Before your talk happens, have a few chats with a few people who will be in attendance. Give them an overview. Let them ask you a couple questions about the content. Look for these faces during the talk. Lock onto any face and think of yourself as talking only to that person for a sentence or two.
When you find your words lock-up, just think of talking to a colleague over a casual coffee break. I find that literally imagining the visual imagery of talking comfortably with a colleague can unlock those words.
Practice, Practice, Practice, Ad Nauseum
Practice your talk in your office. Practice your talk in front of your cat. Practice your talk in the mirror. Repeat three times, office, cat, mirror, office, cat, mirror.
Not to memorize a speech, but just go through the content step-by-step repeatedly.
Do a "dress rehearsal", with colleagues. Some teams regularly give a "brown bag talk" where they meet for lunch and someone gives a less formal talk.
Keep repeating until you are sick and tired of the content. Ad nauseam is the goal.
This helps in two ways:

Emotionally, if you are tired of the content, you’ll find your anxiety level will diminish.
Intellectually, with repeated practice you will find and lock onto certain phrasing, certain rhythms, and favorite sentence patterns. These will roll off your tongue more naturally. Once you have these “chunks” of language at the ready, your brain has so much less work to do during the presentation. You will feel the load lighten mentally, and misspeaking is much less likely to happen.

I once had a keynote in front of 500 people and someone in the front row was making some kind of crazy gestures which were a bit disturbing. At some point I thought he had a health problem as he was moving his fist from his chest to his throat. I stopped to ask him if he was okay (the whole audience looked at him) and he replied that HE was ok, but that my zipper was down... The whole audience looked at me (yes, over there). There was a roar of laughter.
I answered that it was a good thing that at least my underwear matched the trousers and that I hoped this was not the only thing which would be memorable in that keynote. Some more laughs and we were good to go on.
This is to say: just relax. Nobody cares about tiny mistakes. People really want you to have a great speech particularly when they see that someone is struggling with the speech.
As seen in the scientific documentary Four Weddings and a Funeral, stress during a speech can be tough but everyone is with you : https://youtu.be/2PubPWuEQp8?t=27

Here's a metaphor that might help. It is based on my genuine experience of learning to skydive.
If you ever take up parachuting, you are likely to hear the story of the novice who realised there was a tree in the middle of the field he was trying to land in. There was just one tree and the field was enormous. He became so terrified that he might hit this tree that he was unable to take his eyes off it. Now, parachutes are steerable and they tend to go in the direction you are looking. The instructors and everyone else watched in horrified silence as the beginner slowly, inexorably and inevitably flew straight towards the tree, finally hitting it full on. He ended dangling from the branches and having to be rescued. Luckily he suffered only bruises and no hospital treatment was necessary.
Apply this cautionary tale to public speaking (or any other activity). What you focus on, you will get. Focus on trouble and you will get trouble.
The key to public speaking is to focus on the message that you want to get across. If the subject-matter isn't important then you shouldn't be talking about it. Prepare thoroughly and have all your facts at your fingertips. Have a sheet of reminders so that you don't forget any important points. When speaking, have your notes there. However they aren't a crutch or a safety net but a reminder not to miss any of the fascinating facts you want to get across.
When the time comes to speak, forget all your prepared words and focus entirely on what you want to communicate. Look at the audience and see if they are understanding. Treat them as humans who want to hear about the subject. They wouldn't bother to be there if they weren't interested. They are not there to attend a theatrical performance. The message is far more important than the words.
If you are worrying about how you look and sound then you are being self-centred and making yourself more important than the facts you want to convey.
By all means practice voice exercises so that you speak clearly—maybe even take elocution lessons. As someone else suggested, join Toastmasters and they will give you excellent feedback on your enunciation and clarity of thought. Record yourself reciting poetry. When it comes to the actual event, forget about individual words. Never try to memorise them unless it is a performance of a dramatic work. Focus on what you want to communicate and trust your brain and body to do the rest.
In summary. Stop being so selfish and thinking about yourself all the time. Instead give the audience what they want. They want information about a fascinating subject. Don't think about you, think about them. Tell them what they need to know.

But public speaking is inevitably a performance, and many of your remarks implicitly acknowledge this. Perhaps rather than saying "the words don't matter", which is not exactly correct, one might think of performances of some great musical virtuosos, in which the acknowledged wrong notes were far secondary to the thrill of the bigger picture.

@paulgarrett - I completely disagree. Public speaking should not be a performance - it should be communication. An actor in a play gives a performance and must learn the words parrot-fashion. That is perfectly acceptable and necessary. Public speaking at a presentation is not (or shouldn't be) a theatrical performance. Its sole purpose is to effectively convey information. If you are trying to perform then (a) it will be obvious (b) it will be annoying and (c) you are in the wrong business.

I know many people who agree with you. But, "parrot fashion" is not the desired end, anyway.  And the audience is probably not logical automatons. And the speaker establishes credibility as much by manner and affect as by "content". Sure, there are a few bad speakers with something marvelous to say (badly), but the middle-of-the-road content will be perceived wildly differently depending on the presentation. Everything is a performance, I think, the only question is whether one takes this into account, or not. I encourage my competitors to ignore this aspect.

I think you are mincing words. Of course walking along the road is a performance in some sense. However if you think about every step you will probably trip yourself up  or get hit by a car. Walking is not dancing.  I clearly said that we should work on our diction if necessary. That is very different from declaiming a speech like a Victorian actor.  You must be dreadful at parties if you spend your time thinking about your tone of voice and vocabulary when talking to people instead of concentrating on what the conversation is about.

I think exactly the point is that one must/should rehearse so much that one need not think consciously about walking across a room, or down the road, or making small talk at a party with many people one hardly knows. I think it is an unwise principle to declare that "(alleged) content" trumps all other considerations. It is not true that if one builds a better mousetrap "they will come", and so on. (E.g., my assertions are not meant in the stupidest and naivest possible sense, however appealing that possibility might be, in the usual rhetorical . Trying to give good advice.)

