text:
How detrimental is involvement in politics to a scientific career?
I am an undergraduate student in the hard sciences, and am thinking of pursuing a research career after graduation. I am also quite politically involved on the left, and have political articles published online. I am critical of many governments (including my own) and corporations, and of many of the applications of technology in fields I am interested in.
My politics are very important to me, and I could not give them up. That said, I often worry about how they could be detrimental to my career, especially before I'm already established. I worry, for instance, that grad school admissions would Google my name and find my views and affiliations, and that this would negatively impact my chances to get in. How realistic is this fear?

Peter Deusberg managed to have a good research career despite denying that HIV caused AIDS because he did good work on cancer. If he can pull that off your political work shouldn't be a problem provided it doesn't interfere with your research. I should point out that he had tenure long before he said anything about AIDS.

It's quite possible that your politics might even work in your favor. Sometimes it seems to me like right-wing people complain bitterly that academia is populated by left-wingers, and vice versa.

On the left? You'll be fine.

@CapeCode I doubt it. Far left politics don't jive well with private entities who sponsor chairs and research. Moreover, what advantage does a leftist have in a field where leftists predominate? It won't favourably distinguish him, as it won't distinguish him at all.

@user137 the fact that he already had tenure makes all the difference, so I don't think it's relevant, though still interesting.

Since the politics is so important for you, this should be a non-problem: you'll do it anyway, try to do both, and if you manage to do that successfully, you'll be quite accomplished. Maybe this means you'll have to pass some positions, and this implies that on average you'll get a worse position, but I guess you can live with that.

@Lohoris this implies that on average you'll get a worse position [citation needed]

@CapeCode it's simple math. If there are 10 different positions to pick from, but you have to rule out 4, you'll have only 6 to pick from. Since you will pick the "best" (whatever's best for you) there are chances that it would have been one of the discarded ones, so your new "best" will be worse. Simple math.

@Lohoris Duesberg was the worst example I could think of. And he still published quite a bit after he became and AIDS denialist, so he must have been given grants too. Tenure doesn't guarantee papers or grants.

@Lohoris, I don't follow your example.  If you have 10 positions and 4 aren't suitable wouldn't "on average" give you a 60% chance of being able to choose the best overall position?

@CapeCode I think you mean in the social sciences. In hard science its easier to be right than left, but either one can be problematic if a person's area of research becomes politically charged. Consider climate change. New ideas either direction get blasted instantly, meanwhile there are at least a handful of scientists who genuinely are curious about how the planet actually works without an inordinate obsession over the word "carbon".

Why not post your political articles under an internet alias that can't be linked to your real identity? Similar to your "Hypercube" alias here.

@Hoofamon: It takes a lot of constant effort to reliably separate two identities that are both in the public sphere. Very easy to slip up.

@CramerTV exactly. It means 40% chance you can't pick the best position, which means that on average your position will be worse.

I will direct my answer at an American academic career in the sciences.
You certainly have a right to make your political opinions known.  Unfortunately the internet makes it possible (indeed, trivial) to search through every public remark someone has ever made, and this means that everyone can be held to a higher level of scrutiny in this regard than in the past.  As others have said, there are situations in which remarks people have made have had a negative impact on their academic career.  Most academics believe that "academic freedom" should ensure immunity from retribution for a range of such political remarks...but certainly not all of them.
In fact, it is not entirely clear what constitutes a political remark as opposed to something else.  For instance, one of Steven Salaita's tweets was

Israel: transforming 'antisemitism' from something horrible to something honorable since 1948.

This is taken from this article in which he explains the context.  The additional context he provides convinced me to view it is as a truly political remark that should come under the protections of "free speech" and "academic freedom".  However, without that context....in that it contains the claim that antisemitism is honorable, it looks pretty bad.  If my colleague had posted this and asked me to defend his right to keep it there, I would on the contrary ask him to take it down.
Here are some thoughts on how to be politically active in a way which is not to the detriment of one's academic career:

Don't post on twitter.

Really, "don't post on twitter" seems close to being universally good advice.  [Added: David Z disagrees.  I can see that if you want to post academic/scientific content only then the twitter effect would be at least non-negative.  I cannot agree that twitter has had a significant effect in disseminating work in my field, especially in comparison to so many other electronic media.  But maybe it is different for others.]  But the combination of telling the whole world and strict character limits make it anathema to academic discourse or even, I would advise, to discourse by academics.  In general, young people need to use social media carefully: political articles are different, but one's off-hand political, social and religious comments are best not shown to the entire world.

Make sure that your political remarks can only be construed as political.

This is the moral from the above example.  Political remarks advocate policy, support or criticize governments, or support or criticize political figures on political matters.  Salaita's tweet (intentionally, and even rather cleverly) plays on the distinction between criticizing the Iraeli government and criticizing Jewish people.  But don't play with that.  Don't criticize or denigrate any ethnic group.  When you want to criticize a group of people aligned around a certain practice, make sure you are criticizing the practice, not the people as people.  For instance, if you are pro-life, don't (publicly) paint women who get abortions as immoral or unclean: that's not a political statement.  Don't (publicly) criticize conservative politicians who are against gay rights by saying that they must either have terrible sex lives, be latently gay or both.

Try to have a clear separation between your political activities and your academic ones.

The OP says that he has political articles published online.  Sounds fine to me.  I would think at least three times about incorporating these articles into your science classes.  As a general rule, I feel free to discuss politics and religion in my (mathematics) courses because I feel these should not be taboo topics among human beings, but I always characterize them as digressions from the class, I never push a position, and in fact I try not to enunciate my own stance or position in a classroom environment.  If someone wants to hear how I really feel about Islam or the midterm elections, they can talk to me after class.
This "clear separation" should work just as well in the sciences as it does in math.  Academics in certain other fields might have more trouble with this: e.g. women's studies.

Hiring committees doing significant digging into candidates' extra-academic life is the exception rather than the rule.

The OP specifically mentions graduate admissions and googling.  I have done lots of graduate admissions and I cannot specifically remember ever having googled an applicant (and I often google their letter writers or their home institution).  For faculty and such: sure, sometimes I get curious, but I don't feel like such googling is part of the faculty search process.  If I found some political activity about a faculty candidate through the job search, it would have to be extremely significant or specifically problematic in some way for me to bring it up to my colleagues at all.  To give two examples of googling academics: I have learned for instance that someone had been a union organizer and someone else was a leader of a campus pro-life organization and had run for political office.  If these people applied for jobs I would keep this information to myself.

On average, it is a little safer to be on the left than on the right.

The majority of American academics that I know are not very politically active but are considerably left of the center of American politics.  This applies to me.  If I learned that a potential job candidate was very active in Tea Party politics, I would take a moment to steel myself not to let this affect my decision.  If I learned that a potential job candidate had been active in Obama's campaign, I would think "Well, that will make for a fun story sometime."  I have colleagues whose political views are very different from my own, including one whom I respect the most, because of his great personal integrity and selflessness.  But I still have to think and act a little more carefully around this colleague because of this; often I cut off a "humorous remark" just before it leaves my mouth because I remember that he will not be amused, and I don't want to make him uncomfortable.
I put this point last because it is purely contingent on "local phenomena", but I think it would be naive to expect exactly the same academic reception for political activism on the two sides of the spectrum.  On the other hand, at some state universities the local politics can be very different from the politics of the university and the faculty.  This is really beyond the scope of my answer, so I'll just say: surely it is best if state employees who run the university system know as little about a faculty member's political activity as possible, at least until tenure.

