text:
What steps to take when offered an unpaid research fellowship position in a funded research?
EDIT FOR UPDATE
I rejected this specific research fellowship.
Another lab in the same R&D institute reached out to me soon after I rejected the first one, offering me full funding with living stipend (higher than the average COL in the area). We had a discussion with it, and they are already processing my papers.
Thanks, everyone!

I received an offer to do a research fellowship at an EU research institute. The research institute is considered one of the most prominent R&D institute in the field I want to go into.
My concern is that the position itself is unpaid/self-funded. As I am currently not affiliated with any university (gap year), I can not really apply for institutional funding. I will be trying to appeal if I can at least get housing covered by the host institute as I can fund pretty much everything else but the housing, or vice versa, with my dad advising me to request as much compensation the host institute is willing to provide. How should I proceed with this position if they deny my appeal or can not provide me some funding for the position?

Potentially other important information:

The funding for the research itself is for four years, but I am opting to only really work with them for a maximum of one year as I do not have enough funds to self-support anything longer than that. I am from a non-EU country.
The PIs I would be working with are postdocs. I was referred to their research work by two other separate PIs (senior scientists/group leads) in the same division because their labs are currently full.
I was given direct recommendation and referral to this research institute by my current mentor, who is an [insert professional organisation name] Fellow. He was a visiting researcher at this institute during his sabbatical and was a visiting professor at a nearby partner university where one of the PIs is also affiliated.

PS I do not really know which tags to use.

Can you clarify what your question is? It seems like if they do not offer you any funding then your choices are to either take the unpaid position or not. Many would consider an offer without funds to not be an offer at all, of course. There may also be a consideration of what work you are allowed to do without pay in the country you will be in.

@BryanKrause I would say that my question is something along the lines of, (1) "Should I accept the position or not? If I accept it, how to get help covering costs?" I was initially advised by the PIs I would be working with that the position is typically not paid. My mentor learned about this and seems to have tried asking the research institute if they can provide me with some financial support. It seems like the "management" side of the institute is currently thinking about it, but in the event that I will not be given any monetary support, (1).

We can't really make decisions for you about whether you should take a position or not. We can possibly help with specific questions you have that help you make the decision, but they have to be specific to some aspect rather than "should I or not".

If the problem is that the color of money of their funds does not allow supporting a non-student, is there an easy way to become a student for the duration? (I'm just guessing at why they are not or cannot support you.)

@BryanKrause I am personally leaning towards accepting the position as it is an opportunity that might not present itself in the future with how competitive getting into this R&D institute is. So, perhaps, I am most concerned about the, "How to get help covering costs?" aspect of my question. I personally think that taking a small loan (that I can afford to fully pay the following year) is not really a great choice—doing so would only be my last resort. Other potential external fundings for the position are also only open to EU citizens and/or PhD/post-docs.

@JonCuster unfortunately, even for currently registered students (including those doing their theses/dissertations), they are typically not paid as well.

For such a competitive institute it sure doesn't sound like a very good place to have a job.

Are you likely to get anything out of this except experience and a line in your CV? Publications?

@Buffy yes, it is very likely to get at least one or two publications according to the PIs as I will be joining in the most important parts of the research work.

@Roland I would say that my statement was more into, "I studied at University A. Since I am currently not affiliated with University A, I can not apply for University A funding." I thought that I tried to differentiate institute and institution. Sorry for the confusion.
Also, my thinking is that I should not really be seeking funding, stating that I am affiliated with the research institute, as I have not officially accepted the offer yet. Although I am leaning towards accepting the position, I am still weighing my options.

tag: ?

To anyone interested for an update:
I rejected this specific research fellowship.
Another lab in the same R&D institute reached out to me soon after I rejected the first one, offering me full funding with living stipend (higher than the average COL in the area). We already had a discussion with it, and they are already processing my papers.
Thanks, everyone!

Anyone offering a student an unpaid position will be understanding if that student asks for any financial help they can get -- in other words, it will not hurt to ask whether there is anything they can do beyond offering you a salary (say, a housing allowance, etc). The worst that can happen is that they say "no, sorry, there really isn't anything we can do for you", but they're unlikely to retract the offer if you ask nicely.
Now, whether or not you take the job is something we really can't tell you. The best we can do is provide you with a perspective. First, working for someone without being paid clearly sucks, and one could reasonably suggest that hiring someone without paying them is unethical. On the other hand, working for them is also a way for you to (i) learn something valuable for your future, (ii) build a professional network that might be useful, (iii) receive mentoring that can be helpful for your career. If you chose to see things this way, then an unpaid internship is, in essence, an "opportunity cost": It is money you pay in hopes of reaping rewards in the future.
Opportunity costs are all around us. For example, going to college is one (you could be working in industry and make money, but instead you choose to go to college, potentially pay tuition, because you think it is a good investment), playing the lottery (you pay for a lottery ticket in hopes of winning), you pay for a train ticket to a different city to go to a job interview in hopes of getting the job, and so on. Some of these have more certain outcomes than others, but at the core of your dilemma lies the question: "Is it worth paying the opportunity cost given what I think the benefits will likely be". This is a question that I don't think we can answer for you.

I generally agree, but opportunity costs are a self-offered thing (ok, let's set aside that college make profit from students, that train companies are often for profit etcetc :D ), while here we are discussing a research fellowship, where OP would be putting not only his money, but OP will commit his time and brain, to support the production of scientific results for which other people are actually paid.
At the worst OP can ask to work 100% remotely. The research institute can maybe provide OP travel refunds so OP can visit the institution every 3-6 months.

@EarlGrey I don't think we disagree. We agree that it is borderline unethical (though so are many unpaid internships). Offering your brain, time, and money to pay rent is still an opportunity cost, in the same way as taking the train to a job interview without getting reimbursed. There is no conceptual different between money and time/brain -- it's all a cost. And the fellowship is self-offered: OP is not forced to take the offer in the same way as nobody is forced to buy a lottery ticket when it is offered at the grocery store checkout line.

Now you do not have an affiliation, but in EU getting an affiliation is rather easy (and almost free). PhD programs aren't always rigid or very structured, what is important to have is a professor willing to be your (formal) advisor.
And it is not unheard of being student at university in country X while working in research institute in country Y (it is not easy, but it is not impossible either).
For example in Germany you may find a professor at the university that accept you as a PhD student (said professor does not need to provide you money or even a working space for you), but once you are accepted you will get the uni affiliation (you will enroll, paying your yearly tuition fees of ~400 € per year).
Be creative, take the position, sign the contract, so you get one working affiliation (the research institution) to use as a leverage with professors (ask your superior at the research institute for contacts, or do cold emailing sparingly from the research institution email) to be accepted as a PhD student somewhere. At the same time, do not compromise yourself financially, so do not embark in moving or renting a flat in the location of the research institution.
Maybe get to the place for the starting date, sign the papers and all the bureaucracy of the first 1 month and then go back home to work remotely ...
Good luck!


text:
How should I go about reading mathematics papers and textbooks as a PhD student
It shames me to admit it, but I feel like I still haven’t figured out the right way to efficiently read papers and textbooks. I am a second year PhD student in pure mathematics, and I struggle a lot to balance the need to learn a lot new mathematics with the fact that I have a finite amount of time in which to do it.
I should have asked this question years ago: what is best (i.e. most efficient) way to read papers and textbooks in order to have a working knowledge of the subject?
Maybe I should be more precise.
I am working in both algebraic geometry and homotopy theory (think simplicial presheaves and K-Theory), and I have recently found myself overwhelmed by the amount that I need to learn. In an ideal world I would read background material by doing every exercise in every textbook, and by working carefully through every proof in every paper, but I worry that I just don’t have enough time. On the flip side, I often find myself “reading” mathematics without actually absorbing any working knowledge, so I basically don’t make any direct research progress.
I understand that reading in great volume is still constructive, and I have certainly learnt a lot about how mathematics fits together, but when I actually need to do new mathematics I consistently find myself lost.
To rephrase my question: can anyone offer an advice on their workflow when it comes to learning new mathematics?
Perhaps the way I feel is more or less how everyone feels, and it is confidence and organisation which is the problem. If that is the case, then I ask: can anyone offer advice on how to organise oneself day to day in a PhD to be productive? Moreover, can anyone offer advice on how to break out of a lack of self confidence when it comes to doing research mathematics?
I apologise in advance if this question has been asked many times before, but I haven’t been able to find the right thread. I apologise also if my questions are too multi-pronged, I just feel that they are all to interconnected to be split up.

With no fear, and with passion.

This seems a bit too personal to answer, but surely there is good advise you can receive. I think this is a better fit for academia.SE however. Definitely your area (which only slightly overlaps with mine) has a tremendous amount of technical definitions to digest, I feel like at some point the 'learn as you work' method really works, but it seems to be the case too that, in such areas, you need the input of your advisor to keep you from drowning. I mostly feel like I learn things by myself, but my advisor is the one that convinces me that I understand them (before I actually do?!).