Okay well that is our point of disagreement then. My argument is as follows: (A) If you are an actor then you must rehearse.  Every word is important. Every nuance is going to make a difference. (B) If you are a speaker communicating ideas then you must prepare.  Prepare thoroughly. Have all the facts at your fingertips. Anticipate the most difficult questions that people could ask and prepare the facts that will answer them. Have bullet points as reminders of which areas you must cover. Cut out the dross and side issues.

... Think about the main points that you must get across so that you won't become sidetracked. Prepare, prepare, prepare. When it comes time to speak, take your bullet points and talk powerfully, enthusiastically and briefly about each. Don't think about your words. Instead observe the listeners and see if they are getting the message. Check in with them if necessary. Make it as near a conversation as it can be within the limitations of the format.

Ah, ok, then perhaps you'd prefer the analogy to an actor "getting into character", or "assuming a persona", ... ? "Being the character...", as opposed to a dead, stilted, unconvincing, recital of lines. Exactly. :)

That's exactly what I believe you should avoid. An actor is portraying someone else. A public speaker is being him or herself and not portraying a character. That is just being fake. It comes across as pretentious, especially if you are not a good actor. If you know your facts and speak with passion about them you will enthrall your audience. You are not the message, you are a conduit for the message. Provide as little interference and resistance as possible as it passes from your brain to the listener's. Mannerisms and dramatic gestures will simply distract.

"Mannerisms and dramatic gestures" are not effective persona/acting, is exactly my point. Likewise, exaggeratedly anti-dramatic, or anti-persuasive-pretending, or anti-rhetorically-effective devices are ... not-so-good. If someone is wanting me to vote in favor, or speak in favor, of their degree, their hiring, or their tenure, any sort of anti-effectual pretense or hyper-diffident affect will make me vote "no"... barring their being a nascent superstart, which is the case about $0$ percent of the time... so talking about ordinary mensches is the only relevant case.

Erm...getting off-topic?

Well, ok, the question of what is off-topic or not may be the topic, and/or people think otherwise. Nevermind.

A public speaker is being him or herself and not portraying a character. — You're presenting a false dichotomy. A public speaker is putting on a professional persona, which include adopting a different speaking style, different mannerisms, different volume, even different posture than they might normally use in a hallway conversation with a student or chatting someone up at the local pub.  I speak differently when I'm teaching a class of 200 students versus explaining something in office hours to two students.  It's not a question of being fake.

@chaslyfromUK "An actor in a play gives a performance and must learn the words parrot-fashion." In my opinion, this would be indicative of a less-skilled actor. To give the best possible performance requires a deep understanding of the character's motivation, frame of reference, etc., and relating to what unspoken words the character might be thinking and the emotion behind the words. None of which, in my view, world be represented in parrot-like speech.

@JeffE - My dichotomy is real - actor versus self. If I wear smart clothes, speak clearly and avoid swearing, I'm still being me -- just a more formal me. I don't put on a Scots accent or a funny walk.  I don't adopt any kind of mannerisms - what's the point of that? Some people put on a fake persona to chat people up. The dating scene is full of people pretending to be what they are not, usually with disastrous results. If your purpose is to give a serious talk then commit to giving a serious talk. Your personality and manner  will adjust without any conscious tweaking.

@DanHenderson - I'm afraid you are nitpicking. As you well know, I didn't mean you should repeat "Pretty Polly" at regular intervals. I meant you should commit the words of a dramatic performance to memory. Conversely I say that that is precisely the wrong thing to do with a factual talk. Concentrating on set words removes all flexibility of thought - you can't adjust to the needs of your audience. A good speaker will start by finding what the listeners know already. This avoids them being bored with elementary stuff or overwhelmed with unfamiliar technicalities.

@chaslyfromUK well I don't think that what I meant is the same thing as what you think I meant. Where I was coming from was that a highly-skilled actor need not follow the script verbatim; if he's in character he might actually improve upon the written dialog, by speaking naturally from the script's meaning. But that's a good point about adjusting according to your audience's needs, which doesn't really apply to dramatic performances.

@chaslyfromUK actor versus self — The false dichotomy is between performance and honesty.  "Performance" does not require any sort of dishonesty; the word does not mean "acting".  And performance does not preclude communication; quite the opposite. — I don't adopt any kind of mannerisms ... Your personality and manner will adjust — These two statements are in direct contradiction.  Your manner adjusts by your adopting mannerisms.  Not everyone is as naturally talented at public speaking as you are; most people require the deliberate, conscious effort that you dismiss as "fake".

which doesn't really apply to dramatic performances — [citation needed]!

@JeffE - You say, "Not everyone is as naturally talented at public speaking as you are"   My argument is not about natural talent. I am talking about maximising the talent that you have, regardless of its base level.  If you handicap your own speaking by constantly thinking about how you look, you are short-changing the audience. As soon as you start to make the subject matter more important than yourself then the message will get through no matter how lowly your natural abilities.

Please take extended discussion to [chat].

I can offer a few ideas for you:

You need not read every word on your slides out loud.  After two tries with the word extreme, you may gesture at the troublesome word, and then go on.  You may even allow the audience to read an occasional whole sentence on their own.
You noticed that your difficulties arise primarily in the first two minutes.  Interestingly, I have noticed that the first minute or two of a talk, many people tend to take in very little of the content of what the speaker is saying.  That first minute or two is needed for acclimating to the speaker.  Keeping this in mind, you could put some unimportant filler in the very beginning; this way, there's no harm done if you read a word inaccurately.
You might experiment with being up front about the problem.  Just as someone might bring a hearing impairment or a neurological condition out in the open at the beginning, you could display a slide that informs the audience that you have a slight speech problem which might require you to occasionally gesture at a sentence on the screen while remaining silent.  You could let this slide speak for itself, or you could read it out loud -- either one would work.