I think presenting "don't post on Twitter" as universally good advice is quite shortsighted. Twitter is very effective as a medium for dissemination of research results to the public and to other scientists, as well as other types of communication.

@David Z: Fair enough.  I've modified my answer.

Btw: When I follow the link to the article I get a website saying "Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism."

The recent case of Steven Salaita (who was offered a tenured position at the University of Illinois and then had the offer pulled after there were complaints about some of his political remarks on twitter) shows that being politically outspoken can have an effect on one's academic career in the United States.  Although Salaita doesn't work in the physical or life sciences, I think the same thing could very easily have happened to (for example) a chemist who had made the same statements.
Unlike most professionals working for large corporations, faculty are public figures.  If an employee of a large corporation makes political statements, it's very clear that these don't represent the views of the corporation and it isn't likely to cause a significant problem to the employer (although individuals within the organization might well object to the statements and respond in ways that might be unfair.)  When a faculty member makes political statements the press is likely to pick these statements up and amplify them and the administration of a university is more likely to be concerned about the effect of these statements on the reputation of the university.  For example, your political statements might cause a wealthy donor to stop a planned donation to the university.  This is especially true when the university is a public university that depends on the state and federal governments for financial support.
A growing problem in the sciences is that even making non-political statements about scientific issues (evolution, natural resources, global climate change, etc.) can result in politically motivated attacks against a researcher.  If your research interests happen to be in one of these areas and you're also politically active, you're even more likely to become the target of such an attack.

Corporate careers can be badly impaired by politics as well: consider, for example, the case of Brendan Eich.

@jakebeal; a key point here is that Eich was a high level executive, not a typical professional employee like a programmer, database administrator, or whatever.  Within the academic world, faculty have positions that are more publicly visible than people with similar technical skills working in industry.  Anyone who rises to that level of public visibility in any organization has to be careful about their political statements.  In Eich's case, just as in Salaita's it was the public attention to his political comments that cost him his job.

@BrianBorchers: Eich was, in fact, a programmer.  He was one of the original Netscape developers, who worked his way up the ladder until he reached the top.  In fact, before the whole political mess went down, he was best known as "the guy who created JavaScript."

Eich had worked as a programmer in the past, but at the time his comments got him in trouble, he was in the very high profile position of CEO of Mozilla.  If he were still just working as a programmer for Mozilla I doubt that his contribution to supporters of prop 8 would have caused such a controversy.

I don't disagree with the answer, but I think the example of Salaita is interesting.  Yes, the political speech drew attention to him and probably was ultimately the initial reason his offer was withdrawn, but those objecting to his appointment had reasonable arguments: in particular, his general lack of credentials in the subject he was appointed in.  For someone in a similar situation with excellent credentials, it's less likely the movement to withdraw credentials would have gained traction (and, if nothing else, another position somewhere else would've been easily found.)

I agree with the answers so far, but let me elaborate on one sentence that could be a little worrisome:

I am critical of many governments (including my own) and corporations, and of many of the applications of technology in fields I am interested in.

Criticizing governments and corporations is one thing, but criticizing specific applications of technology could come across as far more insulting to anyone personally involved in those applications (whether through their own research or as a consultant to corporations or government agencies).  It won't endear you to your colleagues if you denounce their work, particularly on moral grounds.  This is not to say you shouldn't do it if you feel strongly, but you should try very hard to be as reasonable and fair as possible, and in any case you should recognize that you may be cutting off certain options.  For example, if you loudly announce that people with DARPA grants are immoral because they are serving the military-industrial complex, then you shouldn't expect anyone with a DARPA grant to hire you as their postdoc, even if you would be supported by a different (and less objectionable) grant.
I don't think this is the sort of thing that's likely to derail your entire career, but it's safest to keep the list of people you personally offend as short as you can.

It will very much depend on the country you intend to work in.
In Britain, academia has long been a home for radical thought: for example, the foundation of University College London in the early 19th Century was an open act of defiance against the establishment at the time.
It's far from universally true, but academia does strive to reward merit for merit's sake; so people will strive to assess you on the basis of your research. Having said that, recruitment decisions are made by us humans, with all our foibles, prejudices and weaknesses.
There are political movements that get associated with large-scale crimes against humanity, including mass murder: Khmer Rouge, Stalinism, Fascism. If you were involved with those, that would indeed be likely to be devastating to a career in academia.

I would say that academia has long been a home for radical thought in most Western countries, at least (I only say Western out of ignorance of academia in other parts of the world, not to state that it's not also the case elsewhere.) Having said that, this could either work to the advantage or disadvantage of an outspoken person with strong political views. If you make your views known loudly and they contradict those of the people in authority (or perhaps major donors) at a given institution, it could negatively impact your job chances there.

Academia (in the Western countries that I know of) is the realm of political correctness. In this regard, as long as you don't deviate too much from the spectrum of opinions it defines in your region, the risk is small. In your case, if your opinions are just the regular college-student, mainstream leftism a la 'corporations are evil', you will be just fine.
In addition, your opinions will most likely evolve and get more nuanced by the time you'll be looking for an academic position.
This being said, if I were implicated in the hiring process and your opinions included denial, or gross exaggeration of scientific facts, or were based on crackpot science (say you were a 'climatoskeptic', or vociferously anti-GMO or anti-nuclear energy, or you think vaccines are a corporate conspiracy that will give your child autism) I would wonder about your scientific sanity. But people with these opinions get hired nonetheless.
Now, there are cases where your political opinions, if made public, would close doors, but it's typically cases where said opinions would prevent you from wanting the job in the first place. Say you were supportive of an 'animal welfare' activists group that 'released' lab animals wasting years of hard work and money, you'd be unlikely to get hired in a  biology lab.

If you consider Political Science to be a scientific career, I can cite an example in which political involvement would have been detrimental.
A political scientist named Richard Fenno wrote a book called Homestyle in which he observed Congressmen in their home districts.  At the time, research was mostly done in Washington.  To accomplish this, Fenno had to contact several Congressmen on both sides of the aisle and ask permission to follow them around in their home districts.  He would have access to some of their most intimate moments with their family, constituents, supporters, etc.  so they need to trust that you aren't out to smear them.
Congressmen might have been less likely to accept his request if he had been politically active (which he was not).  A Republican might fear that he might be trying to dig up dirt on them, or vice versa.
So contrary to popular belief, being a political scientist is not a good idea if your goal is the advancement of a particular ideology, but I digress.
A takeaway from this for non political scientists is that people might be less willing to work with you if they believe you have a highly partisan agenda.