@PatrickElliott If you want to, I can migrate this to that site. But please avoid cross-posting that there.

I don't know the answer but I feel the same! Perhaps this struggle is just another one of the little joys that doing a PhD brings.

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/50/73

I struggle a lot to balance the need to learn a lot new mathematics with the fact that I have a finite amount of time in which to do it.

This is something that almost everyone struggles with when they're starting out, and it is one of the reasons having a good advisor is important: to tell you what specifically you should be working on.
Roughly, the point undergraduate and Master's programs or the first year or two of a PhD program in the US is to give you a solid base in mathematics.  But the main point of (the PhD part of) a PhD program is to train you to be able to do research.  It is not meant to give you a comprehensive understanding of your area of interest (which in most cases is impossible anyway).
Ideally, over the course of a PhD, you learn enough of the general context to be able:

to formulate interesting questions,
determine (more or less) what is known about these questions in the literature;

and learn enough relevant technical abilities to:

make new progress on or solve specific problems.

Typically once you get to a point in the general context of having specific problems to work on, you should spend more time (maybe 80% of your research time?) on your specific problems than on trying understand the "big picture."  As I also quoted in this answer,
Ravi Vakil says

...mathematics is so rich and infinite that it is impossible to learn it systematically, and if you wait to master one topic before moving on to the next, you'll never get anywhere. Instead, you'll have tendrils of knowledge extending far from your comfort zone. Then you can later backfill from these tendrils, and extend your comfort zone; this is much easier to do than learning "forwards".

As for specific advice:

Discuss this with your advisor.  See if they have specific suggestions for things you should read, both for general understanding and for your specific problem.
Try to organize different tasks with a schedule.  For instance, maybe work on your thesis problem 4 days a week, and read some general literature one day a week.  Or you can split things up by times of day or weekdays/weekends.  Some people work better with a strict schedule, I prefer a more flexible schedule.  Maybe if I'm feeling stuck on my research one day, I'll do other tasks that day.  Or one day something makes me curious about another topic, I learn about that.
Participate in activities to learn things outside of your thesis problem: seminars, conferences, workshops, summer schools, etc.  If there's something you want to learn in depth, maybe organize a seminar with other students/postdocs.
To learn things a bit outside your thesis focus, you can also try reading survey papers, books, lecture notes and introductions of research papers.  Also talk to people.  When looking at papers, one often just reads the introduction and maybe skims relevant bits to see what the paper is about.  Normally it is only if you need to know details for something you are doing that read the paper more carefully (and then sometimes just one specific section).  One thing to help you absorb what the paper is about is to think about what the results say in special cases or how it compares with other results you know.  If you're doing more than skimming, it's also helpful to "read actively" by writing out what is going on, together with maybe some examples, in a notebook as you are reading.
If you are going through books/notes with exercises, it is up to you how much time you want to spend on exercises.  As long as you stick to your schedule, doing exercises won't take time away from your thesis problem, only slow down the rate at which you're going through other material.
Writing things down helps force you to understand them, and is useful to organize your thoughts when there's a lot of material.  Try typing up notes for yourself about the topic you are learning.  You can summarize the main results and ideas, work out various examples, etc.
Be patient. There is a lot to learn, and it takes time.  Gradually you'll absorb more and more, and you do need to make an effort, but a lot of it will come naturally from working on specific problems.

Also, re: the lack of self-confidence, check out How should I deal with discouragement as a graduate student? and maybe some other threads on the impostor syndrome.

If you already have a good sense of how the relevant fields fit together, and you know your way around the standard references, I personally find that the best approach is to just jump into a good paper. Really studying a paper related to your research is a much better way to learn specific techniques than grinding through textbook exercises. I think there's generally too much emphasis on "background" at the expense of working on new mathematics.

I'm a second year student too.
I think that one have to study what really needs to know, for instance, if I need the Feit-Thompson Theorem (for some reason) I cite and use, if you need to use the tools and ideas that were used in that long proof, then you read the paper. Now, how to read it, in first instance, keep the central ideas and go deeper if you really need it for your work. There is a lot of mathematics, and nobody can learn everything, even if you only study algebraic geometry (it is a broad field). My tutor says that one will have a lot of years to study and go deep in topics that are of our interest, and in the moment, work hard for getting the PhD (it is not easy, we know it), and publish

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Should I inform my letter writer about a summer school rejection? Should I ask the same professor to write me a letter for grad school?
I'm an undergraduate math major (just completed my second year), and I had applied for a summer school (online due to the pandemic) in one of my interest areas. I have taken two courses in this area with the same professor (one of them was a graduate course if it matters). I did pretty well in both courses, i.e. got As.
I requested the aforementioned professor to write me a recommendation letter for the summer school, which they gladly did - but unfortunately, I did not get accepted (the school has about a 14% selection rate).

Should I inform the professor (i.e. my letter writer for this program) that I have been rejected? Do they already know, in which case I don't have to do anything? Do programs typically inform about acceptance/rejections to letter writers too, or do they only inform the applicants? This is my first time applying to a summer school, so I don't really know how this works.

Also, given this experience, would it make sense to ask the same professor again to write me a letter for graduate school applications? I don't know what went wrong - (i) if the professor didn't write me a strong enough letter, or (ii) if I really wasn't good enough to get into the program. It's probably the latter, but given the probabilistic nature of this dilemma, I really don't know what conclusion to draw. Moreover, graduate school applications are going to be far more important than applying to a summer program, so I should know what to do.

Please let me know in case any clarifications are needed. Thanks a lot!

Yes, you should tell them and yes, it makes sense to ask them again. Likely the rejection wasn't due to the letter they wrote, but to the level of competition for positions in the program.
But, in general, your letter writers should be people who know you and your work well and can make a confident prediction of your future success. I assume that this is one of those people. And informing them might get you an even stronger letter.
Note, of course, that the standards are different for a summer program and a graduate program. And the competition won't be less. Apply to universities that fall over a range of rankings so that you have a better chance of acceptance. If you apply only to top ranked small schools you greatly lessen your chances.
While a summer program has a fixed number of "seats", applying to several schools opens the number of possibilities.

Okay, thank you! How do I tell them that I've been rejected (in an email)? Would it be appropriate to just say: "Just wanted to let you know that I wasn't accepted to the program. Thank you for writing the letter!"

The reason I ask how to convey this in an email is because I want to thank them for writing the letter, and also make sure that my non-acceptance is not misinterpreted as them not being able to write a good enough letter or something. Hope you understand my concern. Thanks!

You have the right idea. "Thanks. Unfortunately I wasn't accepted. I really appreciate your help now as in the past." Those are the essential elements. They've been in similar situations themselves, perhaps, and are unlikely to misinterpret.

Apologies, I'm not a native English speaker - what do you mean by "I really appreciate your help now as in the past"?

@epsilon-emperor: what do you mean by "I really appreciate your help now as in the past"? --- This means roughly "I really appreciate your past help and I would additionally appreciate your help now".

Actually, I meant thanks for your recent help (the letter) and your past help (my education). It should really have a comma: "I really appreciate your help now, as in the past"

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


text:
Career changing from ME to CS
I have a 4 year bachelor of engineering in Mechanical. I want to do Msc phd in CS( Computer Science). How can I get any kind of funding (TA / RA / Schoolarship) in USA/Canada  when i dont have any kind of academic certification in CS. I have a long experience in building softwares in C++,Win32,Java,Android.

Most Ph.D. granting schools are open to students that are coming from a different field, especially if they can show that they do not need to start from scratch. In the good schools, CS graduate programs will support their students, first with a limited time (like two year) scholarship. Giving you a T.A. ship would be difficult because you still need to get knowledge of the majority of the courses, but is not impossible, as you can T.A. classes like Discrete Mathematics if it is offered by the CS department.
In your case, it might be worth-while to do well on the GRE Subject test as it assess your background in CS, even if it is not required by the institution.

I'd guess they could TA CS1 (Intro to programming). They might need to sit some of the lectures, though.

Is it a wise decision to do a msc program in home country for certificate sake :)(they take one semester to teach elementary cs course like discrete algo data structure network etc) and rest 2 semester for grad subjects(Ai  machine learning etc). And then applying for a phd? I finished mit open learning cs courses(discrete,programing alo data os etc etc) but they dont provide any degree for that.

I suggest that you apply. A masters isn't necessary in US (not sure about Canada). Don't assume you are unqualified. You can apply in US while also applying for MS in your home country and see what develops.

Thanks all for your reply. Applying both seems good idea now. Thanks a lot.


text:
What is the importance of TOEFL and GRE?
I am bachelor in technology student from India. I would like to pursue higher education subject to my selection based on merit, i.e scholarship. I know there are many criteria, among which getting good grades in proficiency exams like TOEFL and GRE are most sought after. I came across a article on optional requirement of such exam in some of the US universities. So my questions are

Are these exams universal, i.e. followed in every country?
Does this depend on what Higher education you want to take?
If it is mandatory, when is the peak time to start for this type proficiency exams(P.S. I am currently in 5th sem)?

