text:
What happens when a candidate fails to get a tenure by the end of the evaluation period?

Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor/Senior Lecturer/Lecturer (Ref. AC2023/044/01)

Junior candidates should have (i) a Ph.D. degree (by the time of reporting for duty) in related fields; and (ii) high potential in teaching and research. Junior appointments will usually be made on a contract basis for up to three years initially, leading to longer-term appointments or tenure later subject to review.

Suppose, after three years the employer finds that the candidate didn't perform as expected, and hence the candidate fails to obtain a tenure.
What would be the implication for the candidate as far as his/her career in academia is concerned? How would his/her next potential employers see this?

You might be interested: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/188578/how-much-does-being-denied-tenure-damage-your-career

This question about failing to get tenure has been asked several times before.

Maybe the difference is the 3-year formal review is officially stated. Everywhere I have worked has had a third year formal review. It is basically to check for sufficient progress toward tenure. I don’t know anyone who got tenure at the 3rd year review. I know people who were asked to leave because they were not making progress.

"Next potential employers" will likely consider your research and teaching credentials (rather than whether you were not tenured in your 3-year position).
For example:  You do not get tenure at Harvard.  You apply to places the next tier down.  Many of them will be happy to get you (depending on your publications).

Unfortunately, I recommend you to check how "the academics" really think, see this comment:
https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/200367/what-happens-when-a-candidate-fails-to-get-a-tenure-by-the-end-of-the-evaluation/200369?noredirect=1#comment540563_200369

This answer applies to the US, perhaps elsewhere, but I have no explicit knowledge.
A three year conditional contract that doesn't result in tenure at the end is usually followed by another. Tenure will seldom be awarded after the first three year contract but if no progress is made there might not be a second try. After six years a decision is made. If the candidate fails to achieve tenure then, they will usually get a terminal one year contract in which they are expected to find employment elsewhere.
It is possible that someone fails to gain tenure simply because the conditions at the university have changed and they can not commit to a long term hire. Perhaps a couple of older faculty were expected to retire but did not. Letters from department chairs and deans explaining this will help mitigate the damage for the future and could even result in strong recommendations to other places. This is usually rare, but in difficult economic conditions (COVID) it happens.
Depending on the university that fails to grant tenure, the candidate might have a hard time getting employed, especially at one with a more or less equal reputation. But, the US has a lot of colleges and universities and failing to get tenure for research might not have a lot of effect for a teaching college, many of which are excellent.
Some places will offer support for candidates along the way, coaching them in the important aspects at that university.

The immediate consequence of not getting tenure is probably that the person's contract is not renewed and that person is now unemployed.
What that means for the future career depends on the circumstances. There are some universities that hire three or more persons on tenure track position for every tenured position available. In that case not making it is not great, but not horrible either. There are other universities where one tenure track position is filled for every tenured position and you'd have to do something pretty bad to not get that tenured position. Now not getting that postion is bad. And than there is everything in between.

" Now not getting that postion is bad." why? from the point of view of the (ex-)tenure track person, not getting the "one" position or not getting the "one over n" is the same.
A part from the small circle around the tenure position, no one external will know what were the chances to succesfuly complete tenure

@EarlGrey I fail to see how that's true. Around here people are fairly aware of how competitive the tenure track at different universities are. If you end up not getting tenure at a place that kicks out 2 out of 3 people it definitely looks different than being the first person to be denied tenure in recent history.

@xLeitix thanks for reminding me how much the authority principle works in the academia.... "hey, X has not received tenure from UniversityofCoolness" "what? they were the only candidate!" "yes, he must be really bad, we do not even to check what they really did".

@EarlGrey: Being fired from a job tends to make it harder to find other jobs.  That may be unfair but it's hardly unique to academia.

@NateEldredge Apart from the facts that (apparently) there is way less stigma in being fired from a job than not getting tenure and that not getting tenure is much more likely than being fired, you are most likely right: academia is very unfair. My personal experience is that the non-academia world is much less unfair than this, but if academians feel better knowing this, yes, also the rest of the world is unfair.

No, in the vast majority of cases the immediate consequence is that the person has one year left of their contract and has one year before they will be unemployed.


text:
How to cite a paper with authors in non-alphabetical order?
I am writing a pure-math paper.
I want to cite a paper where the authors are not listed in alphabetical order, e.g.:

John Smith and Anna Perez

I know that the latter is the supervisor of the former.
I assume that when citing this paper, I should not change the order of authors (if this is wrong or more complicated, please let me know).
What I’m less sure about, is where to list the paper in my bibliography. Typically, I just sort the bibliography alphabetically. But here it is not clear to me if I should do this.
For example, should a paper by Kay Roberts be listed before or after the above paper in the bibliography? Or is there no consensus on such situations?

I vote to close this question. This is a question for math practitioners and it is not of general interest to the Academia:SE .

@EarlGrey I believe answers to my question would likely also be applicable to other disciplines where alphabetical author order is standard.

@EarlGrey: Even if this were exclusively of the academic customs of mathematics, it is still about academic customs and thus on-topic. It is not about mathematics itself.

If it's a math paper, you're likely using bibtex for your bibliography. Let bibtex do the sorting.

For humour and possibly some insight, consider the converse: Suppose I am writing a paper in a field with an authorship order based on legwork and supervision hierarchy. Now I want to cite a paper from a field with alphabetic authorship order. How would I “correct” the authorship order or sorting?

Wolfgang Bangerth's comment may seem sort of flippant, but seriously, if you are doing any kind of work in which it is appropriate to cite a math paper, you should be using latex and bibtex. I have never in my career thought about citation order, because it is handled automatically.

hm perhaps I should finally learn how bibtex works…

@Wrzlprmft Just copy/paste, and let others worry about the politics.

@RobbieGoodwin I am an undergraduate, I typically only reach out to specific professors to discuss results which I think are worth their time. besides, if I was confused by this, I don’t see why a few others wouldn’t; hence it seems like a suitable question to be answered publicly on this site.

Do not change the order.
Alphabetize by the first listed author.
If in doubt, I could imagine adding a "dummy" entry in the bibliography:
Perez & Smith,  see Smith & Perez.

I used to be rather uncertain about what to do when authors were not listed alphabetically. I don't think this issue ever arose in anything I've published, but in my personal manuscripts and bibliographies I used to worry about it a lot, this being before I realized the alphabetization of authors is NOT used in nearly every field besides math. Your 30 May 2007 reply to me in sci.math about this issue led me to look into the matter carefully, and now I always use the exact ordering as given in the paper.

Completely agree with the first part, but am a bit confused why you make the suggestion about a dummy entry.  I know quite a few non-alphabetical papers in math, but have never seen such dummy entries in references (and I assume they would be removed by the journal).

@Kimball: I've seen dummy entries in several book bibliographies when the reference list is at least moderately long (over 100 entries, say) and the book is such that it would be useful for a reader to not overlook one or more papers by someone that the reader of the book might reasonably be expected to consult the bibliography to find works by, such as a historical survey of some topic. For example, this is done for ALL authors in The Higher Infinite by Akihiro Kanamori (1994) (continued)

(authors with co-authored works appearing elsewhere in the "Indexed References" are directed to those elsewhere-appearing works by a "See also ..." list of names). This is also done (for ALL authors, I think) in Zermelo's Axiom of Choice by Gregory H. Moore (1982). I'm sure I've also seen this in some survey papers (especially having a historical bent), but I don't know any examples off-hand.

The order under which the paper was published must also be kept during citation. Note that, in the mathematical field, the alphabetical order is not a general rule, some authors follow an order in terms of the amount of contributions.
As for the bibliography format, if you are using the LaTeX editor, it generates the bibliography for you, you just have to choose which format do you want to have your bibliography in.

In mathematics, alphabetical order is a general rule.  If I saw a paper in mathematics where the authors were listed in something other than alphabetical order, I would be brought up somewhat short, and wonder why it was done---it is unusual.  Obviously, other fields are different, but the general rule in mathematics is that authors are in alphabetical order.  Of course, you are correct to state that the order of the authors should not be changed in a bibliography or citation.

@XanderHenderson,  In applied mathematics I have accoutered many papers where the alphabetical order wasn't respected. You can check for instance the two papers at the end of this reply (note that there are more papers but these are the only one I could find right now). Note that for pure mathematics, you are right, the majority follow alphabetical order, however for applied mathematics, there is no general rule, as both ordering styles are followed by authors.   https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-010-0397-x, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40435-016-0233-2

Note:  I said "mathematics", not "applied mathematics", which is an entirely different animal.  Perhaps I should have said "pure mathematics", but this was the language used in the original question, so it was apparent to me that the context was clear.