Edit --
I had another thought.  Since it may be hard to anticipate which word might give trouble, it would be good to have a rescue plan in place in case this ever happens again.
Suppose you are on a particular slide and a certain word doesn't want to come out right today.  You may give it one more try, but then, even if you're hopeful it will work on the third try, I advise you not to try again.  Instead, use a synonym, or just point at the word with a laser pointer or a yard stick pointer, and say something like "that word!" and keep going.  Just as you would muddle through and keep going if one of your images inexplicably didn't show up on the screen during the talk.
Nerves can affect a person in unpredictable ways.  A long time ago, before the advent of digital recording, I set up a recording date in my community college's recital hall to record my audition for transferring to a music conservatory.  While I was in the middle of one of my pieces, a prelude from a Bach suite, my nerves had an unexpected effect: I couldn't hear myself properly.  My cello sounded incredibly muffled, as though it and I were in two neighboring rooms with a pretty soundproof wall in between.  Since I was on a tight budget, I didn't feel I could stop, regroup, and begin the movement again -- I felt I had to keep going.  What a strange feeling that was, to play but not be able to hear.  (The recording actually came out fine!)
So, if you are nervous, you might not have the control over your tongue that you normally have.
What makes nerves?  I mean, what makes a person nervous?  Adrenaline.  Without that shot of adrenaline, your talk would be deadly boring.  But every time your body gives you a shot of adrenaline, you are playing Russian roulette, because the result of the adrenaline is unpredictable.
I'm explaining this in the hope that understanding what's going on in your body will help prevent a panic reaction if you have a speech mishap.  Because really, the speech mishap itself isn't the main problem, is it?  I think it's the panic reaction that might come secondarily to an unexpected pronunciation anomaly.
It would be helpful to practice slow, deep breathing for a few minutes every day, to train yourself to respond this way when something goes very differently from plan.

Thank you for your answer @aparente001. Does your 2nd point mean that audiance don't give more importance to first 1-2 minutes of talk? The what about the first impression? If I can't deliver properly the first 1-2 minutes, then listeners may get frustrated to listen more.

@Kayan - What I'm trying to say in Point 2 is that for your first 90 seconds, you should play to say unimportant things.  This gives you the freedom to use words that are generally very comfortable for you; and it gives you the freedom to just put some graphic images on that first slide, and use index cards to cue what you plan to talk about in the very beginning. For example, you could put up a nice image of a location -- perhaps your alma mater, or your current institution, or the institution where you are giving the talk, or your favorite waterfall -- really, anything that appeals to you...

... and then with that attractive slide showing (hopefully something that gives you a nice warm feeling inside), you can say anything -- e.g. if you are visiting Madison, WI, you could say, Here is a picture of frozen Lake Mendota.  It is my dream to drive a car on it when it is frozen someday!  Unfortunately, today it is a balmy 72 degrees outside, and my dream will have to be postponed until my next visit to your lovely city.  //  Or you could put up a Gary Larson cartoon -- something somehow relevant to your talk would be nice, but not necessary.  The point is that these first couple...

... of sentences are just filler, kind of like when a band does a sound check of their mikes, amps and speakers.

Oops, typo.  "Play to say" should have been "plan to say."

I wholeheartedly support the answers by @jakebeal and @mhwombat.  But I would like to add my two bob's worth.
Everybody is different and what works for one person might be anathema to another.  Personally I find practice takes away the spontaneity of the presentation.  I rehearse what I'm going to say as I prepare the presentation. Typically writing some of the more clever phrasings into the speaker's notes. I do one read through to check the timing, etc.  And that's it.
I too make mistakes, slips far worse than saying "esteem" instead of "extreme".  I sometimes make a joke of it and either way just keep going.  I keep the speaker's notes handy, but rarely glance at them.  I'm more conscious of keeping the tempo to finish at the prescribed time.  I use a count-down timer on my phone.
I have sat through literally hundreds of talks, presentations.  The memorable ones are where the presenter was obviously on top of the topic, passionate about the topic and projecting a personality with whom I would love to chat with at the pub.

One particular version of this that I am prone to, even in more casual conversation but especially when animated and thus speaking quickly, is the occasional gibberish word. I have over the years realized that this is the consequence of attempting to simultaneously speak two (multi-syllable) synonyms, which begin with the same sound but end differently.
I hypothesize that this may be the result of my left and right brain sending slightly different thought streams for the sentence. I have reduced this by deliberately and consciously slowing my speech slightly when I get animated.

A detailed research on he slip of the tongue was done in Sigmund Freud's Introduction to Psychoanalysis. It could happen when you are stressed, fatigued, exited, or when concentrating on something else at mind. It could also be a mixture of the above.
You situation could involve more of the last case. As you stated, you spoke the word "esteem" instead of "extreme". This may as well mean that your unconscious mind was concentrating on either your esteem or your critics'. You would be able to counterbalance your unconscious thoughts by increasing your level of confidence in the matter. This doesn't necessarily mean you weren't thorough with your presentation. It means that you are too conscious on the presentation itself. It seems that you rehearsed the presentation so as to focus on many details to concentrate on in addition to the presentation material. This naturally decreases the level of your confidence, which is case 1 -- stress. So fixing even one of the first and last cases should solve your problem in theory.
The slip of the tongue is something that can occur without thought. You may not be able to overcome it by practice, but mostly by experience. Albeit this is nothing to worry too much about as even recorded lectures include tongue slips.

This seems to be most to the point answer. If there is a hidden reason behind your slip of the tongue, the only efficient way to deal with it is to face this reason. I would just add that another side of it - that you were actually aware that you should pronounce "extreme" but were unable to do so - is equally significant and you must try to rationalize the reason behind that too. Moreover let me add that the way you present the question makes me think that you yourself know very well all the reasons and just hope to convey them to us without doing it explicitly. So, just go ahead and face it!