Can you specify which countries you are thinking of? Many countries in Europe do not require TOEFL and GRE. When I had applied in the UK, I was never asked for TOEFL or GRE (I did have Cambridge Proficiency in English, so maybe that counted for something instead).

I am considering Germany, Switzerland, Canada, UK, USA, Singapore, Malaysia and Japan, in the given order(first come higher preference).@BioGeo

The answer also varies by the department you're applying to.  My (computer science) department does not require GRE (or look at the scores if applicants submit them anyway), but the electrical and computer engineering department one block away does.  On the other hand, we both require TOEFL, because the state requires a minimum spoken-English score for any non-US student to be hired as a TA.

I think as this question has a wide variety of answers, I should make it "community wiki" post. Should I?

@Tetragrammaton - Community Wiki posts are almost entirely unnecessary these days (see blog post). If anyone wants to make edits, they can do so. I wouldn't worry about making it CW.

My experience is with US admissions in Computer Science at a productive albeit mid-tier graduate program. Both tests were required (TOEFL only for English as a second language speakers) and both tests are used for reasons to disqualify someone rather than admit them to the program.
My grad department would get about 500 applications for about 15 slots per year. About half of those were from totally unknown schools in China or India and were rejected out of hand, just because we had no idea about the quality of those students. Of the 250 remaining, about half of those had substantially deficient transcripts- things like missing or woeful TOEFL and GRE scores. The remaining roughly 120 applications were looked at by the graduate admissions committee, and then they picked about 30 high quality candidates and circulated those applications among faculty who were known to be looking for new students.
You'll notice there are two distinct types of decisions there. The first two phases were looking for reasons to disqualify people. The third phase was looking for good reasons to pass people along to final consideration. My guess is that virtually all departments would only use TOEFL and GRE scores in this way.
In other words, a bad GRE score can hurt your chances, but there's little difference between an acceptable GRE score and a great GRE score.
TOEFL might be a little different- our experience is that even people with good TOEFL scores might be atrocious language speakers, so our department always arranged in-person interviews via Skype or similar as a way to assess language proficiency. A great TOEFL score definitely didn't mean anything other than an acceptable score, because the in-person interview was the actual test of proficiency. I will note that we had much more stringent language expectations of Asian students than those from Europe.
Another thing to consider- I was told flat out by the University graduate admissions department that I would not be accepted with my GRE score, which was 20 or 30 points below their guidelines. The actual department I applied to didn't care. They were far more impressed by my independent study and selection of a challenging senior project than they were concerned about GRE scores.

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


text:
Is it OK to ask a school about average GRE scores and other admission information?
I am looking at applying to a couple of schools abroad (for math grad school), and outside of the fact that they are fairly well known, I have little idea about how competitive they are to get into. Internet searches haven't really helped me out, so I am wondering if it is it acceptable to email a school about what the school's expected/average GRE general and subject tests scores are for a given Ph.D. or Master's program are and how the school feels about a student coming from my background.

It may not feel like it when you're in the midst of applying to a school and hoping to be admitted that you are also their customer and they are merely one of any number of schools you could choose.
Of course it is fair game for you to ask pointed questions about why you should go there including questions like, what are your typical incoming GRE scores and GPAs, what's your accept/show ratio, what's your typical class size, how does the student population break down by gender or as full-time versus part-time, can I visit and meet your faculty, are you primarily research/teaching. If the first person you ask can't answer your question, ask if there's someone else who might.
You are allowed to ask anything you think would help you make an informed decision about whether that school is the right place for you.  I'm not promising you'll get answers to everything (they may not know) much less, that you'll like the answers you get.  But you're entitled to be an informed consumer and to conduct some due diligence on any school where you're about to spend thousands of dollars and years of your life.
But bear in mind, since you may end up talking to some of them, you may get remembered by the admissions committee when they vote and that could be good or bad.  If the impression you left was you're selective and smart, they'll like you.  If the impression you left was something different, then maybe not so much.

American grad schools generally run admissions through departments rather than the central administration. Ask the graduate student advisor (usually listed in the faculty web site) -- or your cognizant POI. They may not have a data about averages, though, as GREs tend to be deprecated except as a first-round screening mechanism.

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


text:
What is the impact of gaps on CV in academic job search?
I have recently been offered an industry position in the US (we live on another continent).  My wife is a an academic, with a position roughly equivalent to tenure-track asst professor in the US system. If we move to the US, she would likely take 1-2 years off (she's too busy right now to go on the job market this round).  She has a decent, but not amazing publication record: Google counts 16 publications, 310 citations and an H-index of 9 - this is in applied mathematics.  The publications she has are of fairly high quality, but because of various pressures related to childcare and starting her academic position, she hasn't published much in the last 2-3 years.  Her PhD was at a high quality institution (think, Harvard-like but non-US) with a highly regarded supervisor, she did a postdoc at Harvard.  She also has very good student evaluations.
So my question is - what would the impact of a 2 year gap be on an application to an academic institution, and how should it be addressed?  In answering, I'm most interested in the opinion of people who have been on hiring committees, and I'd like to know whether you're coming from a research institution or a liberal arts college (or something else altogether).

I would be more worried about trying to find a job when the search is limited to within commuting distance of a spouse.

@StrongBad We're definitely thinking about that (we've faced that problem before - part of why we're now not in the US).

If I saw an application from someone with this history and the cover letter explained why the applicant had taken time off work, I would treat the application as though those two years simply didn't exist.  I think that most search committees would also be willing to give a candidate (especially a female candidate dealing with family issues) that kind of treatment.
As @StrongBad noted in a comment, there's a much bigger issue in that it could be extremely difficult for your spouse to find a tenure track research oriented faculty position in the city where you will be working.  The job market is so competitive that even the most qualified applicants have to apply at lots of schools across the country in order to find a tenure track position.
For what its worth I've served on many search committees in applied mathematics over the years.  My institution is a lesser ranked research university.


text:
How to answer a professor's email?
I emailed a professor about possible openings for graduate studies in a certain research group and he answered me like this:

Your background looks great. Unfortunately, I recently recruited a graduate student. I have been working on grant proposals. If they get funded, I will have money to support more students. I will let you know, if plan changes.

How should i answer this email?
Is it polite to wish him luck? or should I send a simple thank you for reading my resume? or combining both and also saying that I "look forward to hearing from you" or something in that matter? It's really important for me to make a good impression.
(I am not a native speaker by the way)

"Take a number and get in line." Congratulate him on finding money for one student, and on finding the one student. Wish him luck on finding more money and more students and express your hope that you could be one of them.
Basically, you want to "mirror" his language. He has expressed goodwill to the point of saying "I like you, even though you were not my earlier choice." Make it plain that you want to work with him even though you will be "one of several."
Hopefully, your will be his nth choice for some number n, and he will have (at least) n slots open. The more successful you are in the communication, the higher ranked (lower n) you will be.

Good answer.  One clarification: the professor didn't choose someone else over Mahsa.  The prof's email makes it clear that someone else applied earlier, and was accepted prior to Mahsa's email coming in.

@aparente001: Changed "first choice" to "earlier choice," to make things clear.

If you do not need funding, and are simply looking for someone to guide your study and research, make that clear in your response.  My reading of his email is that he would be interested in taking you on as a student if it weren't that he doesn't currently have the funds to support your study.
Now let's consider the case where you do need the funding.  Even in this case, you may want to start building an advisor-student relationship on an informal basis with him over email (subject to his continued interest in you, of course), especially if you have a strong feeling that this person may be the right advisor for you.  In this case, you could dip a toe in the water by, for example, asking about choice of courses for fall, or by sharing an article you found interesting, and a couple sentences about possible further work that could be done based on that article.

I would reply briefly to make clear that you are interested in receiving the information that was offered (if this is the case). Something like:

Thank you for the positive feedback and the  kind offer to inform me about  potential possibilities in the future, which I appreciate.

I would not wish him good luck. It does not add much if received well yet could be taken in a wrong way. But really I think it does not matter all that much.
The point is just that if you do not reply at all it might be taken as disinterest in the offer to be informed about future possibilities.


text:
Applying for scholarships for PhD before I know where (and which country) I'll be accepted
I am applying for multiple economics PhD programs in the US (Harvard, Princeton, etc), and for MPhil (research master) programs in the UK (Oxford, Cambridge, LSE). for the academic year starting Sep-2017
I want to apply for scholarships as much as possible, but I'm slightly confused by how this works. I've read some stuff online, but I'd want to do a sanity check here at Stack Exchange to make sure I've got it right.