Yes, and I for one won't submit to the prejudices of the STEM folks

A recent scandal at a Swiss university shows clearly, that political involvement can even be detrimental to a career in natural sciences.
As the whole story I'm going to tell is highly political (and I actually try to remain on a neutral position), I add a large number of sources to the end, unfortunately most in German as the whole incident occured in the German speaking part of Switzerland. I personally do not name the institutions or people involved, the articles, however, do so.
Switzerland has several state universities which are, in theory, under the administration of a deanery independant from the government. However, a recent scandal at one of these universities questions the extent of this independency.
Background: The new primary school syllabus contains material from a scientifically highly questionable ideology. Two professors, heads of medical and biological faculties, with the support of professors from other natural sciences' faculties strongly opposed this referring to recent scientific research.
One of the leading professors of this opposition was soon after charged for academic misconduct and forced to retire from his position (resp. fired, not sure anymore), alone, all accusations turned out to be false. Quickly after the media had discovered this, the university blamed that professor's strongest supporter to have made up the whole charade and fired her for this with no evidence at all. Beside of it being highly questionable why she, as such a strong supporter of the first one's standpoint, should now suddenly be the one plotting to end his career, courts soon found her guiltless in all charges (and, in return, her claims for compensation are now pending).
Public pressure forced the dean to retire after the whole story became public. However, the person evidence points to as the main plotter remains unspoilt as she has certain immunities in connection with her position.
There have been similar stories in the recent years which I do not unfold here now.
The following articles, unfortunately all German, illustrate the evolution of the whole scandal. It casts a really poor light on the current state of academic freedom at least in Switzerland.
http://www.weltwoche.ch/die-weltwoche/themenschwerpunkte/fall-moergeli.html
http://www.nzz.ch/zuerich/moergeli-affaere-condrau-flurin-uni-zuerich-medizinhistorisches-institut-1.18381044
http://www.nzz.ch/zuerich/affaere-moergeli-1.18325659
http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/dossiers/schweiz/dossier2.html?dossier_id=1640

Mörgeli, via his doctoral students, committed multiple cases of plagiarism by translation.

"Plagiarism" would require the failure to state the source which, to my knowledge, hasn't been the case in any of the questioned theseis. Furthermore I was personally offered to attain my PhD in religious science in similar ways (translation of Erasmus' de libero arbitrio). Why has nobody charged the head of that faculty though the method is known to the deanery?

I surely agree that Swiss professors should be evaluated with more scrutiny. They get away with a lot of stuff that would get them sacked in America.

Let's look at the current political climate in academia:

Over the
  years, I have watched a growing intolerance at universities in this
  country – not intolerance along racial or ethnic or gender lines –
  there, we have made laudable progress. Rather, a kind of intellectual
  intolerance, a political one-sidedness, that is the antithesis of what
  universities should stand for. It manifests itself in many ways: in
  the intellectual monocultures that have taken over certain
  disciplines; in the demands to disinvite speakers and outlaw groups
  whose views we find offensive; in constant calls for the university
  itself to take political stands. We decry certain news outlets as echo
  chambers, while we fail to notice the echo chamber we’ve built around
  ourselves.
source

More than nine in 10 UK universities are restrictive of free speech,
  according to a new report that raises concerns over the issue of
  censorship on campuses.
Analysis by Spiked magazine, supported by the Joseph Rowntree Reform
  Trust, suggested campus censorship had increased steadily over the
  past three years – with a growing number of institutions actively
  clamping down on ideas, literature and guest speakers that are not in
  keeping with their own values.
The Free Speech University Rankings (FSUR), drawn from examining the
  policies and bans of 115 universities and students’ unions, found
  almost two thirds (63.5 per cent) were “severely” restrictive of free
  speech, with more than 30 per cent given an “amber” warning.
source

Higher education’s suppression of speech is well-publicized. But in an
  odder and less well-known twist, campuses are increasingly co-opting
  the language of free speech and using it to justify censorship. One
  example: The designated “free speech zones” that exist on roughly 1 in
  10 U.S. college campuses, according to a report released last month by
  the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
The very existence of a “free speech zone” suggests that students’
  expression is limited elsewhere on campus. And even in the “free”
  zones, administrators often restrict who can speak, when and for how
  long.
Dozens of universities have also used the language of free speech to
  justify trendy “Language Matters” or “Inclusive Language” campaigns.
  The point of these programs is to condition students to wince away
  from words and phrases deemed offensive, instead using politically
  correct substitutes.
source

A related survey question, which has been asked most years since 1967,
  inquired whether “colleges have the right to ban extreme speakers from
  campus.”
About 43 percent of freshmen said they agreed. That’s nearly twice as
  high as the average share saying this in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
  It was surpassed only once, just barely, in 2004. But in general,
  support for banning speakers from campuses has trended upward over
  time.
Recent incidents suggest students (and sometimes their professors) may
  have rather expansive views of what constitutes an “extreme speaker.”
  Among those disinvited or forced to withdraw from campus speaking
  engagements in the past few years are feminism critic Suzanne Venker,
  former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, International Monetary
  Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde and Narendra Modi, now the
  Indian prime minister.
source

Harvard revoked offers to at least 10 applicants based up their
  digital footprint. What is more troubling is that Harvard has lobbied
  for years against a social media privacy law for applicants that would
  ban colleges in Massachusetts from being able to request applicants
  verify their digital accounts and activities which may indicate their
  political or personal opinions.
Harvard along with other prestigious colleges have a long documented
  history discriminating against students based on religion and other
  personal attributes. A recent lawsuit is claiming Harvard for years
  has discriminated against Asians. The evidence so far demonstrates the
  troubling ways Harvard uses personal non-academic information to
  reject applicants.
The bottom line is that if a college applicant visits websites that
  discuss hot button political issues such as the president, or far left
  or far right lawmakers, the First Amendment or Second Amendment
  rights, abortion, affirmative action, gay marriage, immigration, etc.
  its highly possible they may be denied admission to the most
  prestigious colleges in the United States. Why? Because an increasing
  number of college admissions officials are going to great lengths to
  collect their applicant’s personal political opinions.
source

A Pensacola student who sparked controversy Tuesday by wearing a
  Confederate uniform to the site of a violent clash between white
  nationalists and counterprotesters has been kicked out of Pensacola
  Christian College, according to a North Carolina media outlet.
WXII News 12 reported that Allen Armentrout, who reportedly splits
  time living in Pensacola and North Carolina, learned Thursday that PCC
  staff had decided to terminate his enrollment.
[...]
Video from Tuesday showed Armentrout — wearing a Confederate uniform
  and carrying a Confederate flag — standing and saluting a statue of
  Gen. Robert E. Lee at Charlottesville's Emancipation Park. He was
  surrounded by a crowd that chanted "terrorist go home." Armentrout
  stood in a motionless salute until he was peaceably escorted away from
  the scene by police.
Armentrout later told the News Journal he made the trip to Virginia
  because the KKK, Neo-Nazis and other groups are destroying the history
  of his ancestors and he wants to share "the true history" of the
  American South. He said Neo-Nazis have wrongly "latched on" to
  Confederate history.
source

A University of Pennsylvania Law School professor has been removed
  from teaching mandatory first-year courses after making derogatory
  remarks about the academic performance of black students.
During an interview last fall, professor Amy Wax said that black
  students at Penn Law never graduated in the top quarter of their
  class. "Here is a very inconvenient fact Glenn, I don't think I've
  ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the class and
  rarely, rarely in the top half," Wax told Brown University professor
  Glenn Loury in a video of the interview that recently gained
  attention.
source