It is not clear if the paper being cited is in pure math.  Some pure math papers cite papers in other fields.  Lemmas lurking in strange places.

In your bibliography, the author order must match the author order given on the paper you are citing.
When sorting your bibliography alphabetically, sort by the first author surname.

In a cited publication, use the author order given in the original.
(In the case of a paper you are co-authoring, the order of authors is generally by established seniority or standing within the relevant community. If this becomes a contentious issue you could always randomise the order and note that it is '(in no particular order)'.)

I'm not sure what field your second paragraph applies to, but OP is writing a paper in pure math, which typically uses alphabetical order

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to look for external reviewers (NTT)?
To be promoted in my school as an NTT, one needs external letters of recommendation. The requirements are similar to the tenure promotion recommenders (basically, the recommenders cannot be your friends/colleagues, etc.). The recommenders are supposed to comment both on my research and teaching.
I was asked to find two such recommenders myself. How can one find them? My publication list isn't that impressive (otherwise, I would be a TT), but I do have some papers and citations. Do I just write those people who cited to comment on my work? I don't know those people and never interacted with them. What about teaching?
What's the common practice in the US?

I would suggest that you get advice from somewhere at your institution who supports your promotion.  What works better or worse depends heavily on what the people evaluating your application think is important, and that will depend on your department and university.  It's unusual for external reviewers to be asked to comment on teaching, and it's unusual for NTT faculty to be evaluated on anything other than teaching and service, so it's not clear to me what your department or university would be looking for.

It's also unusual for faculty to actually do the asking themselves; more common is that the faculty member names some people they think would be familiar with their work and the chair or the committee running promotion does the asking.

@AlexanderWoo I think those comments would make a good answer.

@BryanKrause: I have been previously told on Meta that such comments are not an answer but rather a reason for closing for depending on individual factors.

Unfortunately, the head of the promotion committee only told me that the recommenders cannot be from the same school, nor can they be former colleagues, classmates, family members, etc. I am having hard time to even think how one can get such letters. It's really like "ask a friend to ask a friend to write a letter", esp if that relates to teaching.

To be promoted in my school as an NTT, one needs external letters of recommendation. The requirements are similar to the tenure promotion recommenders (basically, the recommenders cannot be your friends/colleagues, etc.). The recommenders are supposed to comment both on my research and teaching.

Well, you ask (sufficiently senior) people in your field to write you a recommendation letter. This is not common, but also not extremely rare - I have personally written around five such letters in about as many years. Of course not everybody you ask will say yes, but it's also not an outrageous request. That you don't know them personally isn't so uncommon either, some places (most notably the US Department of Homeland Security) explicitly ask for recommenders that you have never even spoken to.
Of course, these letters are different from the kind of letters you would get as an aspiring PhD student - everybody understands that if you ask for a letter from somebody with no conflict of interest you are not getting an evaluation of you as a person, but rather a judgement of how impactful and visible your work is in your field. That said, it is similar in the sense that if you struggle to find people agreeing to write you a letter, one problem may be that your work is indeed not very visible and all the people you ask decline rather than writing you a poor letter.

How can senior people in my field who are not in my department comment on my teaching?

@Vika Whenever I get asked about such recommendations it's about research, and research alone.

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


text:
Is it possible to receive federal Pell Grant payments retroactively for prior unclaimed semesters?
I recently became aware that I'm eligible to receive federal Pell Grant aid for my education expenses. I was unaware of my eligibility in the past. While reading some Pell Grant information, I came across this excerpt concerning retroactive payments:

The school can pay a student retroactively for any completed
  payment periods within the award year if the student was eligible for
  payment in those periods. Thus, if the school receives a valid output
  document for the student while he or she is enrolled as an eligible
  student in the summer term, but the student was also enrolled and
  eligible for payment in the previous fall term, that student must be paid retroactively for the fall term.

Link to the source pdf file: https://ifap.ed.gov/sfahandbooks/attachments/0304Vol3Ch4.pdf
I don't fully understand its meaning. Can anyone clarify whether I might be able to claim the previous Fall 2015 and Spring 2016 Pell Grant funding retroactively, or perhaps back even further? (I could provide appropriate documentation to show eligibility for those periods)

Pell grants are a form of financial aid for undergraduate students in the US.  Thus this is off-topic.  In any case, it would be appropriate to ask your school's financial aid office this question.

@brianborchers "... unless they can also apply to graduate or poat-graduate students as well." I would say that finding out retroactive claims are valid, certainly counts as such. Especially if you're scraping funds for your M(field) or PhD and only just found out this information.

Technically this can also apply to a specific post-baccalaureate program, but do what you must.

The PDF provided cites the statute about retroactive payments: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=ef04139925ea1e66b7643da86267e779&rgn=div8&view=text&node=34:4.1.1.1.5.5.1.4&idno=34 It is possible you can get a payment you missed during the award year, but it is relatively unlikely you'll get it farther back than that. You will need to check with your institution to confirm this, and statutes indicate a combination of "can" and "must" - so there is some discretion given to the institution, as well as some federal regulations in play. See what they say first.

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

authors: حسان القنازي


text:
Google finds thesis, but not indexed google scholar
I have recently finished my thesis, and it has been uploaded to my university's e-thesis server roughly 4 weeks ago.
The thesis can be found via google, after I manually submitted the link to google.
Unfortunatly, the thesis is not found via google scholar. Many of my colleage's thesis (with very similar, standard format), which are at the same e-thesis server, are found via google scholar (and the google scholar link then points to that e-thesis server).
Is there any way I can make google scholar index my thesis?

Just wait a while. Google scholar is not as frequently updated as google's search index, but since it is aware of the e-thesis server, it'll surely appear at some point.

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


text:
Phd Advisor with Apparent Mental Deterioration
I am a 3rd year phd student in Europe, and my advisor told me that he has a neurological issue.
I believe that this is causing some terrible form of mental deterioration which is affecting my work.
Among the things that happened with him:

He has always been forgetful, but lately, he cannot remember any of my explanations. This makes our meetings incredibly frustrating, since I spend all of our meeting time explaining to him the same ideas over and over again. I would be okay with never meeting him, but unfortunately since this semester I turned down one of his ideas and have been meeting with me less, he wrote that I have not been progressing this semester. Therefore I am bound to have these pointless meetings

he has been delaying editing a joint paper of ours for over a year and a half (I would be fine if he wouldn't edit it but he insists on doing this), and during that time his other student improved this result. He suggested that I improve his student's result and I refused to (partially since this is insulting and will not further me).

lately I feel like his memory is deteriorating very quickly. For example, I'm very pregnant and every time he sees me, he says "I totally forgot you are pregnant. When are you due?" But then forgets my answer.

he never checks our joint work and then blames it on me. I have written explanations for him and sent him explanations that others wrote and he never reads them.

if I send him any written text, he will ask to meet so I can make sure that he reads the text and he asks me questions while reading (the same ones I have answered 10000 times before). Then he tells me that it is not his role to read things that I write and is angry at me for wasting his time.

Besides telling me he has a neurological issue, I don't know for sure that it is degenerative, and therefore cannot report him.
Since he forgot what I have done in the PhD and therefore is not sure when or if I can graduate (I should graduate next year and look for a postdoc this October).
I have spoken to him about this and he told me that there is nothing wrong extending my PhD. Honestly I want to graduate next year so I will not have to deal with him and so that he won't forget me by the time I graduate so he can write me a good letter.
What are my options if indeed there is a mental deterioration on his part? I don't have a committee or lab director to report to rather the system is built in a way that I report all issues to my advisor (who is my issue). Also, how do I protect myself in case he really loses his mind?

which country? are you the only phd/postdoc/collaborator of the advisor?