First of all, is it normal for US Graduate Schools to pay the complete tuition fee for PhD students? The Harvard website says: "Economic students receive full tuition and stipend support while they are enrolled and making satisfactory progress toward the Ph.D. degree." I almost can't believe this, since the US has a reputation here in Europe to have very high tuition fees. Do I understand correctly from this statement that Harvard Economics PhD students don't have to pay any kind of fee to the university for the full 5 years, or am I missing something?
If the above is true, does it even make sense (and is it acceptable/normal) to still apply for extra-university-scholarships for those universities?
Third question: Since I'm applying to roughly 10 universities (in 3 countries), I don't know yet where I will be studying. Is it advisable (and acceptable/normal) to already apply for as many scholarships as possible, even though I don't even know yet where I'll be studying?
Is it true that the optimal strategy for obtaining a scholarship is to go through websites like scholarships.com, internationalscholarships.com, and apply for all scholarships for which you are eligible? Or would I be missing something?

since the US has a reputation here in Europe to have very high tuition fees. Do I understand correctly from this statement that Harvard Economics PhD students don't have to pay any kind of fee to the university for the full 5 years, or am I missing something?

I am a graduate student of economics in continental Europe, so I do not have a first-hand experience about the US or the UK. However, my general impression about the field is that those very high tuition fees are more relevant in undergraduate degrees and professional non-PhD degrees (such as MBA, terminal applied MSc, etc.) and not much about the PhD path.
I do not know for sure about the Harvard PhD funding policy, but your interpretation is certainly plausible. The general expectation among the PhD students is to receive some funding, and actually having to pay tuition to the school (in addition to not getting any living subsidies) seems unusual (and inadvisable).
The passage below from the econphd.net guide supports my impression that actually paying tuition  should be more of the exception than the norm for PhD students.

Economics departments give considerably lower fellowships than business schools or science departments. Worse yet, some people will be admitted without fellowships and a few end up paying tuition. But it is commonly understood (although the department may not be willing to explicitly guarantee it) that all students who stay on beyond the first one or two years are funded in some manner. Often teaching assistantships are part of it, but many programs also reward academic success with scholarship money.
Generally, the best and most competitive programs offer the most generous funding – MIT, Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, and Yale admits can expect to get a package of, perhaps, between $ 16,000 and $ 20,000 per year (with tuition waiver).

That said, I believe there are also externally funded PhD students (who receive funding from governments, other research institutes, grants, etc.) Having your own funding may help in the admission, but I do not know the process or how normal it is.

is it normal for US Graduate Schools to pay the complete tuition fee for PhD students?

Yes. Most PhD students in the US are funded by a combination TA (i.e., in exchange for teaching responsibilities) and RA (i.e., out of Professors' research budgets). This will cover tuition, health insurance, and a stipend for living expenses.

the US has a reputation here in Europe to have very high tuition fees.

It's true, but most students do not pay the full price out of pocket. It's an accounting trick.

If the above is true, does it even make sense (and is it acceptable/normal) to still apply for extra-university-scholarships for those universities?

Yes. A scholarship is another line on your CV. It also means you can avoid teaching (which can be good, but takes time away from research) and you aren't dependent on your advisor's funding situation -- sometimes professors run out of funding and their students have to teach. The flipside is that, since you aren't dependent on your advisor's funding, it may be easier to find an advisor since you come for "free". Depending on timing, it can help with admissions to say "hey, I'm a free student".

Since I'm applying to roughly 10 universities (in 3 countries), I don't know yet where I will be studying. Is it advisable (and acceptable/normal) to already apply for as many scholarships as possible, even though I don't even know yet where I'll be studying?

Yes. It's completely standard for students to be applying to lots of places and to lots of scholarships. Universities expect and understand that.

Is it true that the optimal strategy for obtaining a scholarship is to go through websites like scholarships.com, internationalscholarships.com, and apply for all scholarships for which you are eligible? Or would I be missing something?

I'm not sure what the optimal strategy is. However, you should definitely look in as many places as possible. In particular, you should look at the each program you are applying to. There may be university- or program- specific scholarships that are not widely advertised.


text:
Is declining an offer to give a talk at a conference halfway around the world a bad idea?
My group leader was supposed to give an invited presentation (all expenses paid) at a conference halfway around the world. Due to personal reasons he can't go (more or less last minute, the event is in a month) and has asked me to give the presentation for him, the conference organizers are happy with this switch.
The issue is, this would be the longest flight I ever took in my life. I don't like flying and I personally try avoid flying whenever possible due to the impact of flying on climate change. I am torn, as this is quite the opportunity (I am still a PhD student) and that my group leader chose me as the replacement instead of other more senior colleagues, on the other hand I think it is insane to fly halfway around the world for a presentation that takes 1 hour.
Is it ok to say no to such an offer and explain why I do not want to go, or will this be carreer suicide? What is the best and most diplomatic way to decline without causing too much damage? Or should I rather bite the bullet and just go?

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 need to ask a clarification point: have you asked whether you can present the talk remotely? When I had to turn down a conference talk as a PhD student in the mid-00's on the other side of the world because I couldn't get there, there really was no other option. But the technology exists, now. If the conference organisers turns down your offer of presenting remotely, they are making that choice.

Oh boy, is there a lot of cynicism in the comments ...

Is it ok to say no to such an offer and explain why I do not want to go, or will this be carreer suicide?

First off, saying no to one specific conference invitation is certainly not "career suicide". Opportunities come and go, and all of us sometimes (or rather: quite frequently) need to leave some opportunities on the wayside because of circumstances. So if you feel particularly bad about this specific conference then just say no and go on with your life. Sure, just maybe this would have been the transformative event for your young career, but much more likely it would have been like most conferences - mildly interesting, but not something very different to the dozens of other conferences you have or will attend.
That said, saying no to all international conference invitations will be a severe hinderance (unless academia radically changes in the next years). I understand your concerns, and they are definitely valid, but right now academia is a reputation game, and not attending conferences would be a disadvantage you likely can't afford. We all like to believe that our journal papers will speak for themselves, but my slightly cynic observation is that they do not, if the competition also has good journal papers and travels around the world to advertise them.
So the question I would ask myself is: is this conference much worse than other conferences in terms of climate impact? For example, if you live in the US and the conference is in Australia this may be the case - there will be plenty of high-profile conferences that you could attend instead, some of which you can take the train to. However, if you live in Australia, almost any (international) conference will be "halfway around the world", and, quite frankly, you will need to come to terms with the idea of going to such meetings once or twice a year.
One way not to reduce the climate impact, but to make it more "worth it", is to combine your long international travel with other activities. For example, if you already go around the world you can take the opportunity to travel, have a nice vacation, or visit other universities. When I was a PhD student, I travelled to a lot for conferences, but I never went on a plane just to take a vacation (and even now, 10+ years later, my desire to take a long flight just to see a place is limited since I have visited most places that interest me after a conference).

What is the best and most diplomatic way to decline without causing too much damage?

If your group leader is sympathetic to your climate concerns you can just tell them. If not, I would make up some other reason (concurrent obligations, some family commitment, etc.). As you can see from the comments, the sad reality is that some people will get really upset if you bring up climate concerns, and start questioning your commitment to academia. If you are unsure I would probably make up a white lie.

+1 This answer is much more nuanced than several of the other answers and many of the comments.

I think it is good too. But it ought to be possible to think of something to say that is not a lie. E.g. "it is just because this conference is halfway round the world; I am totally willing to go to any future conference that is closer."

@DanielHatton Fair enough. I know a couple of people who tried the same model and ran into issues around their postdoc / young faculty career stages, and can't for the life of them figure out why other people get invited to give keynotes or participate in large grants and they do not ...

@DanielHatton Which is to say - I still maintain it's a substantial disadvantage, and not one I would recommend to put on yourself lightly.

I agree, but I knew a PhD student who was very against taking plane flights because of climate change and he ended up barely finishing the PhD.  It sort of seems like the wrong attitude this early in your career, it's admirable but you need to network.  On the other hand, I have not been to any conferences outside the UK during my PhD and am now starting a postdoc, so I am also suspicious of the claim that international conference attendance is essential.

@DanielHatton But isn't that just because a lot of conferences which gather people together tend to be in the UK for whatever reason?  It just so happens that you live in the UK so don't have to leave the country to go to these conferences.  Contrast this with someone who lived in Slovenia or Egypt, say, and only wanted to go to national-level conferences and not fly to other countries.

The problem with this type of opportunity is that you can't predict the outcome. It could be that you receive great applause after your presentation, and then someone approaches you with a job offer (this actually happened to me!) Or it could be that you attend, give your talk, nobody talks to you throughout the conference, and it turns out to be an absolute waste of time (this has happened to me more times than I can count). And then the Earth's climate is a bit warmer because of you.
I will argue that the critical piece of information in your question is that you are a PhD student. You need all the contacts you can get, and all the exposure you can get. The person who suggested you as replacement will owe you a solid one. The conference organizers will thank you. If there's a banquet, they might seat you with the big wigs. And you are at the stage where you need to get your ideas in front of as many people as possible.
If you decide to decline the invitation, however, it won't be career suicide. The reasons you were invited in the first place will remain to be true. And the Earth will thank you.