In my opinion, the harder you try to correct your spelling, the harder your time will be in presentation.
If you pronounce the word extreme as esteem, then keep it this way! There are many people in the word that pronounce English words in an incorrect way because of the structure of their mother tongue.
As long as you spend a huge effort and still pronounce it in a wrong way, the audience will understand what you mean when you say esteem point. The important thing is what you tell the audience, not how you tell it.
If you must get rid of it, talk to yourself in English frequently. In daily life. Do not rehearse your presentation. Use the sentences that you use in daily life.
While doing this, try to imitate your favorite actor, for instance.
After some time, you will get used to the pronunciations of different words, including extreme, congratulations and so on.

authors: მამუკა ჯიბლაძე


text:
During recitation sections, should I ask students for help in coming up with the answer?
Typically when teaching recitation sections (in lower level applied math classes), I bring a problem or two, and ask students to fill in the steps in the solution.  Usually 4 or 5 people (out of 10-15) are engaged in this process.
On the one hand, I think the engaged students benefit from the class discussion, and enjoy it more than listening to a lecture.
On the other hand, I worry that the students who don't participate in the discussion will find it boring, or get confused (because sometimes the other students suggest wrong approaches, and I humor them a bit before explaining why it's wrong).  It also makes the problem-solving process longer than it could be, and in that time I could cover more types of problems or just let students go home early.
What do you think is the best practice?  (And is it different in regular lectures than in recitation sections?)

Why only 4-5? Is that the rest just decides not to participate? My Calculus I lecturer used to do this, and I really liked it. We were around 70.

@Davidmh Yeah the other people are silent, maybe out of shyness or not wanting to look stupid.

I really like working problems with students, because I think that actually working a problem is a very good way to engage more deeply with the material.  That said, you've put your finger on two very important problems: engaging the whole class, and dealing with incorrect solutions.
My approaches to these two problems:

Engaging the whole class: you don't have to have everybody talk, but you have to give an opportunity for everybody to talk.  In fact, I think it's often better not to call on individual students, and thereby put them on the spot.  But you can promote engagement by calling on subsets of the class, e.g., "Let's hear from somebody who hasn't spoken yet", "somebody on the left side of the room", "one of you folks in the back".  This gives you ways to make sure the confident students don't dominate and allow less confident students space to step forward.
Dealing with incorrect solutions: Honest mistakes are golden, for every one highlights a way in which a student is misunderstanding the material.  Depending on the nature of the mistake, you can take a number of different approaches.  With some mistakes, you can just follow through to illustrate how things go wrong, then use that as a contrast.  With others, you can go Socratic and ask the student questions that lead them to understand the correct answer more deeply.  Yet others give you a chance to segue into an explanation of common misunderstandings.  I say, cherish the mistakes, give the student positive feedback for speaking and thinking even as you tell them they are wrong, and turn them into opportunities for deeper understanding.

To me, the flip side of the problems you highlight are, in fact, the best reasons to ask students to help work problems in small recitations.  Solved well, they can present students with some of the best guided learning opportunities in an entire course.

Id like to add, ask the students to start the problem on paper or in small groups before discussing it in the class. Often this will boost shyer people's confidence in their answer and they will be more likely to speak.

"Honest mistakes are golden" Yup. And honest mistakes repeated by many students indicate an area where you should improve your pedagogy.


text:
Can I come up with a new theory in the course of my PhD research?
I have reviewed the theoretical trajectory of my research topic and I see gaps that I would like to fill with my own proposed theory. Is it too early in my career to put forward a theory? I am just a PhD student. If I can put forth a theory at this stage, what is the best way to go about it? Will the fact that I am a junior faculty member and a student affect the reception of my theory in the international scholarship community?

As long as you get your advisor's stamp of approval you're probably good.

Well, I'd even say that it's mandatory to come up with something new during PhD research, if you would be just researching what others have said and done, then it by definition isn't novel and not sufficient for a PhD thesis.

Theories are a dime a dozen. Are you willing to first bet a lot of work on establishing that it hasn't already been ruled out, and  then bet years of work on trying to prove that it works better than any of the alternatives? That's what science is all about, y'know

What are you referring to with "a theory"; a new hypothesis, a theoretical model, an entire theoretical framework, a redefinition of the entire field? A "theory" can be many different things, and it makes a difference when trying to answer the question.

Vote to close as 'Unclear what you're asking". Please explain to us what you mean by "Theory".

A theory (assuming you mean hypothesis or idea, not proven theorem) is the start of the process. You might come up with one at any time! Of course it will probably be wrong: this is nothing against you, its just that most interesting theories turn out to be wrong.
The interesting challenge, and most of the work, comes next, when you try to show that the theory is true or false, either empirically or analytically...

of course. that is the nature of a PhD. Of course, if it is anything contentious then you need to have arguments and evidence. And of course "extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence". That said, coming up a hypothesis or two is evidence of critical thought. Be prepared to defend it. And do so with courtesy and good will.

It's not clear what your statement "Of course not" is in reference to. Is that your answer to the titular question ("Can I come up with a new theory in the course of my PhD research?") or to a question in the body of the post?

it was a slip of the mind. now edited.


text:
I did not include all undergraduate schools in the university I graduated from. Have I lost my chance at ever applying to graduate school?
I've been really looking forward to the idea of returning back to school to complete my higher studies in a field that's both similar to my undergraduate degree, and the nature of my work. There are a couple of graduate schools I am interested in, located in Canada and in the UK, now I graduated from the United States. The university I graduated from contains transfer credits from another college I attended, but in total I attended 2 colleges (one is included in the transcript) and one community college.
The college and community college I attended were roughly 11 years ago, I rarely attended the classes in those two schools, and I took some time off to travel and work before I made the commitment of going back to school. I graduated with an undergraduate degree 2 years ago in a science-related field with a GPA of 3.8, and I still maintain a great relationship with most of my professors from my program.
It seems that I've made a grave mistake by not including my entire academic history when I applied to my last undergraduate university, should I forget about graduate school?
*Edit
@NateEldredge That's brilliant. I took classes at College A and CC B, I traveled and worked for a couple of years and enrolled in College C. I then decided to move back to the United States, and applied to College D with only College C mentioned as my academic history. Now I'm thinking of applying to a graduate program, using the degree I earned from College D, with the included transcript from College C. Whew.
*Further Clarification
Sorry. I'm not thinking all that clearly right now. I am worried that by applying to the graduate programs my full academic history will come to light, I did not mention the other schools in the application from the university I graduated from. By omitting them from the university I actually graduated from, I will be omitting them in the application to the graduate programs. Maybe it's my older age, but I feel like this is ethically reprehensible. Now I'm thinking of contacting my undergraduate university and explaining my full history, I'm afraid they will revoke my undergraduate degree.
Around 11 years ago I graduated from high school, I went to straight to a university. I never attended class, I eventually went to a community college, and I found myself in the same situation. I realized then, I needed to leave the environment I was in. I traveled, and worked for a couple of years. I eventually decided to go back to school, and started fresh at an international university in the country I was working in at the time. From there, I transferred to a university in the United States, and only mentioned the last university I attended and did not mention any of the other schools I attended.