Also I could imagine STEM vs Humanities might get different answers, so which one you are in could be worthwhile information. I also believe it worth mentioning if he is your only advisor, or if you have a second advisor/unofficial supervisor

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

I was initially tempted to quip that all advisors are forgetful and need to get content from the last meeting re-explained in the current meeting, but given that they acknowledge that they have some neurological issue (and given that they seem to forget basic things such as that you are pregnant) I do agree that this is worrisome and should be addressed.
At the end of the day, I fully agree with user438383 in a comment - you need to raise this issue to the department level, which may include the chair of PhD studies and/or your department head. If you are uncomfortable with this you may also talk to a trusted colleague (ideally another professor) and ask them to raise these issues with the department (and rather ASAP than "at some point"). At the end of the day your supervision is only one of many tasks that your advisor will have serious troubles with, and it is certainly possible that they need immediate medical help (even if they are themselves not fully aware of it). If you are having a very good relationship with your advisor you can also bring it up with them (very, very carefully), but if you have a more traditional student/teacher relationship this is probably not really your place and should be done by your advisor's boss, colleagues, or a medical professional.
That said, when you raise this (to anybody), make very sure to stick to the facts as observed and do not dabble in diagnosing your advisor ("is uncharacteristically forgetful, to a fairly extreme degree" is a fact, "mental capacity has degenerated and cannot advise anybody anymore" is a diagnosis).
Edit: I should say, not so much for OP as for other readers of this question with advisors that are extraordinarily forgetful: usually, we advisors do not forget things because we are incompetent or mentally degrading, but rather because our jobs are very busy. If an advisor suddenly becomes noticeably more forgetful than usual, I would assume they are (over-)stressed rather than sick per se. I don't think that stress alone can explain forgetting multiple times that a close colleague is visibly pregnant, though.

I think the key point is to ask someone in e.g. HR to ask who the correct person to ask is, without mentioning any names, first. I assume there will be a protocol for such things, but it's important to not name any names as this could potentially be a very sensitive issue.

@user438383 I agree with that, but in most universities it should be fairly clear who the "person above your supervisor" is. That you as a student usually don't interact much with them doesn't mean that this person does not exist.

It's not clear to me that the person above the supervisor is the right person to speak to - perhaps they are - but it could just as well be someone in HR/occupational health/whatever and totally unrelated to the academic hierarchy, for example.

@user438383 The "person above the advisor" almost certainly has the formal responsibility for the advisor's job performance as well as wellbeing. In a modern organisation everybody has a manager, even those that believe they do not. I am a low-level administrator, and I would definitely be the first person that a serious, work-impacting health issue of one of the professors I am responsible for would need to be reported to.

I'd like to add student representatives as another option to talk to. Bug given the explanation of the OP I fear that no such person(s) exist

"I totally forgot you are pregnant" does NOT fall under the category of "extraordinarily forgetful." If it ever does, academia has an unforgivable shortcoming. For those of us who have watched many elders deteriorate in this very typical way, the phrase "neurological issue" is a euphemism for a tragic red flag.

It was absolutely not clear when I did my PhD who the person above my supervisor was - my supervisor was the head of the department, and the person who supervised the PhD program in the department reported to him. But there was a university-wide post graduate office and I suspect they'd be who I'd go to in the first instance and not someone in the same department.

@Tanaya "I forgot you are pregnant", coming from a friend or colleague, would 100% be the sign of a significant memory issue. Coming from a superior, it might be denial. Another common form of memory lapse is "I forgot you are on a visa (and hence I failed to sign the paperwork you need to renew it)".

If you believe that this is affecting your graduation and, hence, your career, then you should take some action. The most appropriate, if you can't work it out with the advisor directly, is to ask for guidance from someone like the department head or a dean; someone with overall authority. You may get advised to find another (or co-) advisor to guarantee your timely completion.
But, don't make a complaint. Just ask for guidance. The institution has a responsibility to you.
It is probably too late for switching advisors to be a good move, but having someone else watch over your progress/process might be a solution.
However, there is at least one fairly common reason for the behavior you describe that doesn't involve any sort of deterioration. Some people go into a zone in their research where nothing else registers. Their mental process is so wrapped up in some problem that they just forget that the rest of the world exists at all.
There is one (apocryphal?) story of a famous mathematician(?) who was lost (in thought as well as location) on a street and asked a little girl on a nearby porch "Miss, can you help me find my way home?". The answer was "Yes, Daddy."
One other reason for being (extremely) forgetful is aging. Some people have recall problems with certain sorts of things as they age. This isn't (may not be) due to disease, I'm told.
I've "suffered" from both of these, though not to the degree you describe. I have trouble, now, recalling words, though I know the concept behind them. No trouble with faces, thankfully. And I've had some experience with zoning out also.
But, the important thing is to assure that your graduation isn't affected, no matter the cause.

The answer was "Yes, Daddy." -- I recall reading this (more than once) and my first thought was Norbert Wiener, but I wasn't sure whether the story goes with him. However, a few seconds of googling (besides the words "Norbert" and "Wiener", I included "girl" and "daddy") pretty much confirms this. For example, search-in-page for "daddy" here and here. (continued)

However, my guess is that if something like this applies to the OP's adviser, then upon arrival the OP probably would have heard lots of stories about their adviser from the department's grapevine.

@DaveLRenfro, yes, Norbert Wiener. And the fact that I couldn't dredge that up reinforces my point ;-)

In some EU countries, there is the PhD tutor in addition to the advisor. I know for sure that the tutor figure exists in Italy, for example. The tutor is another professor selected by you at the beginning of your PhD course, which should be unrelated to your advisor (e.g., another lab, another research area, etc.). The tutor is almost useless for most of the PhD students, however, in case you experience any problem with your advisor during your PhD path, (s)he can try to mediate.
This is a good case to discuss with the tutor, who can then inform the PhD coordinator or the department head.
In case in your country does not have the tutor figure, you can try with another professor you know and you feel confident to discuss this issue.

In the UK this role would be played by the "second supervisor".

I am a 3rd year phd student in Europe,
(...)
I don't have a committee or lab director to report to rather the
system is built in a way that I report all issues to my advisor (who
is my issue). Also, how do I protect myself in case he really loses
his mind?

If you are in a "normal" institution in Europe (university, technical school, ...) then there is always an organizational structure. This may not be a managerial one but there is someone you can go and talk to.
You can start bottom-up (see who is listed as the head of the group your advisor is in), or from the top (you arrange for a meeting with the dean or president and go from there). The latter will be longer.

my advisor told me that he has a neurological issue.

Please keep in mind that this information may be legally personal, depending on where you are. In other words, you need to be careful mentioning that to other people, at least in written form.
I understand you are upset, this is normal. I will however try to address your points in a neutral way - because you need to talk to the people above and have clear and clean messages so that they can make decisions. Your opinion about the "why" is secondary, to say the least (and possibly counterproductive).
Please let me try to rephrase your points in something more "presentable" (as arguments)

I believe that this is causing some terrible form of mental
deterioration which is affecting my work.

That you do not know. What you know is that there are some issues that were not there X years ago and you are worried.

He has always been forgetful, but lately, he cannot remember any of my
explanations. This makes our meetings incredibly frustrating since I
spend all of our meeting time explaining to him the same ideas over
and over again. I would be okay with never meeting him, but
unfortunately since this semester I turned down one of his ideas and
have been meeting with me less, he wrote that I have not been
progressing this semester. Therefore I am bound to have these
pointless meetings

You are usually expected to have meetings with your advisor (at least some, where you cross-check how it is going). Your problem is that the quality has been strangely lowering with time, with more time passed to discuss the past than the current state (and the future).

he has been delaying editing a joint paper of ours for over a year and
a half (I would be fine if he wouldn't edit it but he insists on doing
this), and during that time his other student improved this result. He
suggested that I improve his student's result and I refused to
(partially since this is insulting and will not further me).

Your work on a paper has been delayed and will soon be void because of progress by others. It is still time to salvage that but the paper needs to go.

lately I feel like his memory is deteriorating very quickly. For
example, I'm very pregnant and every time he sees me, he says "I
totally forgot you are pregnant. When are you due?" But then forgets
my answer.

That one is a good point. No matter what I can hardly imagine forgetting that one of my students was very pregnant.

he never checks our joint work and then blames it on me. I have
written explanations for him and sent him explanations that others
wrote and he never reads them.
if I send him any written text, he will ask to meet so I can make sure
that he reads the text and he asks me questions while reading (the
same ones I have answered 10000 times before). Then he tells me that
it is not his role to read things that I write and is angry at me for
wasting his time.

You are having a hard time setting up a working routine that is efficient. Your proposal to send memos about your progress is met with requests to meet, during which you are told not to write anything (at least this is how I understand what you wrote in that point)

Besides telling me he has a neurological issue, I don't know for sure
that it is degenerative, and therefore cannot report him.