OP might wish to consider whether their own staying home would actually decrease CO2 emissions. Would somebody else from their same location do the same flying instead? I acknowledge an ethical dimension (not wishing to do so regardless of others’ choices), but from the practical “Will the climate suffer?” perspective, the choice may not have as much impact as it originally seemed to.

Or it could be that you attend, give your talk, nobody talks to you throughout the conference, and it turns out to be an absolute waste of time. A presentation at an international conference is a non-trivial item on a CV, particularly for a young researcher, so it will not be a waste of time.

I personally try avoid flying whenever possible due to the impact of flying on climate change. [...] I think it is insane to fly halfway around the world for a presentation that takes 1 hour.

I think this is an odd opinion for a researcher to have about their own group's work. Surely the reason you are doing research at all is because you think there is enough value in it?
Consider how much effort and resources went into the research project which culminated in this conference submission. Perhaps a few researchers spent a few weeks each on it, which means that bright minds were focused on that project rather than something else; and other costs may have been incurred. If it's insane to fly halfway around the world to present the results, is it not also insane to do the research that produced those results in order to present them? After all, submitting the results to an international conference was presumably the end-goal of this project from its inception.
You're probably thinking at this point that the paper containing the same results will be published in the conference proceedings, and people can read that paper whether or not you present at the conference. But the number of people who will ever read that paper, is probably at best similar to the number who would see your presentation; and certainly more people will read it if you present than if you don't.
So telling your group leader that you would rather not present for this reason, is essentially saying that you think presenting this work would have less value for the world than the cost of one plane journey's worth of CO2. Not only should you not say that to your group leader (it would be incredibly rude!), but if you really believe it, then it seems like you should have a much bigger decision to make about your work than just whether to present at this one conference. Is there some other research you could be doing instead, that would be worth presenting?

Consider this analogy: suppose Amy is tasked with driving across town to deliver a book to Bob, and Amy declines because driving will cause CO2 emissions. Without judging Amy for her decision, we still must conclude that Amy thinks the value of Bob receiving that book is less than the CO2 cost of one car journey.
This is not a cost-benefit analysis, and I'm not saying Amy should or shouldn't deliver the book. Rather I'm saying if she decides not to for this reason, then that reveals that she does not value Bob getting the book that much.
Now suppose that Amy is the author of that book! To me, there is an obvious question: if Amy doesn't think the book is worth delivering to a reader, why did she think it was worth writing and getting printed? Not only is the cost of creating the book much greater than the CO2 cost of delivering it, but the value of creating it depends on it being delivered.
And again, I'm not saying that Amy should think the book she wrote is valuable, nor am I prescribing what action Amy should take. I'm saying it seems like Amy has deeper things to figure out than just whether to make this one delivery to Bob.

This is not very convincing as a cost-benefit analysis. Maybe there are other conferences that are not so far away, or online. Maybe OP does not have much freedom in the research topics that he/she works on. As Christian Hennig has said, some people think the whole idea of flying round the world all the time to present research is a bad idea, or at least they are understanding of that view in others.

@gib My answer fundamentally is not a cost-benefit analysis. It cannot be, since I have no idea what research OP is doing or what its other costs are or what its benefits might be. My answer instead is about what value the OP places on their own work. If they can't think of any benefits that would be as significant as the CO2 attributable to one person taking one plane journey, then the logical implication is that they don't think the work they are doing is even slightly valuable ─ and it's hard to imagine anyone having a successful career in research if they think their own work is worthless.

The OP hasn't said that "it's insane to fly halfway around the world to present the results". Rather they have said that they are torn. I don't think it is helpful to present their views as more extreme as they actually are.

@ChristianHennig The OP said, as I quoted, "I think it is insane to fly halfway around the world for a presentation that takes 1 hour.". I haven't said the OP isn't torn on this decision despite thinking that, but they do think that and they said so. The point is that if they are torn on that then it stands to reason they ought to be torn on the broader issue of whether it is worth doing the research they are doing.

@kaya3 Fair enough. I had temporarily forgotten about that bit in the question. My understanding was that this was meant given the technical possibility to do presentations online these days, therefore rather hypothetical (had the conference allowed for this, which it doesn't.)

@DanielHatton I wonder how you have read my answer and responded with that comment. My answer specifically addresses all of those things which you call leaps. You and another commenter also seem to be assuming that this work could instead be presented at a different conference, but that is not the case according to the information given in the question. It's been submitted to this conference and accepted, and the OP doesn't have an option to withdraw it. Most likely, presenting at an international conference was the intended plan for this project all along.

As for the last "leap", I very specifically am not saying that the value in OP's work is sufficient to justify the CO2 cost; it would be impossible for me to say that, since I don't know what OP's work is or what its impact could be. I don't know where you got the idea that I am saying that.

It is not obvious to me from the question that the conference has proceedings in the first place. Maybe you have a better idea of what OP's field is.

You might look at the consequences of your action.
If you refuse because you have objections to flying as such: someone else will have to go and nothing has changed.
If you refuse because you are afraid of flying and  being in another country: You should honor your feelings, but also consider to overcome them by just doing it. But at least you have a reason that your advisor can accept.
If you refuse on general grounds: You might be missing out on opportunities to learn and to interact with others. You might be loosing out on making connections that last for your whole professional career. (I speak from experience.) Also, there is a reason that conferences are still the primary way of disseminating ideas in CS: enough happens at conferences to justify the personal costs of the attendees (and the financial costs to who-ever has to bear them).
If you refuse: Your group lead has made a commitment and your group needs to honor it. You were selected for a reason. Maybe your lead sees this as an opportunity to "put you on the market", or to allow you to "start making contacts", or to introduce you to the world of science. Your refusal will put you at least temporarily into the category of "difficult Ph.D. students".
If you do not refuse: At worst, you have a few days of traveling and feeling out of your safe zone. At best, you learn better how the scientific world works, you are exposed to new ideas, you have the chance to make contacts, especially with other Ph.D. students, you make a valuable contribution to your group's work, ...

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 understand your dilemma, but you'd be making a mistake to refuse that, and would look very bad, internationally. Thus, a big negative right even before having a career. Now, let's explore why is that. You said that you were selected instead of more senior colleagues, right? So this means that your group leader has FAITH in you. Now, do you want to disappoint him/her solely on the fact of "the impact of flying on climate change"? And what about the impact of that presentation? Sorry, but you sound selfish here...
You know, among the most hated people on this planet are those taking integrity to an extreme. Those people, generally, don't bring anything good to the table and are a nuisance. On the other end, those with very low, if not none at all, integrity are the worst of the worst ones. It's all about BALANCE. Also, as said above, what would be the impact on your lecture? That impact could very much offset the negative impact on planet Earth. The positive impact could be global, or affecting those present who in turn will do better in life, and/or even help you to get a better career, therefore to do more good in the future.
This being said, there are also circumstances where it's a total waste of time and energy but since you didn't tell anyone what that conference is about, and no other relevant info, then we can't say much.
Last, many would see it negatively that a young person working on his/her Ph.D. is refusing an opportunity and honor like that. Thus, closing many doors in the future. But, again, you avoided telling us what it is, so it could be a good thing to refuse something shady, and totally worthless. If so, refusing would make you look good.
Bottom line, based on the little info you gave us, refusing based on your reasons would have a serious negative impact, besides making you look selfish and narrow-minded. Everything is about perception and one with no audience or despised can't do much good... Think about Cousteau. He gained fame in order to get the necessary funding for the ocean's exploration, and got ocean awareness to an international awareness. Yep, he spent tons of fossil fuel traveling and with his boat, but the gains were much higher than the negatives. Having had your non-productive and narrow-minded attitude nothing of that would have been possible. And what about David Suzuki? Do you think he's traveling the world on foot and swimming to bring awareness and good things to planet Earth?

There a maybe small but growing number of scientists who are increasingly critical on the idea that in order to do our jobs why should fly around the globe all the time, and there are even some who can appreciate such an attitude in a young academic.

It sounds the opposite of selfish to me. As for your idea that too much integrity is bad and it is better to strike a balance between complete integrity and no integrity, this is completely wrong. But if you just meant that people need to strike a balance when it comes to deciding between conference travel and CO2 emissions, then that is a reasonable opinion (and I think that OP's position is very sensible).

I knew a PhD student who was against flying, he missed out on summer schools because of it and ended up struggling to finish his PhD.  I just think it's the wrong attitude if a person wants to stay in academia and is so early in their career.

@cconsta1 Just a quick note to say thanks for editing my spelling/grammar :) English is not my mother language and your corrections helped me get better at it.