Shepherd is a graduate student and teaching assistant. Her sin was to
  show a first-year communications class a video snippet from TV Ontario
  of two professors debating grammar.
[...]
All of which is to say that when Shepherd ran her five-minute TVO clip
  featuring pronoun traditionalist Jordan Peterson debating another
  professor, she unleashed a storm.
[...]
The teaching assistant was hauled before a three-person panel made up
  of her supervisor and boss, Nathan Rambukkana, another professor named
  Herbert Pimlott, and Adria Joel, Laurier’s acting manager of gendered
  violence prevention and support.
The trio interrogated her for more than 40 minutes.
Shepherd had the wit to record the proceedings. It makes for
  depressing listening.
source

Finkelstein was not denied tenure because of any shortcomings in
  scholarship or teaching. Noam Chomsky had earlier described
  Finkelstein's book Beyond Chutzpuh as "a very careful scholarly book"
  and "the best compendium that now exists of human rights violations in
  Israel" (Goodman, "Chomsky Accuses"). The late Raul Hilberg, widely
  recognized as the founder of Holocaust studies, said of Finkelstein,
  "his place in the whole history of writing history is assured," and
  praised his "acuity of vision and analytical power." (Goodman, "It
  Takes").
There can be little doubt that Finkelstein was fired because of his
  criticisms of Israel's human rights violations against the Palestinian
  people, and for his fact-based criticisms of the Israel lobby. Raul
  Hilberg warned at the time, "I have a sinking feeling about the damage
  this will do to academic freedom" (Grossman).  Even the DePaul
  administration tacitly conceded that his firing was politically
  motivated when it acknowledged Finkelstein as a "prolific scholar and
  outstanding teacher'' in a later legal settlement (Finkelstein, "Joint
  Statement").
source

etc. etc. etc.
Although this problem has existed for decades, expressing an opinion that is "politically incorrect" has never been as dangerous within an academic context as it is today. Also, the range of speech that qualifies as "politically correct" is becoming ever more narrow. Especially (but not only) for people on the right of the political spectrum, expressing any political opinion whatsoever has become simply too risky. Many people received a grading penalty, were kicked out of college, lost their jobs, failed to obtain tenure or were otherwise punished by expressing opinions too controversial for the current political climate. And often this involved opinions expressed on social media or other non-academic contexts.
As a consequence, 54% of students report self-censoring in the classroom at some point since the beginning of college, according to a survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. A similar survey by Hamilton college's student newspaper also looked into the political affiliations of respondents and demonstrated a striking difference between responses from conservatives and liberals. No less than 84% of conservatives indicated that “the political climate on campus prevents them from saying what they believe”, whereas only 21% of liberals reported self-censorship.
Why Liberals & Conservatives experience censorship so differently :

The idea of a balanced argument at my undergraduate university [in the
  US] was ‘neoliberal’ versus ‘radically liberal’. We spoke of the
  importance of diversity, but political diversity was never considered.
  I thirsted for a deeper understanding of why half of Americans could
  hold opinions that were only met with dismissive ridicule or barely
  acknowledged. What I wanted was a wide exposure to different ideas and
  arguments, whether or not I agreed with them.
In the US, if someone disagrees with you politically, they disengage
  from you and refuse to get to know you on a personal level. So I have
  often kept quiet among my peers, only revealing my true thoughts to
  those who have ‘come out’ to me in the same way that Madeleine
  describes. This has been compounded by the fact that my undergraduate
  degree was in gender studies, a famously radically liberal discipline.
  I am proud that I do not conform to the stereotype of a gender studies
  student.
I wish to remain anonymous not because I am ashamed of my views, but
  because I want to be an academic and fear assumptions might be made
  about my politics. Academia is so liberal that, though I am
  politically neutral or centrist, others might regard me as being
  conservative and not want to hire me. Nevertheless, I look forward to
  working towards a future where academics have intellectual freedom in
  the form of open discussion, not anonymous letters.
source

So if you're a Liberal and your political views are sufficiently aligned with those of the academic establishment, you may not have anything to worry about. For everyone else, however, it is best to keep your opinions for yourself and not advertise them in any way if you want to pursue an academic career.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Likely, very detrimental.
Ask yourself this. Suppose you become a scientist, and you are considering citing a paper authored by someone you know stridently espouses ultra-conservative views, entirely antithetical to your own. If you could cite another paper instead of hers, all things being equal, would you? Would it cause you to hesitate citing her paper? Would you think to yourself, 'Ugh, I hate this guy, I wish someone else had published similar research?'
In my opinion, this is common sense. However, there's also a bevy of evidence that publishing research contra, for example, feminist theory, will harm the publisher's career. Consider the following quotations from the Florida State Law Journal.

Perhaps the most physically and personally intimidating behavior was
  directed at Suzanne Steinmetz, who had first brought the issue to the
  public’s attention.43 Steinmetz appeared on such shows as the Today
  Show and Phil Donahue. 44 Her work was reported in various newspapers
  and magazines, including a full-page story in Time magazine.45 Yet,
  while Steinmetz’s work received some support, the public attack, the
  public attack against Steinmetz and her family evidenced the public's
  overwhelming rejection of her work. Verbal threats were launched
  against her and her children - at home and in public. Threatening
  phone calls were made to Steinmetz and the sponsors of her speaking
  engagements in order to prevent Steinmetz from further publicizing her
  work. On one occasion, a bomb threat was called into an ACLU meeting
  at which Steinmetz was scheduled to speak. Professionally, Steinmetz
  was also threatened. In an attempt to prevent her from receiving
  tenure, every female faculty member at the University of Delaware was
  lobbied by individuals calling on behalf of the women's rights
  movement... Other social scientists committed to the study of husband
  abuse and family violence were similarly mistreated.Such tactics seem
  to have proven effective. Both researchers who were involved in the
  early projects and even those who might have become involved admit
  that they now choose to give the topic of battered men "wide berth".

Further consider the following list of feminist methods of suppressing research, as published in the Journal of Criminal Policy

Method 1. Suppress Evidence
Method 2. Avoid Obtaining Data Inconsistent with the Patriarchal Dominance Theory
Method 3. Cite Only Studies That Show Male Perpetration
Method 4. Conclude That Results Support Feminist Beliefs When They Do Not
Method 5. Create "Evidence" by Citation
Method 6. Obstruct Publication of Articles and Obstruct Funding of Research That Might Contradict the Idea that Male Dominance Is the
  Cause of PV
Method 7. Harass, Threaten, and Penalize Researchers Who Produce Evidence That Contradicts Feminist Beliefs.

Moreover, just the other day I learned that a pharmaceutical corporation decided funding an endowed chair at the U of T was no longer a "priority" when the U of T decided to award the chair to David Healey, author of the book Pharmagedon.
Of course politics will affect your academic career.

Regarding your first message: Yes, often they don't have alternatives. But often isn't always. The question is, is it often enough? I'm not arguing that it will break his career, just that it could adversely affect it. If they sometimes have a choice, and some don't like his politics, all things being equal, they might cite someone else. Personally, I think it's foolish to presume everyone has mastered impartiality.