It is not your job to "report" someone who has a medical problem. You should report the issues you are faced with and let the other side make up their mind (possibly by carefully hinting them about a possible reason, but again be careful here).
Since your advisor is part of a group, it is likely that you are not the only one noticing the symptoms.

Perhaps authorities should be informed, however:  I would say that if the University takes action and removes the professor, this could significantly delay your graduation as a PhD.  Typically, switching advisors usually requires starting over on the dissertation and so forth, at least here in the U.S.  You may wish to check with another professor who is eligible to potentially be your advisor to see if they are willing so to do, and if so, if they would accept most of your research and progress toward your dissertation.

I think that even an adviser who doesn't know, or maybe doesn't have a neurological problem, can behave like this. There are about two solutions:

either find another adviser (but in some institutions, it is not possible without the current one agrees),
or find another adviser, informally consult with him/her and do it according to him/her. It might be a friend, someone online, or just a smart fellow student. In extreme case you can become a supervisor to yourself, learning everything from literature and the Internet. But it is not so good as you can reflect your thought with a partner. When your supervisor sends something back to you for revision, don't react to it and move on. It rarely happens that a supervisor "sinks" the good work of his own doctoral student.

Find another advisor, seriously. I was in a similar position and it was hell. It severely impacted my quality of life and in the end, it seriously hurt my career choices (he'd often forget to send letters of rec for internships and jobs even with frequent reminders).
Hell, even sharing a document for publication was miserable. Everytime he made (various) typos that would prevent the document from compiling, I'd have to debug it for hours, only for him to go and reintroduce the same errors afterwards. Progressively, every aspect of the experience was orders of magnitude more difficult than it needed to be, and for no good reason. Though I was heavily ambitious, I hardly got any publications despite working significantly more than my cohorts. I could rant for hours about it and other details, but honestly the only thing I can think back on is how much I wish I'd had switched, even at the cost of being delayed a year or so. Good luck.

I am loath to say this, but if I were a misogynistic academic (of which there are unfortunately many) and I wanted to subtly punish my pregnant student out of a lack of respect, I might do exactly what your advisor is doing.
People are correct that you need to raise this with the dean. You should start documenting everything, because if you're lucky, this is "just" dementia and you can work around it by finding another person to advise you. I have a bad feeling you might not be so lucky.
"the system is built in a way that I report all issues to my advisor"
Somehow, I doubt that's fully the case. There's always an ombudsperson and/or a dean. Single-point-of-failure systems do exist, but they're rare.
You should simultaneously also verify that other students are having the exact same issues with your advisor that you are. If they are not, well, sorry, but there you go. If they are, then great and you should follow the advice others here have given you.
Really hope things turn out well - that's an obnoxious situation to be in.

Downvoted. You're essentially proposing a conspiracy theory here. Ironically, given that you are imagining all these other academics out there being disrespectful towards women by pretending to have severe memory issues, the premise of your own theory is that the OP (a first-person participant in the situation) is less competent than you (a random internet person) to distinguish between serious mental deterioration and misogyny.


text:
Timeline for leaving postdoc
I plan on leaving my current postdoc at the end of the first year to go to industry. My question is two fold:
Is 3 months a good length of notice to give?
When should I begin applying for positions in industry?
With regards to the first, there are already plenty of answers saying the more the notice the better, however I do not want to give too much in case I am replaced before the end of the year.
I would ideally like to begin a post in industry (computer science) at the beginning of 2020. It may be too early to begin applying now but I'm not sure about the interview timeline etc.
Thanks in advance.

You should always be applying.  Postdocs are short term positions.  It is understood.
Give notice after you get AND have accepted a firm written job offer.

You really don't owe any more than that.

This answer could be ethically questionable in some situations. Don't leave others hanging because you cause disruption in a project by giving late notice.

Totally disagree.  People leave corporate jobs all the time with extremely low notice.  And those are situations with much more investment in the employee than a postdoc.  He needs to be continuously interviewing as it is hard to get a job.  Giving pre-emptive notice on the assumption you will get something is a bad idea.  Power to the people.

It certainly depends upon the investment made in you by the lab. That said, this answer is a good baseline. Some don't want it to be true, but those are seldom the people changing the culture of postdoctoral positions. The lab can drop you overnight in most contracts. Don't forget that.

Is 3 months a good length of notice to give?

Sure, but more importantly check what is the legal requirement for resigning from your position. For me it's 1 month, so I don't need to give any more heads-up, but it's surely appreciated. Consider that they will need to replace you with someone, which takes time to arrange.

When should I begin applying for positions in industry?

Today! Right this second.. No but seriously, depending on the type of job you are looking for, a good fit might not come around whenever. Keep an eye out there, have some job alerts for your favorite companies. Talk to people, reach out into your network.
A word of advice though, if you do reach out to your network and these people know your current employer, you want to make sure that your boss is aware you are looking for something. You don't want to leave the impression of going behind someones back.

I plan on leaving my current postdoc at the end of the first year to
  go to industry.

1 year as a postdoc is hardly worth it though, the idea is to learn something new, to publish some articles, overall develop your skills. So, unless you are really tired of what you are doing I am not sure if a planned end by the first year makes any sense.

"1 year as a postdoc is hardly worth it though" - and yet there are 1-year positions for post-docs. To use the words of a famous genius: Sad.

There’s a tradeoff here and I think you need to bear this in mind. On one hand a postdoc is a job and you have legal rights to terminate that position as stipulated on your contract. On the other hand, you’ve committed to a long-term project and your goal is a publication. Other people involved in the project deserve notice. Overall I think clear honest communication is key to an exit without burning bridges. You may need a strong character reference later in your career for example.
It’s a job. A postdoc is a fixed-term position so it’s expected that you will be jobhunting to secure income after that period (whether advancing in an academic career or seeking other work). Leaving early should you find a desirable job opportunity is completely understandable. It’s your legal right to terminate your contract as long as you give minimum notice required by law in the country you’re working in. Typically the legal requirement is 2 weeks (14 days) notice but it’s generally considerate to give at least a months notice. Please check you comply with any conditions you agreed to in your contract. This is the minimum you are required to do. Of course it’s advisable not to give formal notice until you have accepted a job offer elsewhere or signed a contract.
Don’t burn bridges. Remaining on good terms with a former supervisor can help you throughout your career. Be respectful to them and anyone else who has invested their time in your project. You are not legally obliged to work without pay or publish any unfinished work. Clear communication about your career plans and the possibility that you may leave will enable your supervisor to support your best with the time remaining. It’s unlikely you will be replaced as you’re still the most qualified person to continue your project. Giving enough notice will also help give enough time to hand over the reins if someone else is available to continue the project or to re-evaluate plans and publish as smaller scale paper while you are still there. Of course with limited time you will not be able to publish everything that has initially been planned but making a sincere effort and acknowledging that it was a valuable experience for you will make a good impression. Unfortunately it is not always possible to leave on good terms with a supervisor but where you still have a good working relationship, you should try not to tarnish that but leaving abruptly.

Lots of these answers give the usual "HR is not your friend" talk. But things can be a bit different in Academia. Given that:

Is 3 months a good length of notice to give?

It's the right order of magnitude, but I would try to avoid setting a firm, arbitrary date, especially one months in the future.
Assuming you and your supervisor are on reasonably good terms, and you are committed to leaving, there is no reason not to tell your supervisor that you are applying to industry jobs and anticipate leaving in the next six months:

This will allow you some flexibility: it is simple enough to keep your supervisor in the loop as to your progress on the job hunt, and confirm that you are leaving once you accept a job. Your supervisor should be happy for you.
Finding a replacement will take some time, and your supervisor can likely support two of you for a brief period, so you're unlikely to find yourself out in the cold.
Moreover, being transparent will maximize the chances of remaining on good terms, which could be important if there is an opportunity for collaboration later.

If  you and your supervisor are not on good terms, then giving a few weeks notice (enough time to wrap up your current commitments) is perfectly professional.
I would follow the advice about "give 2 weeks' notice after you have a job" only if your supervisor is terrible and would be so offended by your decision to leave that he is likely to fire you immediately.

When should I begin applying for positions in industry?

Now. For computer science positions in the US, I would expect it to take 4-6 weeks to find a job if you are willing to cast a wide net, and maybe twice that if you have relatively narrow requirements. But there is no benefit to you for remaining in your post-doc a few more months (seriously!), and many benefits to starting on your "real career," so you should leave as soon as is reasonable.