As apparently some people seriously believe that not going could amount to "career suicide", let me add to what has already been posted by saying that I am not aware of any single case in academia in which anything even remotely similar to the decision discussed here has come up as an argument when it came to admission decisions, and neither have I ever seen anything like this mentioned in reference letters. So I don't think there is any hard evidence that such a decision has ever had any direct negative impact (other than opportunity cost) on anyone's career.
Of course this doesn't exclude the possibility that such a decision may make a bad impression on somebody influential, which can have an informal impact, although I don't have evidence of this either from talking privately to scientists (admittedly some discussion comments here could be seen as constituting such evidence). Still, I am far from convinced that just the decision to be made now will have any negative impact at any more than negligible probability on career prospects other than simply missing anything positive that could come out of going there.


text:
A new journal offers me to publish there at no cost because my previous papers are successful. Can taking up the offer impact my career?
I have published a paper in a then new journal about 2 years ago. As my paper is one of their most cited so far, they have since invited me to publish another article (fully open access, waiving the APCs) last year. I took the offer and published another paper there (the BA thesis results of a student I suupervised). As this paper was also well received, they have extended another invitation to publish a paper, again OA and with waived APCs. As this is new (now about 2 years old), it does not have an impact factor nor does it appear in any journal rankings, yet with a reputable publisher.
I do have some results from my PhD research that I plan on publishing in the near future. I now wonder if I should take them again up on their offer, as it makes things considerably easier - the scope fits, and there is no cost (my uni also has an open access fund, but it is not limitless and the portion I would not use could benefit others without the possibility of cost-free publication). Other, more established journals (with impact factors) on the other hand would probably look better on a CV, or wouldn't they? But then again, if many high quality papers will be published in the new journal, it will get more recognition and by the time it will be of importance to me, the journal might get listed in rankings and will be positively viewed. After all, if everyone takes their good papers only to the established journals, newer journals do not really have a chance to rise. Then again, publishing many papers at just one journal may be perceived as being lazy or unambitious (I don't really know if that is the case).
So I guess my question is, is it a bad idea (academic career-wise) to publish for free at not yet established journals (especially as a PhD student)?

In other words, "Why do people bother trying to publish in Science, Nature, or NEJM, anyway?"

Two thoughts on "After all, if everyone takes their good papers only to the established journals, newer journals do not really have a chance to rise": First, you can leave this to problem to senior academics, possibly your future self, to fix, who don't need to worry about a competitive job market. Second, there might be room for a balance of having some papers in highly competitive venues and some in new ones--as a PhD student, you should mostly worry about the former.

I've never came across a journal that have authors pay for publication. Am I just lucky or is it something very rare occurring only in some fringe parts of academia?

@Dilworth I know journals that require authors to pay for colored figures (more expensive to print), for every page above some limit, and for open access.

@Dilworth there are myriad journals that are pay-to-publish. They call it "open access", but depending on the journal, it can range from legitimate, to a pure money-making exercise.

@masher, even the open access journals I know of (and I've published there) are not requiring pay. If a journal requires you to pay it is a predatory journal, by my definition.

@DanielHatton, I don't think that's accurate. It is standard to allow publication of the manuscript on the institutional repository, even without paying for Open Access on the official journal website.

@Dilworth if you're not seeing the open access fees, then someone else is, be it your institution, or a grant somewhere.

@DanielHatton, that's inaccurate. I have NEVER seen any paper that because it was published on arXiv it was not accepted at a journal. Same for posting the manuscript on one's homepage.

@DanielHatton, so what are we debating here exactly? There is no need to pay journals for open access these days (in most fields).

Journal prestige matters. One Nature/Science/etc paper counts way more than five papers at less reputable journals. The question is whether you can get your ideas published at more prestigious venues. If this open access journal is the only place that’s reasonably going to accept your work, then you don’t really have a choice I suppose. If you can adapt your results and aim higher - do so. It’s great that you support open access and a new journal, but it will be at some cost to your career if you keep publishing at low tier journals.
Future employers will assume that you published your work at the highest tier place that would accept it. That is, you “went down the list” until you found a venue that accepted your work. They wouldn’t know you went for this journal because of some special relationship.

I don't think that this journal is my only option, I just wonder if chosing this option is bad. I have already published at other journals as well.

So yeah, it’s hard to make specific recommendations, but people do care about publishing in tried tested and true venues

ah! sorry typo - corrected

It depends on the field and whether other people in your field are using this new journal, too. As your past works where cited, you did get the attention needed. I assume you got proper peer review with helpful comments that helped you to improve your paper.
You have to balance two factors against each other:

How much more work and waiting time would it take you to publish elsewhere? How would this effect your next paper or your work on your PhD thesis?
Would you really get more readers and potentially more citations from publishing in a more established journal?

A lot of work would never be accepted in Science or Nature, as they are eager to publish results that are of general interest to non-scientist readers. These papers get mentioned in news papers. Do not think you have to publish there ever.

I think this is a bad idea, almost irrespective of how good the journal actually is. If someone ends up with almost all their (recent) papers published in a single journal, that looks like they have found a journal that isn't very discriminating and are continuing to submit there as a way to avoid having to produce good papers. So just from seeing this sort of pattern on a CV, my expectations of both the journal and the researcher would be reduced.

Before people have their PhD, I wouldn't be that harsh. For an application to a tenure track this might be different. I don't disagree with your answer, but it depends on the stage of career.


text:
Can high school cheating hurt me for grad admissions?
I used to be a dumb cheater in high school. I was pretty smart but I still was cheating on things like dual credit courses at local colleges, and even AP exams. I ended up getting into a pretty good college. I felt pretty bad and since I've entered undergrad I haven't ever cheated, and I've been 100% honest. But I still feel pretty bad about what I did, and I'm scared it might hurt for graduate admissions. Is it possible that high school cheating can hurt me for grad admissions if it was in a college course? Also, if my high school diploma ever did get revoked, would my college degree get revoked as well?

Related: What are the criteria for degree revocation?

@cag51 one of the criterion listed in the post you linked is admissions fraud. could what i did possibly be labelled as admissions fraud? i am going to a decently prestigious college, though I don't believe that cheating is what got me in

As the linked answer says, it is impossible to say how any individual case might be handled. But the odds that your high school detects cheating years later, prosecutes you for it, revokes your degree, your college finds out, they revoke your acceptance....no one can guarantee it won't happen, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

You might be interested: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/102175/cheated-on-an-exam-when-i-was-eight-years-old-should-i-tell-graduate-admissions

I'm not gonna lie, I am now super curious how you cheated in high school so that you worry years later about your degree getting revoked. If I think about HS cheating I think of copied homework and glancing to your neighbour during an exam, but I assume you did something a bit more ... industrious?

@xLeitix mostly stuff like using chegg on tests, as well as texting my friends during AP exams when they were online. stuff that leaves an online footprint. that's why it scares me a little bit

Seems unlikely, but it might depend on where you are. In the US if you graduate from a program disciplinary actions aren't revealed except in extraordinary cases (court orders). You don't even mention whether you were disciplined.
If your transcript shows failed courses then you might be asked about it for university admissions, but for grad school the distant past remains buried.
If you aren't prone to cheating now, you will probably be fine. But if you are ever expelled from a program for dishonesty it would probably haunt you.

what do you mean "if you are ever expelled from a program for dishonesty it would probably haunt you"??

It is possible to be kicked out of college for some infractions. That stays on your record and grad schools ask for all transcripts of all undergraduate programs, not just the successful ones. (US, at least). If you were expelled from a HS, but got into college then you probably don't need to worry about the HS issues. (probably)

nah, i never got in trouble for cheating. i graduated fine. however I'm just a little paranoid that since I took college classes and got some credit for them I could get in trouble for cheating in those classes, although it was only a little

Generally people are more interested in your current record than in the past. Especially the long past. Relax.

Learning to repent of sins committed when young is a healthy snd normal part of growing up. Forget about it. Look ahead, not back.

Contrary to what other people say, yes, this is a very possible scenario and (obviously) really depends on your high school.
Certain more prestigious high schools will include academic misconduct in the transcripts, this is absolutely a thing. You can still have a diploma and have your misconduct be in public display for everyone to see. I've seen this happen with my own eyes.
That being said, I'd venture to say that most high schools probably don't care that much unless you are a serial offender. The worst (in most cases) that can happen is you have a failing grade on your transcript.
So the TLDR is: You probably won't have your degree revoked but you possibly (though unlikely) could have your misconduct written on your transcript. Check with your high school's University counsellor


text:
Is it polite to send another reminder to your ex-supervisor after they confirmed availablity of a vacancy?
I reached out to my ex-supervisor regarding the availability of a RA in their group about 2 months ago, via mail. The email exchange we have had till now has been at 2:1; where I send a reply followed by a follow-up/reminder mail after 3-4 weeks. We have had 2 exchanges till now. In our last conversation through mail, the Prof told me about the availability of a position which is of my interest. They said that the description of the role will become clearer in a week. I replied right away, showing my keen interest in that position.
Now, it has been over 2 weeks since the time the vacancy's description would have been defined; as per the Prof. I am wondering if I should send another mail asking about the specifics of the role and how I can apply to the position. Would it be rude to send another mail because up until now I have only received a reply after sending a follow-up/reminder mail? I am in a dilemma, since it is a really interesting project to work on.

Does this answer your question? How to get people to reply to emails and what to make of a no response?