Regarding your second message: Hard science isn't immune to politics. We can safely say that, at the very least, one's politics can influences some private donors. I gave the pharmaceutical case as one example corroborating that.

Regarding your third message: Yes, six people, published large bodies of evidence that feminist academia suppresses research. It's not meant to be conclusive, but the existence of the papers is evidence that there are others who agree with me about this. The papers themselves render a great deal of evidence that the research suppression described in my answer is a pervasive problem. As for your remark about feminism being outside the domain of hard-sciences. I disagree. "Feminist biology" is a new and growing discipline. Moreover, the feminist influence in academia, influences all disciplines.

Lastly, the fact that my comment about feminism prompted you to write a 1500 character reply, says something about the militance of its supporters.

@PeteL.Clark I don't suggest that they keep track of them, at least not that they go out of their way to do so. The OP asked whether he will need to keep his politics private. The less private he keeps his politics, the greater the probability that his peers will learn about them. Again, I'm not talking about all, or even most, of his peers learning of them, just a few.

@PeteL.Clark I'm a student, so no, I don't suspect my politics have motivated anyone to ignore my (effectively, non-existent) research. However, I have three professors (chemistry, neurology, biochemistry), and two pharma VPs, in my family. At family gatherings they've talked (partly laughing at the truth) about what researches can and can't say and what the consequences of that are. But most importantly, it's common sense. Anyone who truly believes that they're immune to their own prejudices is either super-human or a fool.

@PeteL.Clark. I used the case of feminism as an extreme example to make the point that, in academics, politics do influence what they should not influence. However, if you want to connect feminist influence to STEM disciplines, you could trace it through the administration. Otherwise, I think their research influence doesn't go further down the tree, so to speak, than biology, neurology, and some endocrinology.

But most importantly, it's common sense. — Ah.  So it's false.  Got it.

@JeffE Really, you believe that you're entirely immune to your own prejudices? Can you just reply 'Yes I do' without feeling like you're full of it?

Of course I don't, but that's not what you're arguing.  You're claiming that scientists ignore other scientists' research because of their politics, and supporting that claim by calling it "common sense".  If you have actual evidence, I'd love to hear it, but "It's common sense" is just bluster.

@JeffE I'm arguing that some scientists may favour those who share their politics, all things being equal. Regardless, what did I write immediately following "...it's common sense"? You just agreed you're not immune to your own prejudices. So, so far, it seems like common sense that people aren't immune to their own prejudices.

Excuse me, let me clarify. It pervades the administration, and nearly all of academics itself. (Everything but engineering, math, physics, and chemistry.)

@PeteL.Clark I haven't painted it in anyway, I've posted research, and stated that it pervades the administration and all but the mathiest disciplines. You haven't bothered to read the research - which is rather rigorous. I linked to it, feel free to do so.

@PeteL.Clark My answer begins with a statement that I am speculating. The first word is 'likely'. Then I adduce several examples that corroborate my speculation. Nevertheless, such a disclaimer would add nothing, any answer to this question will almost necessarily consist in speculation. In regards to first-hand experience: that isn't necessary for knowledge. Very little of our knowledge comes from that. Have you ever been to Somalia? Do you know it exists? How do you know? I grounded my belief in what I learned from 11 experts (5 in my family, 6 in the journals cited).

The denotations of 'probability' and 'likelihood' both entail speculation. One uses 'probably' to convey that, upon considering a number of possible states of affairs, s/he feels most confident that the topical state of affairs will obtain. Contrariwise, one uses 'likely' to convey that, upon considering a number of possible states of affairs, s/he feels most confident that the topical state of affairs has obtained. In any case, although we may use mathematics to reckon and express those notions, neither of them analytically entail anything mathematical.

Even if you don't regard 'likely' as sufficient to convey the fact that my answer was an opinion, you must regard my use of 'in my opinion' as sufficient to do so. One ought to ensure his/her co-locutors knows that s/he is opining; a single remark to that effect suffices to ensure that.

Regarding your remark about 'lack of scholarship', your first comments attacked my own scholarship. When you posted those you believed that I was a professional academic. Accordingly, it seems to me that you've feigned offense as a means to avoid conceding that one doesn't need first-hand knowledge to justify belief, as the soundness of your criticism of the veridicality of my post entirely depends on your assertion that one needs first-hand knowledge to justify belief.

@Hal: My offense is not feigned.  There is a difference between disagreeing with someone's conclusions and making unfounded and/or false claims about them personally.  Best of luck in your future endeavors.

Honestly, the unsupported supposition to start the post greatly takes away from disturbing yet supported examples showing that having public political stances can be damaging to a career. Also, some if it is just a digression and is not the question of the post: specifically that NOT being political, yet being involved in a controversial or politically "hot-button" topic, can still expose one to serious consequences. As such, it brings across the impression that the subject was shoe-horned in because one wanted to mention it, even if it wasn't an answer to the OP's question.

@BrianDHall: Thanks.  You expressed yourself much better and more concisely than I did.

@BrianDHall Sure, I could have stated that the first two cases evidence how politics can motivate people, including academics to act poorly, and that the third case evidenced that one's politics outside of academics can affect one's political career. All three cases evidence the more (too?) general assertion that one's politics can affect his/her academic career.


text:
A lecturer is hard to understand, what to do?
I have a lecturer at university that I find very hard to understand. My lectures are taught in English, but my lecturer is of East Asian origin, and English is not his first language.
I find the lectures incredibly hard to follow, just trying to understand what is being said requires a substantial effort, and I find the material is challenging in any case.
There is no textbook for the course, but we are given printouts of the lecture slides that are used in the lectures (six to each side of an A4 page). While the lecture slides do contain the material, they don't explain it like a good lecturer would.
I've spoken to my tutor about the course, telling him that I find it very hard to follow the lecturers. Many of my peers feel a similar way to how I do.
Finally, let me point out that I bear the lecturer no ill will; I just want to do well on the course.

Have you tried audio-recording it and learning how to understand what your lecturer is saying? The incomprehensibility of an accent is often just the listener's unfamiliarity with it.

When you say there is no textbook, do you mean the course doesn't follow a specified textbook, or that the material taught can't be found in print anywhere (e.g. if this is cutting-edge research)?

The course is an introduction to artificial intelligence. We've been discouraged from finding non-recommended text books since apparently little of the material will be relevant.

@EnergyNumbers Though audio-recording can be a good learning strategy, it might be inappropriate (and even illegal) to do this without the permission from the instructor...

Audio-recording might only be useful if you want to play it to the department chair to illustrate your problems with the instructor. It's hard enough to understand an recorded native English speaker. I've always found that it take hours to transcribe an hour's worth of lecture. Your best bet is to share notes with your classmates.

This was an issue when I was at university, a few non-English students could not understand a non-native English lecturer. The overseas students were having to pay a lot to be at a University in the UK and felt they were not being sold a good enough service. The given lecturer provided very good notes, but told everyone that if people stop turning up to his lecturer he would stop producing the notes! Two options you could try. - asked the lecturer if she/he will provide you with notes

Is there another student that you will you photo copy their notes

Possibly related, you might want to take a look: Dealing with listening/talking to researchers with difficult accents

@ZhouFang it wouldn't occur to me to record them without their permission: I assumed in good faith that it would go without saying. Obviously I was wrong.