Just a remark: In most countries you cannot be fired immediately, and certainly not without good reason. Not sure about the US (and whether OP lives there).

Apply everywhere as soon as possible. Do not give notice before you have accepted something.
However, if (and only if) you have been treated well, and your present employer has earned it, do tell them as soon as you have decent chances of getting a position. Do try to leave in a clean manner, with as much done as possible and other things documented. There are a few reasons for this:

If you have been treated well, returning the favour is a good thing to do. The world is a better place when people treat each other well. This has served me fine thus far in the academia.
If you ever decide to return, or are in a position to co-operate with the academic world, or need some kind of reference or favour from academia, then having left on good terms makes everything smoother.

Also read your work contract with some care. It might tell how it takes you to formally design after you have declared it.
Personally, I have told my mentors as soon as I have started looking for jobs and as soon as it started getting serious. I have been blessed with fine mentors, who have been supportive, and nothing ill has come out of this practice of openness, as far as I know.
However, if you have been mistreated, little of this applies.

I think three month notice is a good length. You can ask your HR department to make sure it is appropriate at your institution. Your supervisor already knows that you will leave at some point, so don't worry about that. Also don't worry too much about unfinished projects: There are always projects going on. Your colleagues will manage.
You can talk to people in your research group about it before you sign a new contract, but it doesn't really make sense before you start actually applying for jobs. You work in computer science, so you shouldn't have difficulties finding suitable positions, and once you sent out several applications things can evolve really quickly!
I think you should start thinking about your next position yesterday and apply as soon as you see something that sparks your interest (but probably no later than six month before the end of contract). Now that you seem to be clear about your goals focus on your future. Good luck!


text:
Is it common to work as a visiting scholar at a company while employed as a postdoc in a university?
I am currently employed as a postdoc at a US university. I was wondering if it is possible/common for postdocs to work as visiting researchers in industry while employed as a postdoc?
I know that many PhDs do internships while completing their studies but I was curious what the case is for postdocs. Do companies fund postdocs to visit their research labs?
My PhD is in machine learning if that makes any difference.
Thanks!

I can’t speak to if it is common, but I know someone whose postdoc was set up that way. This is at Stanford so could be a Silicon Valley thing.

I doubt that it is common. It may even be impossible in many cases. If the postdoc is considered full-time employment then there may be contractual restrictions on other employment.
It might be somewhat common for companies to fund a short visit and pick up expenses for the visit, however.
It is probably also somewhat common that a postdoc will work in a joint arrangement between a university and a company, perhaps because the company provides full or partial funding for the position. But it would still be "one job" and not two. Perhaps that is what you meant by the question, of course.
Doctoral students, in the US, at least, are different than post docs since they are not considered full time employees. They may hold part time (TA, RA) positions, of course.
And, depending on the nature of the position, it might be possible to accept short term employment when the normally expected activities are suspended, such as between terms for example.

Yes, I think the joint arrangement worked out it andvance is key here. One job that spans two worlds.


text:
How to learn technique from papers (technical fields)?
I'm an incoming PhD student. I did some research during my undergrad and master. One of the things my advisors told me was to read papers but not too focused on "technical details". This did help me navigate literature faster by just skimming for the "main ideas" in the paper. But is this the right attitude when the purpose of reading papers is to learn techniques (e.g. how to prove certain bounds, how to analyze certain matrix operations)? I felt that understanding an overall "strategy" or "essential ideas" has not been very effective in advancing my own research. That is, I'm still not very good at doing those type of complicated analysis and my research effort remains "elementary". It's like taking a math class without doing any homework: I feel that I know what is what but tend to struggle when actually sitting for an exam and solving problems.
What is the most effective way to cultivate technical abilities as a researcher, without the aid of textbooks and problem sets?

My first reaction is that you're giving up too easily - you're finding the complicated analysis 'hard' because you're expecting to figure it out in a few hours, when in reality you might have to spend a few months thinking about it in order to figure it out.

When you were an undergraduate, studying (I assume) math, the advice you got was good. Read a lot of papers, somewhat superficially, to get an idea of what it is possible to do and how to go about it generally.
But now that you are in a graduate research program you need to do more. The basis you get from textbooks isn't enough to get you to the research frontier in mathematics. It won't get you very close, actually. So, to approach the research boundary of what is known, you need to read (a few) papers fairly deeply. For advanced work, elementary, textbook, techniques may not work. So, you need to delve into the proofs of things to see if there are new and interesting techniques that you need in your own toolkit.
But, as you read a paper there are some things you need to ask yourself, beyond the question whether everything is correct. The big question is whether the paper is complete and is the last word on a topic, or can it, perhaps, be generalized in some interesting direction.
Another big question is whether the techniques used in the paper (not the results themselves) can be used and modified (extended) to solve other similar problems. In this sense the proofs in a math paper may be more important than the theorems.  And it is why some new proofs of old theorems are extremely important. The proofs open up new areas of exploration.
Another area of research can be opened up by comparing two papers and examining whether there is a possibility to combine what the two say to come up with something new and interesting. This may or may not require a deep reading of the papers, of course.
To do math research requires insight. Basically, it means being able to find things that might be true but haven't been proven true. Various limitations of logic make this harder than it might seem. So, when reading a paper, another question to ask is "What led the author(s) to think this might be true?" Why did they think it something worth time studying? That can lead to insights.
But, math research, of its nature is narrow and deep. So, you often need to do deep dives into ideas to discover whether there is something hidden but worth exploring. What works for a textbook learner doesn't get the job done for a researcher.
Caveat: This applies to mathematics and some theoretical aspects of other technical fields. I'll make no claim about "technical fields" in general.

In my experience (in the field of statistics - but I suspect it is of wider application) you need to switch between two modes. Sometimes, all you need is to skim a paper for its main ideas. But sometimes you will never understand a paper unless you try to reproduce its results. The reason for that is that published papers tend to be highly compressed, leaving out major steps in the argument. Unless you try to reproduce those arguments in detail I think that you will not fully understand the authors' work.
I have found that sometimes I cannot reproduce the work in a paper because I do not sufficiently understand the theory. There is nothing wrong with consulting a textbook - even a first year undergraduate textbook - just because you are now a PhD student. I even had to buy a second-hand copy of such a textbook, having long ago thrown out the copy of the same book that I bought in my first year of undergraduate study.
I have certainly worked through set exercises to help me understand basic theory. You should feel no shame in doing so.

Textbooks and problem sets are the specialized tools to teach you technical abilities.
Research papers may describe a technique, but they're often more focused on proving that the technique is sound, or a promising direction for research. Teaching you how to use the technique is not their primary aim. That's probably why your professors told you not to get stuck on the technical parts.
The time-tested ways of learning technique are textbooks, exercises, and taking classes where a teacher guides you through the material. Nowadays of course there also online courses, which makes it easier to do during hours that suit you.
One of the key advantages of a textbook, or a course or problem set, is completeness. If the author knew what they were doing, the programme will give you a thorough and complete set of skills.
Compare this to trying to learn from the examples in individual papers, or learning by tackling each problem as it appears (the classic self-taught programmer). The self-taught method doesn't know what it doesn't know. If you missed a key insight while trying to learn techniques from a stack of papers, because it wasn't explicitly used in those papers, you might never notice.
That said, not all textbooks and courses are equally good, and some are good for some students but not others. So look for one that actually works for you.

Your suggestions here are good for general learning, but not sufficient to get a person to the research frontier in math. Math research is a specialists game. Textbooks are good for general knowledge. But, yes, the practice of doing exercises helps you develop some skill.

Fair enough. It started out as a "textbooks aren't bad" that grew into a longer answer.


text:
Should one introduce past work in PhD statement of interest?
I wrote my statement of interests where one paragraph is dedicated to discuss my past works. But I wonder if that is necessary because it feels like repeating abstracts from the papers. And probably it will not make much sense to those who do not specialize in those topics. Should I just refer to the paper and make no formal introduction of what I did?  Since there is a word limit, it is really hard for me to explain all those ideas in just a few words without assuming any technical prerequisites, and I feel it is not really stating my interests and my visions of my doctoral studies anyways, because I'm open to other related topics as well and don't want people to think "oh, this is a XXX-guy and our faculties do not work on XXX so he is a mismatch".