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/173122/is-this-way-of-writing-e-mails-to-professors-asking-for-funded-phd-positions-to

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9542/is-ignoring-emails-acceptable-in-academia

@Sursula-they- Thanks for tagging the question, but it doesn't really answer and mine is more circumstantial here; that's why I posted a separate question here.

It depends on the field, culture, and the specific communication you have with your professor. You indicate an excessively submissive stance; however, some disciplines and cultures are prone to more authoritarian structures than others, so you would know best yourself how to "feel it out" in your particular case. One option might be to take a detour and preface your renewed request by bringing up some topic in which you have a common interest, eg something from your past cooperation? Good luck.


text:
Why do universities consider TOEFL IBT scores by sections, but IELTS scores as an overall band score?
I am aiming to apply for PhD in USA.
As I've reviewed the admission requirements for certain universities I noticed that in most of the cases TOEFL scores are considered by sections. For example, in UCLA the minimal score for IBT TOEFL test is 87 but there is also the note which suggests that you need at least 21 in reading section, 17 in listening section, 24 in speaking section and 25 in writing section. ( The sum of these is 87). On the contrary the minimal requirement for IELTS is 7.0 overall band score, and there is no note which suggests what are the minimal requirements for each section.  I've seen this method of reviewing scores on other university's websites too.
My question is, why do universities consider TOEFL IBT scores by sections, but IELTS scores as an overall band score?

@JonCuster That's not true for IELTS. The overall band score is an average of the reading, writing, listening, and speaking scores, rounded to the nearest 0.5: https://www.ielts.org/en-us/for-test-takers/how-ielts-is-scored

@mkennedy - you are correct! And their website really could explain how the scores are reported a lot better, that is for sure. Even Wikipedia is confused on that matter... I will delete and let someone more knowledgeable on admissions weigh in.


text:
How to decline a postdoc offer after accepting it?
I accepted a postdoctoral offer a few months before but couldn't join immediately as the visa was delayed by 4 months (now the visa interview date is very close). I informed them that I'll join once the visa arrives. In the meantime, I got a regular position from a research firm and a postdoc offer from a really prestigious university. What should I do now? I like the earlier professor; he's brilliant and humble. Again, joining the research firm will give a stable future and later university a significant weightage to my career.
What should I do? The earlier professor may feel offended. I don't want to hurt anyone.

PS: Now I have declined the earlier offer and informed the professor about the development. He is very disappointed as it has jeopardized his project progress. I honestly apologized; but he is taking it very seriously. What should I do now? I am feeling really bad. Can anyone help? Was my decision right?

Has the visa situation been resolved?

What do you mean, what should I do now? If you promised that you will join him once you have your visa, then you did in fact break that promise. You made a conscious decision to go with a different offer, now you get to live with the consequences, both positive (the position that you preferred) and negative (damage to your relationship with this professor). You don't get to avoid the natural negative consequences of your decision and only reap the benefit of the positive ones.

Here is a sample email you can send:

Dear Prof [insert his name],
Thanks again for offering me a position in your lab. However, I've been offered another position which more closely aligns with my skillsets and research interests. Hence, unfortunately I can no longer proceed in this direction. However, I really hope to keep in touch with you and will be more than happy to collaborate on research in the future.
Sincerely,
[your name]

Please don't lie about it and say it's for "personal reasons"- the professor you rejected will find out and it may be awkward.
Pro-tip: unless the difference in school prestige is too wide, it's always better to optimize for quality of mentor/PI/advisor than school.

This is a difficult situation, and I am not sure if I would choose the "really prestigious university" over a "brilliant postdoc mentor" (e.g. a post doctoral fellowship with absent mentors, even if in a prestigious university, can be a waste of time), but let's assume that it is your choice.
On one hand, postdoctoral fellowship are often used as "temporary" positions while the fellow applies for tenure-track positions, and it is in no way a "breach" of contract to interrupt a 2 year postdoctoral position in order to accept a tenure-track one. On the other hand, breaking a promise is never nice (and should never be easy), and leaving a postdoctoral position for another one is borderline.
A polite way to manage such a situation would be to include the professor who was offering you the first postdoctoral position into your decision process, by writing to him an email honestly describing the situation and asking for his advice. He might be able to point out arguments that you did not think about, and/or he might advise you himself to accept the new position. (As a bonus, if his answer does not show that he has your best interest in mind, then he was not the right mentor for you anyway.) In the end you will make your own decision (as it should be), but  including the professor in the decision process make it a joint decision, showing respect.
As a (second) bonus, if the professor is brilliant and nice, do try to make plans for collaborating with him even if you are a postdoctoral fellow at another university (discuss it with the people who fund your postdoctoral fellowship if this collaboration will quite time from the work you do with/for them): for one, the postdoctoral period should be an occasion to collaborate as broadly as you can; and for two, the university of this professor might be where you will apply for jobs after your fellowship!
Hope it helps!


text:
Should I reach out to PI regarding my application after having submitted it?
I reached out to a potential PI because we had good research fit back in November. The PI also replied to my mail and told I have good research fit with his lab and told me to apply to the program. I applied in December but haven't heard anything so far from him and did not receive any interview invite as well. Is it okay to reach out to him or I should back down and just see how the decision goes at this point?
location: USA
field of study: Computer Science
Program: PhD

It's a good idea to contact the PI and let him know that you applied to his university and are awaiting the results. No harm in doing this.

In the US, acceptance or rejection will come from the admissions committee, not the PI (almost everywhere). You could ask the PI whether he has any information to share, but he may not. It is likely that he isn't involved in the decision at all.
You might also be able to ask the committee when you might know more.
Unlike other places it is typical in the US to choose an advisor only after you are admitted. There are a few exceptions, and fewer in CS, I think.

Thank you for your reply! Not directly related to the question, but is not getting an interview a bad sign at the moment. Is it common to receive admits without interview?

Interviews aren't always required so it is hard to judge. It seems a bit early yet for offers, but not too much longer.


text:
What does "abstract aspects" of a subject mean?
For example, political theory deals with the abstract aspects of politics, and similarly, there is theoretical (abstract) physics. Why are they called abstract or theoretical? Is something that we study not supposed to be a reflection or a representation of the real or of what happens in practice?

This reads like a student homework/essay exercise. Is it?

@Buffy no, sir. I'm trying to study some books written in English on my own and I often come across "abstract" and "theoretical". I did not have an English-medium education up until college and it's very difficult for me because most of the essential and recommended readings for my field of study are in English only.

Abstract (and abstraction) is not the same as Theoretical. But any good dictionary or a web search will give you the answers and point out the distinction.

@Buffy with the level of understanding of English that I have, dictionaries only serve to confuse me.

@Buffy consider this: "political theory is an abstract model of the political order". Is it not equivalent to saying "political theory is a theoretical model of the political order"?

Ok, let me try to clarify the difference. As an English writer, I hope it helps. But you could also translate the terms into your own language and seek sources for those terms.
In theoretical work we form a hypothesis about something unknown (or only partly known) and then seek evidence as to whether the hypothesis is true or not. The subject of the "theory" might not even exist. In theoretical work you are exploring the unknown. You are attempting to add "detail" from the real world - evidence to support the hypothesis or not.
Abstraction, on the other hand, is a process of removing details from a complex topic to try to come to the essence of some question. For example, democracy is an abstract concept that exists in the world in many forms, some of them very messy. The abstract concept of democracy removes much of the detail to arrive at some core "essence" or abstraction of the idea. So, the US and the UK are both democracies, but have a very different governmental structure. But, there is not really such a thing as a "pure democracy" conforming to the idea without any of those messy details. Abstraction lets us work with very complex systems in a simpler form.
Language, actually, is a form of abstraction. Many of the things we speak of would be impossibly difficult to discuss without the simplification of removing details thought to be unnecessary to the essence. If you want to discuss me for example, then, for most purposes, you don't need to know my height or hair color. The me you discuss is an abstraction.
It would be possible to work in the political arena in a theoretical manner. One could devise a theory of government not represented in the world and then seek evidence as to what the effect would be. Science Fiction does a lot of that sort of thing.
On the other hand, one can do physics as a form of abstraction, looking at what exists in the world and trying to "abstract" what is making it behave like it does. The orbiting of the Earth around the Sun was explored in this way. See Heliocentrism. At the time of those explorations, there was a Theory that the Earth was the universe (or, more properly, a religious dogma). But in the end, that theory proved to have little evidence.
Note that the "elliptical" path of the Earth around the Sun is itself an abstraction. The Earth is deflected slightly from the ideal elliptical path due to various forces, such as passing asteroids.
And, sometimes a field has to go back and forth between theory and abstraction, when a theory needs to be revised due to contrary evidence, leading the practitioners to try to devise new abstractions that might be better representations other aspects of the data not originally considered.
So, you can't say that it is all abstraction or all theory. You need to consider the process by which researchers in a field actually work.
Finally, theory, itself, is an abstraction.