Can you clarify why you say you've "made a grave mistake?" Has something actually happened, or do you just feel like you've made a mistake?

Can you clarify the question?  I have no idea what you are actually asking about, since I don't know how you could include a university in another university or why it would affect your degree.

Agree with the 2 comments above. Based off of what you've said here, I'm not even sure what the ordering of schools you attended is. As I understand it, the question is that OP did not list all previous schools attended when applying to their current program and so he/she is wondering if that hurts their grad school admissions....but how did the current school fail to notice this if the credits show up on the transcript?

Sorry. I'm not thinking all that clearly right now. I am worried that by applying to the graduate programs my full academic history will come to light, I did not mention the other schools in the application from the university I graduated from. By omitting them from the university I actually graduated from, I will be omitting them in the application to the graduate programs. Maybe it's my old age, but I feel like this is ethically reprehensible. Now I'm thinking of contacting my undergraduate university and explaining my full history, I'm afraid they will revoke my undergraduate degree.

@WonderingW You're no longer a foolish kid, you did the work, you honestly earned your degree.  I see no reason that your ancient past history has to matter at all.  The real question is whether your present is strong enough for the programs that you are interested in.

Maybe some variable names would make your situation easier to understand.  As I understand it, you took classes at College A and Community College B, and later transferred to University C.  In your application to C, you included your academic history from A, but omitted to mention B.  You now want to apply to a graduate program at University D and are concerned about possible ramifications of your past omission.  Have I got that right?

@NateEldredge That's brilliant. I took classes at College A and CC B, I traveled and worked for a couple of years and enrolled in College C. I then decided to move back to the United States, and applied to College D with only College C mentioned as my academic history. Now I'm thinking of applying to a graduate program, using the degree I earned from College D, with the included transcript from College C. Whew. Did that make it more confusing?

That helps a lot.  I'd suggest editing it into your question.

I am in a similar situation, what ever happened Wondering W?

On the basis of your "further clarification", I suppose that your grades at A and B were bad and that's why you mentioned only C when applying to D.  Now, when you apply to graduate school, you will probably be asked, as part of the application, to provide information about (and probably transcripts from) all the undergraduate institutions you ever attended.  If you're asked that, then you should honestly include all of A, B, C, and D.  You should explain the situation, emphasizing that (if I correctly understood your "further clarification") you became much more mature between B and C, and that therefore your record at A and B has become irrelevant.  (You should explain this so clearly that there will be no need for a clarification and further clarification.)


text:
Is there a tool to visualize the citation network which works with Google Scholar?
I know about tools like CitNet Explorer and VOSviewer, but they only work with Web of Science, which doesn't contain many papers I'd like to have in the network.
Is there any software, which does the same thing with data from Google Scholar?

To my knowledge, at the time of writing, Google Scholar does not define an API to access data, so presumably no software exists. Beyond Google Scholar and the tools you've already mentioned, you could try  https://www.semanticscholar.org or https://aminer.org. (I'm a little unsure what you mean by citation network, so perhaps they don't satisfy your needs.)

Thank you, I'll have a look at them. By citation network I mean that I put one paper into the software and it'll give me all the papers cited in the first one and all the papers cited in them up to n-th level. Usually, this leads to come clusters of papers and you can presume, which papers should be chosen for some systematic review.

You can use a package called Scopus2CitNet to convert the .CSV table of citations downloaded from Scopus to a format that is readable by CitNet Explorer. The tutorial video and links to download the package is here:
Tutorial, R package.
For VOS I would suggest you also try getting data as a .CSV from other databases like "Dimensions".
Remember to save your search terms as a text file for the "methods" section of the review!


text:
Does a low acceptance rate imply quality?
I am presenting a paper in a conference with a 20% acceptance rate. However the conference is just 3 years old and does not figure in the tiered rating system for conferences in my field Computer Science (that some universities use) . Recently I found out that another reputed international conference (that figures in the conference rankings) has almost double the acceptance rate. Did I make the right choice. How should I evaluate conferences in the future??

I think, as it seems your question is with regard to your situation more than the quality of conference, and you care and need to publish in tiered rating conference, you will be better off avoiding this conference for now and give it more years until it becomes more mature.

Thank you. This was my first conference and most of the decisions were taken by my TA. I did not have much of a say in it. I guess it is too late now and I will keep this in mind the next time.

Low acceptance rate does not necessarily imply quality, but it is correlated.  Crappy conferences often have high acceptance rates because they don't care.  Broad-community high quality conferences often have low acceptance rates because lots of people are trying to get their material into the same conference.
These are just correlations, however, and not causal in nature.  For example, some very good conference have high acceptance rates because they serve a highly specific community; thus they tend to draw high-quality submissions from within that community and few submissions from outside.
Complementarily, I know of at least one conference that games its acceptance rate by artificially regulating the number of papers accepted.  They decide in advance how selective the conference will be, and set the cutoff not in terms of quality but in terms of their judgement of "good conference" acceptance rate.
Finally, having too high a selectivity may be bad for a conference.  A colleague of mine who is an insider at one of the extremely selective CS conference told me that they were worried that their acceptance rate was too low, and that therefore they weren't getting very interesting work any more: a single dubious reviewer was enough to sink a paper, so only conservative and incremental work was making it in.
Thus, acceptance rate is not a very good metric.  It's much better to look at who the people are who go to the conference, what they've been publishing there, and whether you want to be associated with those people and that type of work.