Is there some theme to how you picked topics?

@PatriciaShanahan, that sounds like it could be developed into a proper answer.

@Buffy I don't have time at the moment, and you know more about how these statements are read.

I don't think Ben's answer says this strongly enough:
Your statement must include a description of your past work, if you have any.
The primary feature that PhD admissions committees looking for in applicants is evidence of potential for high-quality independent research.  The strongest possible evidence of your potential to do high-quality independent research is the fact that you have actually published high-quality independent research.
It doesn't matter whether your past research is on the same topics that you want to pursue in the future.  It's easy to communicate a change in interests in your statement with a single sentence: "More recently, however, my interests have shifted to quantum tropical M-theory."  (Obviously this sentence should be followed by a description of your specific interests in quantum tropical M-theory, written with enough maturity to convince experts in quantum tropical M-theory that you have the necessary knowledge and skills to be successful in quantum tropical M-theory, but that's what you were going to write anyway.)
Crucially, if your previous papers have coauthors, your statement (and your recommendation letters!) should focus on your specific technical contributions to those papers.  Remember that you are not trying to sell the work as good mathematics; you are trying to sell yourself as a good mathematician.
In particular, you are not trying to sell your past work to experts in your subsubfield of (past) interest, so you should not merely quote the abstracts.  You are trying to sell yourself to a general audience of trained mathematicians, some of whom are experts in your subsubfield of (past) interest.  So your description needs to be understandable to that broader audience, but still interesting enough to experts that they will want to read your papers for the actual technical details.
Obviously you should provide direct links to arXiv versions of your papers, in both your CV and your statement, so that interested committee members can read them without having to search.
[I'm an American theoretical computer scientist, which means I'm like a mathematician, except that I write less code.]

I wrote my statement of interests where one paragraph is dedicated to discuss my past works. But I wonder if that is necessary because it feels like repeating abstracts from the papers.

If your past work relates to the research interests you are raising in your statement then it would not be out of place to mention these works.  Indeed, in many cases this will be useful context, since it sets out what you have already done, and frames your interests in the context of existing work.  Mentioning these works would not necessarily entail repeating information in the abstracts to those works.  Bear in mind that even if you do not mention your past papers, they will be present in your CV, so the academics reviewing your application will know that you have written previous papers.  Ultimately it is up to you to decide if these papers add useful context or information about your research interests.

...probably it will not make much sense to those who do not specialize in those topics.  ...

Then it is badly written and you need to write it better.  Your statement should be for a general audience of academics in your broad field, without necessarily having specialist knowledge in your particular topic.  These people are experienced researchers with PhDs and probably decades of experience in your degree area; if what you write does not make sense to them then you have written it badly, and you need to smack yourself on the wrists and try again.  Learning to write about technical research in a way that does not get bogged down in minutiae is an acquired skill, but it is one you need to practice for entry into a PhD program.  It should not be impossible to explain your past research in an way that makes sense to experienced researchers, even if your past research falls in an area that is not their particular specialty.  Keep trying to write out a good explanation, and explain the essence of the work while shedding any unnecessary technical information, until you have something that makes sense.

Should I just refer to the paper and make no formal introduction of what I did?

There would be no point to that, so no, you should not do that.  If you mention your past papers at all, it should be to provide context for your research interests and the present context of that research.

...I feel it is not really stating my interests and my visions of my doctoral studies anyways, because I'm open to other related topics as well...

That will take about one sentence in your application to explain.


text:
How to refer to relationship with a "research mentor" in PhD application?
This professor is not my official thesis supervisor. I have taken his class. I often discuss research with him and has sent him my work which he read and discussed with me in depth. So he is going to recommend me for PhD. The schools ask me to specify my relationship with him. I don't think "course instructor" or "research advisor" would be appropriate because the former may be interpreted as I only take courses with him and he does not know my research whilst the latter is not strictly speaking true because he is not actually my thesis supervisor and I don't have an official relationship with him as advisee and advisor. That said, I feel I have talked to him almost as often as I speak to my thesis advisor. I feel he is more like a "research mentor" but what is the right way to say it on an application?

If you have to check a box from a set of fields, I think course instructor is closer to accurate than research advisor.  If you can write one free hand than feel free to use the "course instructor and mentor" if you choose.
I actually don't think it's that critical what you put in the label.  It will be normal for many students to pick instructors that they had some interaction with above and beyond the classroom.  I would just request your letter writer to emphasize this distinction:  "It might help me if you emphasized our collegial research interactions, not just the course work."

Sounds like this person is a “course instructor and mentor”. Honestly it does not matter what you put on the form - the letter is what matters. Typically I don’t look at what the student says about the relationship on the form, I only look at the letter.


text:
An academic CV for PhD applicants
I'm looking at some academic CVs by PhDs and professors. The focus seems to be long list of talks, conferences, publications and teaching experiences. I have none of these things. Whhat I have now of any substance is (i) 3 preprints of my research work so far that I have put on arxiv, and (ii) my 2 industry internships and 1 lab experience (iii) my grades and relevant classes.
I have received very few scholarships since I did not really need any financial assistance and did not apply. So there isn't really much content. I'm considering doing a bullet point list to provide detailed description for each of internships and research projects but none of the professional academic CVs I have seen have done this. Would this be a good idea? What else can I put on CV as a PhD applicants.

StackExchange answers if you have a significant amount of well-regarded ones; contests if you have taken prizes in some (this includes problem sections of journals); undergrad seminar talks if you've given any; software if you have developed any (may not be field-specific, but if programming is useful in the field, your skills will speak for you).

Answer here: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/137289/phd-program-application-cv-3-pages-versus-resume-1-2-pages-in-the-us/137351#137351

Math professor here, based in the USA. I have read dozens of CVs for my graduating seniors applying for math PhD programs. They usually contain:

Name, contact info
University name, expected degree (e.g., BS vs BA), month that degree is expected, GPA in major, overall GPA
Honors if there are any
Research experience, which can be the papers on arXiv.
Academic experience, which can be a quick list of the relevant courses, directed studies with faculty, or even papers you wrote for a course that you'd be willing to share.
Work experience
Experience as a teaching assistant
Campus involvement, e.g., organizations, sports teams
Skills including programming, language, etc.

For an undergraduate applying to grad school, it's more permissible to have a couple of bullet points summarizing topics in (4)-(6) above, e.g., one item for (5) might be:
Time Series Analysis of Real-estate data. Advisor: David White

Built time series models to analyze trend, seasonal patterns, and relationship to inflation and GDP, for home prices from Zillow.
Selected best model and computed one-year forecast.
Analyzed data using R and wrote a 12-page paper summarizing findings.

Overall, there is no real reason to pad your CV. It's fine if it's just one or two pages. Having three arXiv preprints is great. You could also include a section for Work in Progress, with titles of papers you are currently writing.

I'd even recommend keeping it to 1 page as an objective at this career stage!


text:
How to start doing significant research?
I'm a graduate student in applied math (applied probability, asymptotic etc.). I have written several articles on either solving "small" problems, or developing particular methodology/techniques towards certain type of problems. I'm at a stage where I have lots of ideas and if I want to I may be able to work out the details and write a few papers based off of them.
But none of these things are anywhere near significant much less ground-breaking etc. My advisor said a really good PhD is supposed to make ground-breaking contribution in just one problem/direction, instead of doing petty works in three and put them together to form a "pseudo-thesis". I know what exactly what he is referring to but have no clue where to start to searching for those ground breaking ideas.
My advisor does not like to suggest ideas/problems to me because he said he doesn't know what would be ground-breaking either or else he would do it himself than gift it to me.
As of now, all my ideas do not seem to carry much strength in the sense that they do not withstand much investigation or turn out to be "paraphrasing" classical paradigms. I suspect that I may need to probably read beyond my field because I reckon everyone in my field pretty much is familiar with the same set of literature and has a similar way of thinking. So they have exhausted great ideas that are possible under that mindset over the decades and only leave relatively small "fruits" for me to pick up.
My advisor said it may be good to read quantum physics as he himself is reading that and sees "lots of potential" in cross-disciplinary investigation. It would be a big investment for me because I don't know nothing about physics beyond Newton's law. But I'm in my second year so there is still time for lots of things and I think I'm tempted by the idea of learning physics and do cross-disciplinary research, although I'm keenly aware of the risk. Is learning a completely new field a good pathway towards big discovery? Should I take the risk as a PhD student? How do people stumble upon big discoveries? Is there general guiding principles behind this?
Thank you.