Wow @Buffy that is amazing. You've explained it in very simple words. There's nothing I couldn't understand about it. Thank you so much. You have no idea how significant this is. Believe me, dictionaries aren't that helpful to us non-natives because they try to explain everything with as few words as possible. I was about to give up reading books written in English but this has made me change my mind. The examples you used were familiar to me and that made the explanation just what I wanted. Thank you so much.


text:
Is Wiley Plus able to detect when students are cheating?
I am supposed to start teaching on Wiley Plus for the first time this coming summer semester, and as someone who is already not the most tech-savvy, I have concerns regarding students cheating on homework assignments. Is there a way for me to do detect if students are copying questions or pasting answers from online? I am told Wiley creates unique variables per every question but keeps the same question. This would mean someone can go on "Chegg," or "Slader," to obtain a method to answer a question, without attempting it themselves.
Would Wiley contact me if they find a question posted by one of my students on Chegg? Since each question is unique to each student? I want to figure all these things out before I start setting up the course.

Neither Wiley nor any other system will do this for you.  You could do a web search with the specific text of your questions, and solutions on an online source will show up (or at least their existence will show up), but you will have to do this yourself.
Besides, let's say you find out that some question appeared.  What would you do?  Wiley creates several versions of each question with different numbers, but with tens of thousands of students, there will still be hundreds of students at universities all across the world getting the same question, so you really cannot tell it is any of your students.  In fact, even if a question has 30 versions, it is likely that every single one of those 30 versions is already on Chegg.  And if the system generates a 31th version, that will show up on Chegg in a matter of hours after some student somewhere in the world gets it.


text:
How difficult is it to transfer to a different field of study in a master's program compared to getting admitted in the first place?
My friend in China has been admitted to some schools in the US, but hasn’t started his program yet, and is having some second thoughts about his field of study. It would be in the same school, from a different engineering field to CS.
Would it be easier to transfer once he starts or just re-apply with a different major for the next cycle?

This depends on both the institution and on how different the two fields are. If two fields are closely related they could conceivably share an admissions process and the department might not care much which program a given student follows. But in other situations, it might be quite difficult.
A change from engineering (other than, perhaps, Electrical Engineering) to CS is a pretty big jump and the two programs probably have different entrance requirements. There might even be a waiting list in one or both programs.
You can ask the institution for guidance, of course, but don't assume it would be easy. Asking would be better than just delaying.


text:
Is giving condolences to a professor socially acceptable?
I'm an undergraduate in the US.
My professor just told us via email that he will not be able to grade an exam until next week because his family member died from complications due to COVID-19. I don't care much about the delay, but I do like my professor, both as a person and an educator. Would it be out of line for me to send an email along the lines of "Hi professor, I'm sorry to hear your loved one passed."
I'm not a very socially outgoing person and I don't speak up in class much, so I don't know if this would overstep the student-professor relationship.

Guys, let us clear something important: Profs are also human beings; if you think giving condolences socially acceptable to another human being, then yes it is socially acceptable.

If it's a small class, you should definitely say something.  If there are several hundred people in the class, it's still ok, but much less expected in my opinion.

I think your professor would appreciate hearing that you care more about them than the delay in their class.

I have never once received a condolence message from someone in the UK when I mentioned of a death in the family or of a close friend (and it happened often enough). I usually just got angry responses. I think it's quite normal to write "sorry for your loss" in Canada and the USA though.

@user1271772 Angry responses?

Condolences are normal in the UK, though it's rare that students would be told, usually the euphemism 'family reasons' is used. The only reason for an angry reaction I can think of, is if every missed deadline is blamed on a dead friend/relative and people will stop believing you.

It's not merely perfectly fine (e.g., in the U.S.), but a very good thing to do. (Conceivably in other cultures it could be construed as too intrusive, we must acknowledge.)

I second the answer. Since the professor has themselves given you news about the passing of their relative, it is entirely all right for you to respond to their message with a note of condolence. I speak from an experience of academia in India.

Speaking from experience in the UK and Sweden, it would be appreciated both of those places too.

This answer applies to the Middle East as well.

I'm not going to add another answer here, but to augment: (1) the professor offered the information re: death of a family member. The topic is already broached, so strong cue of "ok to offer sympathy" (2) In much of the US, this creates a situation where it is not only socially acceptable, but in fact it would be socially awkward to NOT at least offer condolences, in terms of basic etiquette (3) without knowing more, keep sympathy short & to the point of being about the person grieving: it's best to avoid your own religious/etc references/preferences or questions.

When I was in undergrad (also in the US), I was once in a very similar situation to yours (with an American professor whom I liked). I sent a similar email, and got back a very short response along the lines of "I have no interest in discussing my personal matters with you." Ordinarily I would have taken that response to be rather rude, but given the circumstances I cut my professor a lot of slack.
The reason I tell this story is to caution you that you might conceivably get a similar response back, and worry that you've crossed a line or even damaged your academic prospects. And indeed, there's a small chance that that might be true, because professors are human and humans react to grief in unpredictable ways. But I still think I did the right thing, and I'd encourage you to send such a note. There is a chance that it will be poorly received, but I think a significantly higher chance that it will be well received.

Could you clarify whether your own message went beyond what the OP suggested in any way that would imply a desire to discuss anything, please? i.e. anything you said that could be read as asking for more information (think "I hope they did not have to suffer a lot", which could be read as a question asking for more details), or any response at all?

Another example along ORMapper's lines would be if you offered to pray or similar, which might seem the right thing to do by some but is possibly offensive to someone who isn't religious.

@O.R.Mapper Nope, I only expressed sympathy and didn't in any way indicate that I expected a response or discussion (or offer prayers or anything like that), so I was a little surprised at the professor's reaction.

Your professor didn't do the right thing. Even if he was annoyed over your e-mail he should have just said thank you and left it there.

One could get such a comment from any human being in distress, professor or otherwise.

The answer seems really weird, to be honest. Are you sure you remember all the details correctly? The prof answer simply doesn't fit with a "my condolences" email, without any inquiry for more personal information. Still, one thing is certain, it's good to cut the person a lot of slack.

@EricDuminil As I said, people respond to grief in unpredictable ways - and also, professors aren't always known for their people skills ... but I agree with you that most people probably would not react the way this person did.

Was the professor the one that informed you of their loss, or was it told to you through the grapevine?

As one of the comments says, professors are human beings. Your email would be kind and appreciated. It's probably best to keep such emails short. Your suggestion of

Hi professor, I'm sorry to hear your loved one passed.

seems perfect.

If you have a personal relationship with the professor, it is socially acceptable and may be even the norm to do so. That is however typically only the case in my area when you work with them as an assistant, are doing a thesis with them or have a very small specialist class. If you only know him from hearing a lecture of 50+ students, it might well appear that you consider your relationship more personal than it is, i.e. are slightly violating social norms. However, this should normally just be taken as an oddity. So if you err in that direction it's no big deal, but it's also no issue if you don't send a mail in basically all cases that fit the question. So you can relatively safely do what feels right to you.
As a guideline, the more you already know about him beyond his professional capacity, the more likely it will be seen as appropriate. And the more your relationship so far has been distanced and purely professional the more likely it may come of as odd. A simple check is also to consider how many other students would be at the same level of closeness. When you announce something like this, a handful of mails from people that you know is sweet. Five hundred mails from five hundred peoples whose names you don't know unless you look into your student register is more a (still well meant) nuisance than a help to most people.

-1, you don't need to be in someone's inner circle to wish them condolences upon hearing that a loved one died. Furthermore, it was the professor who volunteered the information. He could have given a more generic reason for delaying the grades, but he chose to specify that a relative died, and even gave the cause of death. So I don't think "it might well appear that you consider your relationship more personal that it is" is applicable here.

@JBentley: you don't need to be in someone's inner circle to wish them condolences upon hearing that a loved one died. This is very dependent on the culture, for instance in France this is not the case. The question was in the context of the USA, though.

@JBentley I'm not saying you absolutely need to, but the general cross cultural chance that it comes off as odd is increasing the farther away from the inner circle you are. And we are talking about a group announcement, not a personal conversation here.

That last part is on point. Not a reason not to do it.

As has been stated in other answers (and in several comments), professors are people, too.  The question here really shouldn't be "should I send a professor a note of condolence?" but rather "do I know this person well enough to be comfortable expressing condolences?"
There are folk who might react badly to such a note from a student (or from an employee, or from a super market checkout-person), and there are others who might expect such an expression.  You genuinely never can tell, but I think that it is better to err on the side of humanity, and send a quick note, e.g.

Dear Professor X,
I am sorry to hear that [XXX] has passed.
Regards,
Student

If you cannot replace [XXX] with a name and/or relationship, maybe don't send the note (if you don't know the professor well enough to know who has died, and what their relationship to the professor is, you aren't in an appropriate social circle to send a note).
As an added note (and, frankly, I think that this is the only really novel observation that I have to offer), your professor has told you that a family member has died.  They have already opened the door to you, and invited you into a circle of people who know what is going on in their life, and are, therefore (in my opinion) invited to offer expressions of condolences.