Thank you. I don't have much knowledge about the kind of researchers who go to this conference. But I have a fairly good idea about the organizers, and if the website is to be believed, they are among the most reputed in my country. Also, the previous edition of this conference was held in highest ranked science institute in my country (India).

I agree with your last paragraph: I always look at the list of invited speakers before deciding whether to go to a conference or not

but it is correlated — [citation needed]

@JeffE Consider the extremes: do you know of any conferences with <15% acceptance rates that are not good conferences?  Complementarily, many crap conferences reject almost nothing.  There's your correlation; it's just very weak, since the range of practices of good conferences is so broad.

do you know of any conferences with <15% acceptance rates that are not good conferences? — Yes.

@JeffE I'm intrigued... would you care to expand, or not in public on the internet?  That certainly is very different than my CS experiences...

Absolutely not.
In my field (theoretical computer science), the acceptance rate in top-tier conferences is around 30%, the acceptance rate in second-tier conferences is around 30%, the acceptance rate in third-tier conferences is around 30%, and the acceptance rate in bottom-tier conferences is around 30%.

How should I evaluate conferences in the future??

By reading the proceedings, of course.

I think your "bottom" is well above the true bottom...

I think my notion of "conference" is well above the true bottom.

Alas, as we see here quite often, I fear that many do not find it quite so clear---as even a large organization like the IEEE seems to have recently learned the hard way.

Here is my two cents:

I judge the conferences based on the chair members and people
who would attend it and I would like to meet and talk or see their
state of art. Conferences are first and foremost a place to know
other researchers in your field, share thoughts off the record and
outside of the boundaries of email and web and learn and network
with others who share interests. Possible collaboration and sharing
resources or experiences and collecting feedback on your work should
be the number one outcome of your conference experience.
Ranks are 80% meaning, 20% noise. If a lower rank conference of a
sub-field is in winter in a horrible place, but I know for sure the
top researchers of my subfield although small group of people would go to,
I should rank it higher for myself than the generally higher rank and
biggest conference that everyone would stop by for a day and there are too
many people there to be able to establish a meaningful event.
Publishing the acceptance rate is a good sign, 20% also shows they are
as selective as possible. however, you should consider for the selection
bias among other people who submit their papers there.

To add, single track conferences, e.g., ACM SIGCOMM, tend to have very low acceptance rates.  On other hand, big conferences such as IEEE ICC, have around 40% acceptance rate, but for some community, that's their top conference!


text:
I am a student of high potential but not great on paper, how should I go about transferring to a university more at my level?
I am currently in my first year of a general mathematics PhD program at a state university that isn't rated particularly high. As far my classes go, I put in little to no effort towards them and instead dedicate my time to the research I've started, and still am at/near the top of my class. The students in my classes just seem to be at a much lower level of understanding than I am, and I am afraid I am stagnating myself by not being in a more competitive setting. I've begun working on a research project with a few other students who are soon to graduate, and thus far, everything we have done this semester has come from me, even though I haven't even finished the sequence of courses relevant to the material we are researching. Granted, there are a few professors who are well-respected in their field that I currently work under, and that is a great privilege,  but I do not feel that most the other students there are my academic peers.
I would like to look into transferring to a better university, but I have one main concern; my undergraduate transcript is not very good. Upon close inspection, one would find that I received very good grades in the advanced classes I took, but poor grades in the easier classes I took earlier in my academic career. I got a 4.0 the first semester of my grad program, and am confident that I will 4.0 this semester as well, but will this be enough to get into a highly ranked PhD program?(Edit: This is a rhetorical question, not the question I am trying to ask. It is obvious that this is not enough, so I am trying to find out what outside of this I can do?)
So my question is should I look into transferring?(and maybe risk offending the professors I have a good relationship right now?) and if so how can I prove that what they see on paper(my undergraduate transcript) is not reflective of my abilities as a mathematician?
EDIT: I should mention that my biggest concern right now is that my classes are being held back by the people who don't understand the material. I would love to be in a class where things were faster-paced so we could get into more detail and more subjects. I've been studying into more detail by myself, but I feel I would benefit from seeing this from my instructor as well(which is what I would imagine happens at a university with a better student body), which I don't get because too many people in my classes are struggling with the basics.

It seems to me that your attitude might be something that could hold you back. I would resist the urge to think of your good qualities (e.g. your intelligence) as the primary factors contributing to your eligibility for a certain position. Your dedication and willingness to put in the time and effort to achieve the grades you need to get into the right school are just as core to your potential as your natural intelligence. Don't underestimate their importance!

@Kik: If your grades in certain classes suck, as is stated is the case here, then not to "have to try at all" means that and getting poor grades. These classes likely test a different skill set (eg, calculations emphasized over derivations), and to dismiss poor grades essentially as a result of classes being below oneself is orthogonal to dedication and effort - it reeks of hubris. Also, "more advanced classes", if seminar type, could whitewash ability and allow you to excel by a strong personality only.

@gnometorule Alternatively, the classes could put undue focus on homework over tests, in order to force people to do homework, hoping they will learn "better" that way.  Unfortunately, those who do not need to do homework assignments to understand the material and ace the tests have their time wasted, and may decide not to do the homework at all, leading to poor grades, despite a better understanding of the material.  This was indeed my own educational experience from middle school through high school and college even.

@gnometorule,
The classes I did poorly on were classes I took in my first few years as an undergraduate. I did poorly due to non-academic reasons(I had a hard time adjusting to not having parental supervision) I did great on tests but I didn't do any of the homework. I have grown up quite a bit since then, and haven't missed a class or other obligation(even if I'm legitimately sick) in years. For example, I got C's in Calc 3 and Linear algebra(undergraduate) my first semester of undergrad, but A's in Advanced Calc and linear algebra(graduate level, but I took in undergrad) a few years later.