@IanRingrose more specifically, judging from the user info of the OP, the question is what to do if the accent is so strong a native speaker doesn't understand the lecture.

We've been discouraged from finding non-recommended text books since apparently little of the material will be relevant. THAT is the sign of a bad instructor. Not the accent. He is there to help you learn; his not having a good pronunciation is his misfortune, not his fault (improving the accent is possible, but requires a tremendous amount of effort that the university won't release him from the regular responsibilities like teaching and research to pursue). But recommending some books to read, especially at intro level, is so easily doable that him failing to do so is just wrong.

When I was a student we had a lot of lecturers who struggled with audible coherent English and unfortunately there wasn't much to be done about it. The only advice I can give is to meet with your lecturer more often and make sure you're sitting close enough.

Note, it is not always an accent problem. I have had a professor, whom the Chinese students said was just speaking Chinese half the time. At least some universities have absolutely no standards or rules about the lecturer's actually knowing the language the class is theoretically being taught in.

Not an answer, but probably relevant: https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/129673/58645. The suggestions at the end could be relevant things to suggest (possibly via your tutor as a proxy) to your lecturer, assuming they're willing (or even able) to consider them.

As a lecturer in Asia, I appreciate what you are saying. I have some colleagues who are Asian who are quite clear when they speak English and others with whom I require a minute or two to even recognize when they are speaking English because their accent is so strong. You have to work with what you've got.
While you could confront your lecturer, as snim2 said in an answer, you need to be delicate about this. The lecturer could find you condescending or insulting. Even if the lecturer does not think you are being purposefully hurtful, making a lecturer self-conscious about his accent might make him an even worse lecturer (of course, it could help, depending on his personality).
I would recommend talking to the lecturer and simply say something like this: Hi teacher, I'm finding it necessary to read more about this topic in order to do well in your class. Could you point me in the direction of some reading material that I can use to improve my understanding of your subject? (then stop talking)
Once you have the reading materials, focus your learning there, perhaps with some genuine emails to your lecturer, if he allows.
Even the lecturers I've met with horrible English will happily go out of their way to find some material for you to read. Either they will recommend a textbook, some articles, or they will have some material they have collected on their own. I don't believe I have ever met a university lecturer who would be offended by this approach nor have I met one who would not support a student with such a request.

Let's hope that when they recommend you a textbook, you can understand what they said!  An acquaintance of mine has a strong accent and even after knowing him for some time, I still can't always tell what he is saying. It's a real problem.

Partially this will depend on how specific the course is. If this is a general "Graduate level intro to X" class, my first suggestion is to look for an equivalent course provided on one of MOOC sites. For instance, if your course was an introduction to machine learning, you might have a look at Andrew Ng's course.
At the graduate level however, its entirely possible that the material you're being taught is difficult or impossible to find online (it could be a professor's seminar course afterall, in his or her specific research area). If this is the case, consider asking the instructor for more resources. He may know a good textbook from when he learned the material, or might be able to suggest lecture notes from another school that are available online. Phrasing this as "I'm looking for more to do and more to read!" can be a good strategy for getting help without offending the instructor, if you are concerned about this.
You might also try talking to other faculty members in this area (if there are any at your school). In my experience, most faculty members are happy to take a little time for one-on-one instruction if you're polite and genuinely interested. This is especially true if you're in the same lab. At minimum, these people may know of resources that your own instructor does not.
Finally, if you have to tough it out, there are good study strategies that you can use. A great starting point is to form a study group with the other students. If they're getting it, they can explain it to you. If not, you can figure it out together, and at least you'll know it's not you alone.

Asking for supplementary material in this manner could also be dangerous, since the professor might recommend books or lecture notes that assume you already know what he's teaching rather than material that helps you learn the "basics."

While I admit it might not produce useful material, I can't see how this could be dangerous. At worst, you'd get a reference to a somewhat useless resource, but just seeing the same advanced material presented in a different way could still be helpful.

Another alternative is to phrase it as you are lacking some background, and would like a textbook to review the basics.

I think you are dodging the more difficult question - should you confront the lecturer about this problem? The answer is definitely yes. The lecturer is a professional, he or she will want to gain honest, helpful feedback to improve their performance. They are probably completely unaware that students are finding it difficult to understand the lectures, and they will not become telepathic in time for you to sit your exams. So, be polite and professional about it, but find a way to let them know. Use email if you have to. And in the mean time search out Google Scholar to gain a better understanding of the material.

It is impossible for him to be absolutely clueless about the fact that his students are having a hard time understanding him. Most likely, the lecturer himself will be struggling with the issue and will know his problem better than anyone from having to constantly navigate the often discriminatory foreign academic landscape. Of course he will have to work hard to improve his communication abilities but I think students also have to be more patient and learn how to understand foreign accents. At least he is speaking YOUR language for you, not the other way around!

"At least he is speaking YOUR language for you, not the other way around!" Well yes, but this suggests that a university in, say, the United States there is a perfect symmetry between English and other languages.  There isn't, of course.  While English is not the official language of any American university I know, it is the unofficial language of most such universities, and students should reasonably be able to expect that their lecturers can make themselves understood in English.  That is what the job requires; it is not some piece of largesse on the part of the lecturer.

Some departments (e.g. mathematics) at some universities are notorious for having instructors with inadequate English skills.  I remember well visiting Yale as a prospective undergraduate (more than 20 years ago).  I sat in on a calculus lecture, and the lecturer's English was so poor that I couldn't quite explain to him that I wanted to sit in on his course for the day rather than transfer into his course.  That made a bad impression on me then and still does now.

So, while as an instructor I am less than thrilled with the idea of students complaining about their instruction, I think that if you find your instructor's English inadequate or even that it creates significant additional hardship, you probably should complain to the higher administration: they've screwed up.

By the way: "I think students also have to be more patient and learn how to understand foreign accents."  Yes, I agree.  It is a notorious joke that at smaller (e.g.) Southern colleges, someone with dark hair and not speaking with the local accent is often assumed to be foreign.  But there is a point beyond which someone's accent is too hard to understand, though locating this point precisely may be difficult.  (I have colleagues X and Y; X is a native English speaker and Y is not.  X cannot Y much of the time.  I can.  But still this means that Y's accent is too strong.)

It is not impossible for someone to be unaware of these problems. If everyone is too polite to say anything the lecturer may well be unaware. Or they may be aware but not sure what to do about it, and their management should be able to help them. Sometimes students think "I should not complain because the lecturer will get into trouble" but it is not a matter of getting into "trouble". It is a just a matter of the management supporting the lecturer to complete their duties as expected, which is a normal part of professional life for all of us.

Maybe it would already help to ask the lecturer to speak more slowly (make sure the lecturer understands that you are talking about speed of pronounciation and not about the "speed" in which the topics are presented)? There are several other factors such as the acoustics of the lecture hall or other studends getting noisy as they are impatient becaus they don't understand a word which can add to the problem.

or ask them to spell out technical words...