No offense, but how much experience does your advisor have with (successfully) advising PhD students? I see two red flags here.

@lighthousekeeper He does not like to supervise PhD and few people go to him in the department as he is known to be hands-off. But I went to him anyways because he himself is kind of a genius in what he does and I deem myself to be very independent as well.

I agree with the comments thus far.  My philosophy with regards to supervision is that my students aim for groundbreaking stuff after they graduate; that is, after they are well equipped with high level research skills.  Before then, their goal is simply to improve their research skills and graduate with a solid thesis that demonstrates that they are a solid researcher.  Once they are free from the threat of not graduating, they can go for high risk high reward topics.

@DanielLi You say you are very independent - that's kind of contradictory to your request for "significant research". If you need that kind of help, you are better off with a more guiding supervisor. You probably asked the bottle genie for something and found out that you got it, too close, in fact, to your wishes. Anyway, good suggestions by Darij below.

What you are describing is certainly not good advising, unless you have cherry-picked some particularly negative quotes and taken them out of their context.
It is true that monolithic and groundbreaking theses are regarded higher than "stapler theses" (3-5 papers combined into a thesis), but your reputation will most likely not hinge on your thesis -- and writing several papers early is most likely better for it than writing a really good thesis. (Keep in mind: You will be applying for jobs before your thesis is out! And while those jobs will not be permanent ones, it is still very important to catch a good one, since it will influence your ability to do good research in the postdoc period. In your application, a written paper counts more than an unwritten thesis, no matter how important the latter promises to be.)
Another downside of "one big project" theses is that they are more likely to fail. If 1 of the 5 papers in your "stapler thesis" is revealed to be non-novel (and that happens in most active fields, particularly when different schools use different notation and don't communicate well with each other), your degree probably won't be delayed. If the main result of your monolith thesis turns out to be non-novel, then it may be a serious problem. And that's all assuming that you do win your bet and get that one really good result.
I have written a "stapler thesis" myself (actually the worst kind, without even a Chapter 1 that connects everything; admittedly I do a lot of exposition in my papers). I have seen many "stapler theses" from MIT students who went on to do great work. There is no stigma in them; you can do better, but someone can always do better.
As to this:

My advisor does not like to suggest ideas/problems to me because he said he doesn't know what would be ground-breaking either or else he would do it himself than gift it to me.

The honesty is refreshing, but perhaps he should not be suggesting you to fend on your own then? Graduate students are usually not very good at recognizing which directions have promise and which are stale. This is an advisor's job. If the advisor cannot do that, he should then give the student something more concrete and incremental to do.

My advisor said it may be good to read quantum physics as he himself is reading that and sees "lots of potential" in cross-disciplinary investigation.

This is a very dim and faraway lighthouse to steer towards. If your advisor is not offering you anything more concrete (at the very least, some reading, and not just introductory textbooks), then you can just as well ignore it for your thesis. Everyone and their dead cat knows that quantum physics is connected to probability; this is not exactly a hot scent.

I specialize in randomized algorithms and mathematical analysis of those. Not a lot of people in my field know any physics, although physics people kinda contributed to my field from early on.

So you would advise to do "stapler thesis" for safety concerns? So what about working on a stapler thesis as a last resort later on after I fail?

@DanielLi: Yes, I advise working on getting publishable results written up and possibly published. In the background you can work on grander things, but if those fail you should have something to fall back on.

"My advisor does not like to suggest ideas/problems to me because he said he doesn't know what would be ground-breaking either or else he would do it himself than gift it to me." As a supervisor, this sounds horrendous to me. And here I was, thinking that math professors are the good guys in STEM.

My candid advice:

Keep "stamp-collecting"; do the "snowball" (packing snow together) thesis when you decide to leave.  Don't let your advisor tell you what to do.  It's VERY easy for tenured profs to say things like he did, but he has completely different risk/reward.  Burning out some non-superstar advisees is like a who cares to these guys.  But you care if you're the butterfly dying.
Keep your eyes open.  Some time insights come when you are "grinding the pigments". Keep a notebook (or file folder full of cocktail napkins) with your ideas.  Don't worry about differentiating small from big.  Just collect them.  If anything at least it gives you a parking lot piece of mind.  And sometimes something comes of it after the napkins sit in the folder a little bit.   Leave yourself freedom to "brainstorm" (open the goofy part of the brain, versus the editor part) at least as it comes to the idea list.
Spend some certain amount of time (~1/week, 20%) doing "bootleg" stuff.  Just something totally different that might not work, etc.  [Somehow find a way to write up all the bootleg fiddling around, even as another stamp.  But that is way down the road.  While messing around, put no pressure on yourself and play.
Don't dive down the physics rathole. That's your advisor's idea.  It doesn't sing to you.  Get something of your own.  Plus, it's kinda not news that physics has math applications and the physickers all think they are better at it already.  (Not true, but you know how they can be.)
Instead do something in petroleum geology, oil well completion, or even oil well economics. It's a huge area.  With both existing status (not lock blockchain) AND dislocations/changes creating opportunities.  Target rich and odds in your favor (like being the only guy in a power yoga class).  Not like everyone trying to be the next Google or Amazon idea guy.  Very hard physical problems (e.g. three phase flow).  And they have lots of money--yes, even when they say they don't, they do.  Plus it's of high interest to both supermajors and Halliburton/Schlumberger (best to collaborate with).  And strategically of interest to the PRC.  [Just building some option value.]

That's a gem of an answer! Wish I could upvote multiple times.

First, a general statement: personally, I think that it is much easier to think about grand things if you are enjoying your work, can immerse yourself in it, and do not have to think about meta problems, such as panicking about needing a result in order to get a degree.
One immediate corollary that I take from this is that I like to start my students on something that is very very likely to yield a solid (not ground breaking) result in a reasonable time span, and will get them within epsilon of being able to write a thesis (I am in the UK, where students generally have less time for their PhD than in the US), while getting them to learn techniques and problems in an area where ground breaking stuff might be possible. But as others have said, the ground breaking stuff takes time and should not be expected to come before you submit your thesis. Solid work will be enough to land you a postdoc position. In light of this and of the first paragraph, it seems like a very bad idea to me to start trying to do something ground breaking when, if it fails, you will not have the material for a thesis, and I would recommend doing it in the reverse order.
Even when you become an established researcher, you are unlikely to be able to afford to sit there for 5 years working on a breakthrough without producing visible outputs in the meantime. It is therefore important to learn to maintain a steady output of good work while you are working on grander things. Since it is completely unpredictable how long the grander things will take or whether they will materialise at all, you should decouple that part from your immediate goal: getting a PhD, which is what the steady output of good work will grant you.
One last thing that you cannot do much about, but that might put things a bit into perspective: being hands-off as a supervisor is not at all the same as outright saying that they will not share their good ideas with you. I have seen some fairly hands-on and some completely hands-off supervisors, but almost all good supervisors I have seen (in pure maths) are prepared to generously share their best ideas with their students; and if they are not, then they just don't take a student.

Have you ever taken a risk (scientifically)? Tried something not in books? Invented a method (even if it later turned out to not be novel)? Built a crazy device? Played around with chemicals? Tinkered with your computer outside of the usual routes - trying to get something under the hood to work?
If yes, and some of it was successful (nobody ever succeeds in everything), go ahead and start something risky, such as what you describe as overlap of Quantum and probability. Else, you have not much experience with risk, so you probably should take it a bit more carefully. You have to learn whether you can trust your scientific instinct or not.
One more suggestion: go to meetups or conferences. This is one of the best places to get fresh ideas from.

You're saying that people who have not taken any risk should not take any risk. A bit recursive :)

Well, something I just tried this week: I'm thinking of developing randomized algorithms based on complex-valued probability. Say, transition matrix of a Markov chain is complex, which may provide some sort of algebraic convenience (I don't know how). Only literature is in quantum physics, which I can't read. I need to build everything from ground up and I feel like I'm doing 18-th century math due to zero support. I feel like I'm doing something stupid..

@darijgrinberg No, I am saying that when, as OP, they are already at grad stage, then they need some way to gauge their experience with risk. The grad school is a very late stage to start learning this. The most scientifically successful people I know have a long history of playing with risky projects; it is  possible to begin so at grad level, but the advisor needs to help here which this one doesn't, unfortunately.