@gnometorule Also, I should mention, I understand that I made mistakes. I was a stupid 18 year old kid, and I regret that now. What I am trying to ask is how can I overcome those mistakes to realize my true potential? If I wasn't currently getting a very high A in my classes or if I felt that I didn't have a solid understanding of the material(even if I was still getting an A), I would be working very hard on them, but I have near-perfect scores(I get marked down on occasion because I don't always know what is "obvious" to others.) and I feel I have a good understanding of the subject matter.

@Kik you're absolutely right. It's not the OP's fault they are being underwhelmed at university, but it is going affect their ability to progress, so it's best to be aware of the consequences and try to work with them. Dwelling on the causes of the situation is unlikely to help him/her progress.

Good grief, mate...

Many, many students who are at lower-ranked universities aspire to be at higher-ranked places instead.  (In fact, what is more surprising to me is that not all such students feel this way.)  The hard truth is that top-ranked universities by definition are very selective of their applicants, and in your case the "main round" of the selection process has already occurred.  It is not impossible to transfer to a much better place, but it is difficult, to the extent that it may or may not be a reasonable goal.  Growing where you are planted sounds like a smarter strategy to me, and in fact it is not fundamentally incompatible with the ambition to move elsewhere.
The one way I can think of to effectively demonstrate your potential is to realize it, i.e., to prove at least one theorem of a caliber beyond what most students in your program do as part of their PhD thesis work.  If you can do that, then you clearly deserve to be at a better place, and you should not have much trouble finding some place to take you on.  I don't think anything else is worth banking on: as others have said, grades in PhD-level mathematics courses in the US are not necessarily very meaningful.  This varies in its extent, but every program I know has enough courses where all students who do not do anything egregiously, ridiculously wrong get the highest possible grade that a 4.0 GPA at the graduate level is just not the same thing as it is at the undergraduate level. I would expect that a substantial proportion of the students in your program would have 4.0 GPAs.
Unfortunately I think the strategy of "gunning for an early research success" will either be a good one or (and in terms of the percentages, this is more likely) a very bad one.  Most early career math PhD students are not anywhere near equipped to do meaningful research, to an extent that other academic fields would have a hard time believing.  In my program (about the 50th best in the US) early career students neglecting their coursework in favor of their "research" is a big red flag for me: these students often fail to meet programmatic requirements and get in real trouble.
To be very honest: I think the big risk here is that you are not as exceptional as you think, that your lack of effort in your coursework will itself become a problem down the road, and that your superiority to those around you may only be a matter of opinion.  Of course I'm not saying that this is the case -- I couldn't know -- but it would be very smart to be concerned about this on your own behalf.  You need some reality checks.  Here are some checkpoints:

Step 1: Can you pass all your generals / quals / required coursework rapidly and unusually well?

In most non-top math PhD programs I know of, there is an initial phase of 1-3 years where students spend time studying coursework and then passing exams.  A small number of students get through this portion much more quickly: within a single year, a single semester or even immediately upon arrival.  It is debatable whether such students are truly more talented than the others or simply arrived very well prepared and have their act together, but in any event such students are certainly doing exceptionally well in the program.

Step 2: Can you get faculty on board with the plan of your having exceptional promise and ambition and get a very meaty project to work on?

Go to one of the faculty members you're working with and level with them: say that you feel understimulated by the program, are worried that your peers lack your intensity and ambition, and that you are really looking for a project to sink your teeth into.  Then step back and listen very carefully to what she has to say.  You will probably get some amount of corroboration/denial of the picture you have painted, though it may be subtle.  (I would not say: "No, I completely disagree: you're just average, maybe not even that" to a student, even if I felt that way!) More importantly you should get something to work on.  Do so.  If it is not what you wanted, or if you have your own ideas about what you want to work on, come back and say so, but I think it's good to spend some time on projects that other people give you at this stage.

Step 3: Can you get some results?  Anything at first, then something nice, then maybe a real breakthrough?

If you can make it successfully through Step 3, then as above you're ready to go somewhere better.  Let me not even try to hide the following key point: the merit of this checklist is that it's what you're supposed to be doing anyway.  If by the time you successfully complete Step 3 you're ready to graduate, should you curse my trickery?  No, you should proudly write up your thesis and expect to get a postdoc at a much better place than you did your PhD, which is hard to do and puts you on a great trajectory for your later career.
Good luck.

From what you are saying, it sounds like I should be somewhere else. I am on a 3-year track right now. I will be taking two of three prelim exams this summer, and the third after completing the relevant course sequence next year, so it seems like I'm doing fine on step 1.
As for step 2, I am the only first year student in my field doing a research project. My professors have noticed my potential and have commented on it.
For step 3, as I mentioned, I am the only one producing in my research group, and I have made short work of many of the topics we are exploring.

SE318: The point is to do the steps in order.  I'm glad you're doing well, and again I don't know you.  If I wanted to play devil's advocate, I'd ask: if you are spending so little time on your coursework because you don't need to, why aren't you able to take and pass all of your prelim exams at once?  Also, what are you producing in your research group?  Publishable results?  If so, great.

I would love to take all my prelims at once and get them out of the way. I didn't think that was an option though, as I thought I had to take the required sequences of courses before taking the prelim. I will look into that to see if it is actually necessary to take the courses prior to the tests.

I looked at the requirements for my program and it does not say I have to complete the required sequence before taking the prelim, but it appears that even if I pass the prelim, I would still have to take the sequence. So, if I were to stay here, it would be silly not to wait until after the course to take the prelim. If I wanted to transfer though, would they look at my prelims in their consideration of me? I think my research is publishable(how can you tell if it is?). Granted, it sounds like it won't be published for a while so that we can fully explore the topics before presenting them.