Try getting familiar with the terms used in this area. Our first DSP lecture was about "disco time systems", took us half an hour to realize it was "discrete".
I would aks if he/she could use slides with some bullet points on it. Do not mention "everyone" has problems understanding him/her, this might be embarrassing because you talked about it with others. Just say you have (sometimes) problems following.
No experiences or assumptions made about how this is perceived in asian cultures.

I had a math course on "deeferential secretions", once. After about three weeks we had compiled a translation glossary for the class. Thankfully the lecture followed the text closely for the first few weeks.

Is there a class representative? Many universities get the students to elect someone. If there is such a person, there should be some arrangement to meet with the lecturer to discuss general issues.
The representative could take an approach along the lines of 'several of the international students are having difficulty understanding your accent and are finding the slides are not detailed enough to capture all the information. Would it be possible to provide links to readings in the slides and/or slow down a little when speaking'.
If there is no representative, then perhaps you could ask the tutor to approach the lecturer. You would probably need to get a few people to confirm to the tutor that it's not just you. Alternatively, the tutor could say to the lecturer that several students are not understanding and he/she would like to recommend some reading materials and could the lecturer provide the tutor with something for each topic.

As a lecturer who tries to make the courses understandable to students, I find this situation horrifying. I only hope this is a graduate course, for two reasons: 1) there could indeed be a problem with available lecturers for the specific class you are taking and b) the classes on graduate courses are usually smaller and the lecturers more available for 1-to-1 discussions.
If it is a graduate course, perhaps you can ask the lecturer or your classmates for additional material. If it is introduction to AI, then I don't understand the warning not to find additional resources: the field is so old that there are literary hundreds on textbooks on this topic. What on earth could not be relevant for "introduction to artificial intelligence"?
If it is an undergraduate course, then you have a real problem, but perhaps even simpler solution. Disregard what lecturer has told you and get a good book or two on introduction to AI. You apparently have slides, so you should have very good idea of which topics are covered, and find a book that covers most of it. Learn using the book, and use the classes to just keep tabs on the lecturer's progress.
Now, in the long term this person should not be teaching undergraduate course. Not all people are good speakers and teachers, and this can do real damage to the institution where you are studying. There is perhaps no way to solve this by students, but faculty themselves should have enough reason to prevent this guy from teaching again. It is hard and painful, but he may be excellent scientist and he should work as a scientist, not lecturer.

I have seen this problem solved two ways.

Get the professor to write extensive slides, which he can use in class. Many professors just read slides they preprepared for the lecture anyway, and this is the best thing a professor such as this can do to increase his understandability.
Get transferred to, or just start attending, other currently ongoing versions of this class. Often the class is being taught by multiple professors concurrently. Often they even cooperate and teach the same things on the same day.

"Get the professor to write extensive slides" is an advisory for the administration, not the students - this is far above the influence students have.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Should your PhD students call you by your first name?
I've read at least one career advice essay that calls out asking your PhD students to call you by your first name as unprofessional.
My coworkers and I always called our PhD advisor by his first name, and a graduate student calling any professor by their last name, much less their own advisor, strikes my sensibilities as quaint and old-fashioned (undergraduates are a different story, of course).
What is the standard practice for this?

In some circumstances, the issue is not first (given) name or last (family) name, but perhaps of implied respect, which can at least formally be given by an honorific "Professor" or "Doctor". When I was not so much older than the grad students, some of them decided to call me "Doctor Paul" or "Professor Paul", which was perhaps a bit silly, but did not insult me so much. First-naming, "tutoyer"ing en francais, is an iffy thing. Especially now that I'm as old as kids' grandfathers, it seems strange to be addressed by my first name by them.

Yes, my PhD student should call me by my first name.

... and I could add that I would not have considered for a second addressing Shimura as "Goro" when I was a grad student. Nor Weil as "Andy". I could barely manage to address Lang as "Serge" while I was a Gibbs at Yale. My intonation was not buddy-buddy, etc. I realize there is a culture of "my students are just younger colleagues"...

Related: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3473 http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9802

I was always informal when talking with my advisor and the other professors in my research group but formal when talking about them with others.

It depends on the local customs. In Croatia, it is customary for students to address professors by the title. In England, first-name basis seems to be the standard, to the point that one professor actually told me, semi-desperately, "PLEASE, call him by his name!", when I kept mentioning "prof. ". It took me some time to get used to it.

Echo @VedranŠego . This question is definitely local custom dependent. Please specify your location or answers by locations.

Echo @VedranŠego Same thing... I was actually very glad after coming from Croatia to France that in English, there is no distinction between 2nd person pronouns for informal/formal talk as in Croatian/French (we talk in Eng). My French supervisor insisted everybody be on first-name-basis, but I did not feel at ease with it. Currently, with my new French supervisors, I settled on starting the e-mail with "Dear Prof. X", but addressing in the e-mail body and in person by their first name. In an e-mail, it is just very distracting and in person - I have trouble pronouncing their last name well :/

NO! They should call you "Master" ;)

@scaaahu, it is even institution/department custom dependent. Here in some departments some professors are (semi) routinely called by first name by undergraduates, in other, neighboring departments anything but a very formal "professor so-and-so" would be unthinkable.

Here in China most of my students are not aware that the last name exists. I think the only person in the whole university who knows my last name is the accountant. It makes life infinitely easier.

Yes, a PhD is essentially an apprenticeship in academic research, so they should be treated as a colleague in potential (it seems normal practice for an RA to refer to their supervisor by their first name).  Also I think it is a bad idea for researchers to be overly formal and deferential towards their supervisors; if you ware working at the cutting edge of your subject, not all of your ideas will be good ones, and the PhD student should feel comfortable pointing out where they feel this is the case.  This sort of self-skepticism (being comfortable with the idea of being wrong occasionally) is a key component of being a good scientist, and it seems to me to be difficult to communicate this by example if the student is constantly reminded of their place in the hierarchy by making them call me "Dr Marsupial".

You're right that PhD students should be treated as colleagues in potential, but the fact that this implies first-naming is location dependent.

I fully agree (+1), first naming is indeed location/culture dependent, however the point about inculcating self-skepticism shouldn't be. I think informality encourages the student to be questioning and not take what I say to be the ultimate truth.  In a more formal culture there needs to be other ways of encouraging this sort of occasional and entirely appropriate dissent.  While I prefer my students to refer to me by my first name, this is difficult for some of them and I don't insist on it.

I agree with your point about formal distance and the invitation to criticise. In the same vein I feel that emphasising authority this way is antithetical to science anyway.

@DikranMarsupial  In India we refer to the supervisors as  Sir/Mam, and we are free to convey our differences with the supervisor's opinion to him/her.  Its more of a culture thing.

@Jihadi indeed (+1), it is cross-cultural differences that tend to need greatest consideration, and there isn't a "one-size fits all" strategy that will work everywhere for everybody, and as I said, if students feel uncomfortable calling me by my first name, I don't insist on it.  It is also worth pointing out that as a white middle aged man it is culturally easy for me not to worry about my "authority", whereas e.g. female lecturers often don't automatic get the respect/authority that they have earned.  So I tend to address academics I don't know as Prof/Dr etc. until they suggest otherwise.