@DanielLi Ok. You do not need to understand much physics for being able to manipulate quantum objects - essentially it is complex linear algebra (often, not always, finite-dimensional) - physics helps in the interpretation, but if you are willing to just accept the algebra, it is not that difficult to dive in. Keep in mind - complex transition probabilities is not what they do in physics - in quantum physics, the probabilities emerge as the square of the modulus of complex numbers.

Lots of people start research in grad school -- so it shouldn't count as all that late. I think the standard way of dealing with risk is taking risks in parallel to doing less risky work (i.e., incremental papers and minor projects). This can be done whether or not the OP has any experience with risky projects beforehand -- one day it's time to start.

@darijgrinberg Quite agreed, this is a good strategy. I responded specifically to the desire of OP to go straight for high risk. If you have never done that before and your supervisor is not of great help, then my advice was to gauge their experience. If they do not have it, then, yes, your advice is a way in.


text:
Someone copied my assignment without my knowledge but I am now accused of directly assisting them to copy my work
Someone copied my solution to an assignment without my knowledge, and now I'm accused of directly assisting them by allowing them to copy my work. I was given a formal written warning.
How do I prove that I did not give permission to anyone to copy my work?
I do not know the person. My lecturer held separate interviews with me and the unknown person.

Maybe you can elaborate on how the other person got hold of your assignment.  Hopefully, during your interview, you sound more competent than the other person.  That should help the teacher decides who is the original author.

The answers here may provide you insight : https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/120834/72855

Is it really related to academia? This is a general comment nothing towards OP.

Can you prove you do not know the person? What "proof" do they claim indicating you abetting the other person? Did you do "work-for-hire" over the internet? Just a few questions to explore.

Send a written statement for the record that you did not cheat and that the details of the accusation were not shared. Send to teacher, his academic department chair, and whatever board or office sent you their written warning.  Make it clear in the letter everyone who is cc-ed and that there is a record to (your) file. Send letters certified mail (return receipt) or Fedex or the like so there is a delivery record.  That gets your objection on record.  And will definitely make it clear to teacher, etc. that you are strongly contesting the warning.

It is pretty hard (read impossible) to prove a negative. But it may be that you are really being accused of sharing the blame by being sloppy in keeping your own work private. Some places will treat that as cooperating, even if it is unintentional. If you were sloppy you probably have little recourse.
But one avenue may be open to you (among others). If the written warning is part of your permanent record you can ask to place a written rebuttal into the permanent record as well. If it isn't part of the permanent record, you can probably just move on. If you are questioned about it in the future, assure them that you really weren't at fault. But in most places, a single transgression is unlikely to end your career, especially if the official response was a warning.
Other options that might be open would be regular or ad-hoc judiciary panels that can adjudicate such things, though you aren't guaranteed success here.
And it is also just possible that the other person could take full responsibility for the act, leaving you in the clear.


text:
Rejected from conference on misunderstood claims
I have recently had a paper rejected with 2 Accepts and 1 Reject from a CORE A* conference. I did understand the risks of being rejected when I made the submission, the problem is that I got back some set of reviews that are not applicable (let alone constructive) to my work. The 2 Accepts qualified the work as being solid and that it exhibits a high novelty degree, while the rejection was based on some misunderstandings on the reviewer's behalf, which led to "Syntactically complete work but with limited contribution" and "Novelty unclear" rank. Unfortunately, the 2 accept reviewers did not argue enough to support the paper, and the PC chairs considered that one reject outweighs the two accepts, so the outcome was a negative one.
Now, my question is: how likely is it to send back an email to the PC chairs and explain why we think the rejection feedback is not applicable to our work as it is based on some claims that we don't make in the paper (and that the reviewer thought we made) and get an answer back? Could submission outcomes change if they notice the reviews are based on incorrect claims? Or is it more likely to be ignored?

You can use rebuttals in journals sometimes. But conferences do not have time and are unlikely to react to this.

Some conferences in CS do actually have a formal rebuttal period - but if your conference doesn't have this concept, it would be pretty unusual to even consider contact from an author unless it was a flagrant error (as in the decision was accept but the system rejected you, suggesting an accident - etc).

I did use the rebuttal (as the format of the conference has 1 round of revision), however, the reviewer that rejected the paper almost contradicted one of their reviews in the revision feedback - hence one of the reasons we got rejected. And 2 other claims were misunderstood and we didn't get the misunderstanding from their first feedback so we did not put much emphasis on those ideas in the rebuttal.

Sometimes misunderstandings truly are the error of the reviewer, but they can also be the error of the authors. Make sure your language is clear, even if 2/3 reviewers understood your work may be unclear to half of your audience.

In good conferences (and I would certainly assume this to be the case in an A* conference) decisions are not made solely and directly by the PC Chairs, and definitely not only by looking at the scores. What usually happens is that after each assigned PC member submits their reviews, a discussion phase among the reviewers is triggered. In some conferences this happens in a long face-to-face meeting of the majority of the PC, in other conferences this is done offline through the reviewing system. All controversial papers (and a paper that gets two +2's and one -2 would certainly qualify as controversial) will be discussed - usually the PC chairs will ensure that both sides of the argument are heard, and then the reviewers and the PC chairs jointly arrive at a common decision (other PC members are also free to chime in, but in practice this only happens in face-to-face meetings in my experience).
Typically, there is little trace of this discussion in the reviews or notification letter, so it is difficult for you as an author to say if the two +2's did not have good arguments to fight for your paper, did not feel like they wanted to "champion" the paper despite their positive reviews, or were ultimately ignored because the reasoning of the -2 was more convincing. However, for a CORE A* conference I would assume that this discussion happened, that the PC chairs are quite aware of the difference in opinion regarding this paper, and made a conscious decision to reject the paper despite the positive reviews.
Hence, writing them is highly unlikely to change anything. For a large conference, PC chairs typically get multiple such requests each year, and I am not aware of even a single case in my community where the decision was retroactively changed. The standard answer for all questions on this site that fall into the category of "What can I do about this (from my perspective) unfair reject?" applies: move on, and try another conference and journal. Fundamentally, academic reviewing is a stochastic process, and even the best submissions can be rejected unfairly.

However, there still is something to learn from this experience. It's a difficult thing to do, but you should try to figure out why the -2 misunderstood your paper (and why apparently your paper did not give the +2's sufficient ammunition to fight for it effectively in the discussion phase):

Was the contribution not clearly enough described? Note that "we had a strong contribution" isn't sufficient for an A* conference, it also needs to be very obvious that you have a strong contribution. A paper can, in fact, be rejected if the detractor makes a convincing case that your paper can easily be misunderstood (even if the champions manage to convince them that they indeed misunderstood).
Did the paper get the wrong reviewers? One common source of unfair rejects is if the paper at first glance (e.g., from title and abstract) appeals to the wrong group of PC members (e.g., a paper looking like it has a strong theoretical contribution will primarily be reviewed by theory-minded folks - if it then turns out that the actual work is very practical, it will end very unfortunate, with reviewers misunderstanding the paper or simply not being interested enough to actually fight for the work).
Was there some other issue that may have led to a normally tempered, sane, and competent person to vote for -2 (and, apparently, fight for a rejection - because the more normal case when +2 +2 -2 reviews come in is that the -2 gives in quickly and the paper is accepted)? Scan their review for this - maybe there is something that you would consider a minor threat that they consider backbreaking, or maybe you missed some related work that they consider crucial.

However, after all is said and done, your paper has in fact convinced two thirds of its reviewers - resubmitting a slightly improved version of the paper to a similar (or even the same) conference has in fact a very high chance of success.

You can argue it, and might be successful. But you might also not be successful. The PC may believe the third reviewer has more weight to bear. For a conference, however, I think your chances are slim, just because of the time factor.
Ultimately, however, it is your responsibility to be clear enough in your writing that such misunderstandings don't occur. I'm not judging here, and don't know the details. It is possible, of course, that you know more than the reviewer in this case. I doubt that you would lose anything by arguing your case, but you would also do well to try to parse out exactly what the objection was. It may be that you will learn something from understanding it that will help you improve the work even if you fail at having the decision reversed.

If it is a conference (not a journal), do not waste your time. Get over it ad think of another venue. Unfair judgements, misunderstandings, happens all the time. The only way to overcome it is to improve your apper and make clarification that does not allow this misunderstanding to happen again. Then submit it in another venue.