@SE318: You have a great many things to talk to your advisor about.  In particular, the idea that you still need to do the coursework even if you show that you have mastered it: I doubt it, but it's not up to me.  But yes, passing your prelims rapidly and well would give you some consideration in transferring.  "I think my research is publishable(how can you tell if it is?)." Talk to your advisor.

what is more surprising to me is that not all such students feel this way — there can be many reasons to not aspire to move.  People can have many different personal reasons to prefer to be at institute X even when institute Y has more esteem.

"Most early career math PhD students are not anywhere near equipped to do meaningful research, to an extent that other academic fields would have a hard time believing." @SE318: if you can apply what you learned in math to a newer area (e.g. computer science, like graph algorithms, compressed sensing, etc.) then you might have some better luck proving something significant than trying to prove theorems in classical math.

will this be enough to get into a highly ranked PhD program?

No.
You might well be able to get into a highly ranked PhD program, and have your bad undergraduate grades overlooked.
But this is difficult; many more try to do this than succeed. Perfect grades in grad school are common and will not make a strong impression on graduate admissions committees. What will be more impressive is going far beyond what is expected of you, learning advanced topics on your own initiative and discussing them with faculty, being a leader at your current university (e.g., helping others, giving seminar talks), and carrying out research. If, next year, your rec letters read "SE318 is only in his/her second year in the Ph.D. program, but his/her research output already exceeds that of most of our graduating Ph.D. students, and he/she clearly deserves a shot at a much stronger program"... then you have a decent shot.
In particular:

I put in little to no effort

If you hope to realize your potential then you must start putting in much more effort immediately. Outwork everybody and be someone that everyone looks up to.
Best luck to you.

I appreciate the feedback. I should clarify, when I said I put in little to no effort, I am talking only about my effort specifically dedicated to my current classes, not effort dedicated to my studies as a whole(E.G. I am dedicating most of my scholarly time to the research I've started rather than to studying for my classes as even without studying that specific material I am still outperforming most(maybe all?) of the other students in my classes.

@SE318 if you want it to show, you probably have to shine consistently across everything you do. Grades are a very easy thing to look at.

Put in effort in your current classes as well. Do you have qualifiying exams at the beginning of your second year? You can often pass these with 60% or so, but try to ace them.

@anonymous I do have two exams scheduled for this summer. I am confident in my ability to ace both of them(and plan to make sure my confidence is well founded).

You might find your attitude holds you back. Universities are much like any large organization, and not like movies such as A Beautiful Mind or Good Will Hunting, initially you are little more than a name on a list. If you want to be noticed and get involved with exciting research, you have to put in the time doing the tasks the professors have set you; if you don't you may find you're considered a slacker, or worse, insulting the teaching staff by implying their work is beneath you. To get anywhere in academia (or indeed business), you need people on your side, and if that means sucking down your pride and getting the job done, then so be it. If you're ambitious, it will be noticed because your excellent grades will stand out to those who have the influence.
Richard Feynman was given permission to study other subjects on top of physics, as long as he did the work for all the subjects - this he did with grace and time to spare. Shine by your diligence and hard work, and it won't matter much which institution you're at, your work (and association with those eminent professors) will do you the most good. Besides, you may find you actually learn something along the way.

The answer is very simple. You have realized that the courses are easy and getting a high mark is not difficult. So you should not expect this will be selling points for you to get into a top program. If you know this, then the admission committee from Harvard University must know it as well or better than you are. Otherwise, what is the point to go to Harvard?
At this point in your career, it is much more important for you to have a solid foundation in whatever you are interested, and do not plunge into research right away. The first two years of a typical PhD program is to help you consolidate your understanding of the material. If you skip it and regard the courses at face value because you can easily get high grades through easy psets, it would be more detrimental to you than good in the long term. This is to exclude the chance that you are very talented, independent, hard working students like John Nash, Samuel Donaldson, Alexrander Gronthedieck, etc. But even they would need an advisor.
I will suggest you try to read some faculty's papers in your department and find some potential advisors after you pass the generals. Transfer only make sense if you can work with a much better advisor in some other university, or you want to switch your research field to something simply not available in your department. But even in this case it is very risky bet.
As a fellow math PhD student, I am not as experienced as Prof. Clark or others in the forum as I have not finished my PhD, but I do have 3.95/4.0 GPA in my grad school, fastest graduate student on department record to pass the qual, etc and I have went through a similar confusing period about my identity and my future. So this is my sincere advice.
Best wishes for your future academic career.

What you learn in graduate school doesn't just come from the professor.  You are there to learn how to learn for yourself.  After you finish your Ph.D. and move on to some academic position there is will not be a professor continuing to teach you new things.  You need to learn how to teach yourself if you want to advance.  If you are being graded on a curve then a high GPA does not mean you understand the material.  It means you understand the material better than your peers.  Even if there is no curve, then the professor may be reducing the difficulty of the exams to fit the ability of the class.  Either way, saying you don't put in any effort because you outperform people who don't understand the basics does not suggest that you understand the course material.
When you find the other students are struggling, see if they want to form a study group to go over the material outside of class.  Do not tell them you want to form this group because you think you are brilliant and everyone is holding you back.  By studying the material with the rest of the class you will be forced to put in the effort.  You will be forced to examine what you claim to know and you will see various misconceptions you have about the material.  Misconceptions which won't keep you from being at the top of the class but will keep you from having a true understanding of the material.  You will learn things from the other students that are at/near the top of the class.  You will gain teaching experience.  You will make some friends.  You will help to bring the quality of your entire program to a higher level.

This is sound advice, but it does nothing to answer the question. I want to transfer. I believe I can succeed in a better university than the one I am in right now, so I want to know what is the best way to facilitate that considering that I have a bad undergraduate transcript. Sure I could help bring the quality of my entire program to a slightly higher level, but that isn't the point of working on a PhD. I want to get the best education I can right now, not give others a better education. If these exams are reduced in difficulty, then I need to be in a place with a more difficult program.