This is definitely a local practice. Here in Germany, it is not standard that colleagues call each other by their first names without specific invitation to do so. However, in other institutes, it is now standard policy that everybody refers to each other by their first name. So what is considered acceptable varies very much from location to location and group to group.
Within my own group, my undergraduate students tend to call me "Professor," while the graduate students and postdocs call me by my first name. This seems to me to be a reasonable balance—but I wouldn't really have a problem if an undergraduate who's worked for me for a while calls me by my first name.
A graduate student who isn't in my group, however, should not automatically expect to call me by my first name in an initial email. That would be rather presumptuous.

Plus we have the combinations of Du + Lastname () and Sie + Firstname (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger_Sie)... Main point: if you (= teacher/advisor) want to be addressed by Du and/or given name, do not forget to invite the students to do so (for some students, it will be invitation enough if you start saying Du + given name, others will consider this impolite without your invitation for a mutual Du). And if you do so, do it with all of them. Otherwise, the situation will become awkward.

I work in an English-language institute, but outside of it, the patchwork is crazy.

@cbeleites “Du” + “last name” is rather uncommon though, isn’t it? It sounds very patronising to me. Like the bad cop talking down to a criminal.

@KonradRudolph: Using Du with "Herr" or "Frau" would be bad. But I could see it if you used just the last names. It would be a bit like a sports team.

I don't understand why you would care if undergraduates called you by your first name. Does it somehow cause you harm or insult? If so, do you have a reason for this to be the case?

@Jase What is offensive isn't based on logic but on custom. There's nothing intrinsically offensive about a raised middle finger except what meaning Western culture gives the gesture. In German culture, to address an academic colleague by their first name without permission is offensive - that doesn't need additional justification to be the case.

@Jase: dbmag9 is correct. In general, I find it strange when someone I don't know personally (and I would not consider a lecture a "personal introduction") calls me by my first name. But my reaction would not be to find it insulting (given context, of course). Many of my German-born colleagues would.

@KonradRudolph: I know that particular mode of speaking only from the way pupils at an elementary school would address their teacher.

Germans can be sticklers for their titles... I know of a German professor  who traveled and worked closely with a colleague for more than 10 years and still insisted on being called "Herr Professor [lastname]".

I recall a teacher of mine saying : "Dealing with different cultures is dealing with different expectations", and calling someone by his title or his first name is definitely related to customs.
Being a French (from Chinese parents) student myself, I have never called my teachers/professors by their first names, but things tend to change just as customs evolve. Maybe it is because of my chinese backgrounds, which implies a strong use of titles (even for family members) that is explained by the importance of respect for the elders in the society.
Then I got to study in Oslo for a few months, and people explicitly asked me to call them by their first names, which I did later. However, it still feels akward for me to call someone by his first name when he is "much" more older than me.
Now what I do is that I say "Monsieur" or "Madame", and use the first name if I am invited to do so.

I had the same experience as you, in my French classes calling a professor by his first name would have been insulting, but then I studied in Norway and my Norwegian teachers laughed when I called them by their second name as it sounded extremely formal for them.

I always have my students call me by my first (given) name. Currently, I'm teaching in Asia and the students have the local custom of calling everyone as Mr. Givenname or Miss Givenname (yes, even if she is married - strange, I know). This is completely different from my native culture but I bring my culture with me...for a reason.
I have no desire to introduce the formality of calling me in any sort of official way. I feel it distracts from the importance of focusing on the matter of education. As long as my students do not refer to me in a rude way, I'm quite flexible. I do, however, encourage (without insisting) them to use simply my first name, without any title, rank, or any other identifier. This is true not only for my graduate students but for my undergraduate students as well.
Others in my departments, most notably Asian teachers, do prefer to have the greater level of formality. To each their own. It really does come back to culture. For me, I allow my students to follow which ever culture they prefer, but I do let them I know I don't want formalities to interfere with the educational process in any way.

most notably Asian teachers, do prefer to have the greater level of formality is very true in my Asian location. Some would not only prefer but also insist on it.

@scaaahu I was toning it down a bit. Many that I work with do insist on it as well.

In China's education system, starting from kindergarten, NOT formally calling a teacher is an actionable disciplinary breach in most schools... so this has been ingrained in them.

In Japan, graduate students generally address their professors as Lastname-sensei or just sensei.  Using the first-name would be unheard of. Even faculty do not address each other with their given names (unless they are foreigners).
Faculty generally address students by lastname-kun or lastname-san.
Use of given names in Japan is generally restricted to genuinely close friends and family in private situations.

Out of pure curiousity, do students address each other with their last names as well?

Japanese cultural formalities are very complex.  It IS possible for students to address other students with more formal titles.

Classmates will use lastnames (with or without honorifics). Only very close classmates will use firstnames (men on the same sports team; lovers; etc.).

@svavil - for students, it greatly depends on the university context and environment (my comment disagrees with RoboKaren's comment), but in some majors students address each other by first name with kouhai affixing "san" and sempai affixing nothing onto the first names.

This question is to me about: "how to behave professionally". As a teacher and a supervisor, I chose an intermediate way. I play with three items: first or last name, Mrs./Ms./Mr. or casual, and you and thou (a distinction that still exists in several languages; in French tu and vous). My aim is to show both respect and equality of treatment. I dislike professional situations where someone calls a colleague by the first name without reciprocity. So (as an advisor):

Up to the Master of Science level, I call students with Ms (or Mrs)/Mr. and their last name, and I expect the students to do the same.
I propose my PhD students (during their PhD time) to call them by their first name, and to call me with my first name as well (equal footing). Yet, in French, we have a difference between "tu" and "vous" (see "Tu and Vous"), with shades related to "you" and "thou"; "vous" is regarded as more polite, and we use the "tu" to talk in everyday life.
When they get their thesis, I generally  propose we switch to the more casual "tu", and I leave them the choice to use it, and first names as well. I am not anymore in a "supervising position" to impose them choices anymore.

And honestly, sometimes, I use "vous" and the last name when I meet students I have not met for a long time. Parental education.

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


text:
What should someone who has been rejected from all PhD programs do to improve their application for later admissions cycles?
I tried asking this question in cstheory.stackexchange.com but it was closed and it seems like this question is more appropriate here.
I am an undergraduate and an American citizen who recently applied to Computer Science PhD programs in the US. Based on conversations with friends and posts on gradcafe I am very likely to be rejected from all the programs I applied to (I haven't heard anything while others have gotten acceptances and interview requests from all the schools I have applied to).  I am now trying to brainstorm ideas for what to do after my graduation in order to improve my chances of getting into a PhD program when I try to apply again next year.
One option that seems to be brought up a lot is to attend a master's program.  However, unless I can get funding, or transfer credit will lower my tuition significantly (I'll have 6 or 7 graduate level cs courses that will not count towards graduation requirements by the time I graduate), I'm not sure if I can afford such a program.
Another popular option is to be a lab technician or something similar.  I'm not sure if such positions are available in theoretical computer science.
Is there anything else I can do?

Once you get the official rejection letter, try to figure out what made your application weaker than the others. If you had contact to someone involved in the admission process before, try to ask personally or on the phone. Rejection letters typically give only very general reasons for rejection, but some people are willing to give more specific advice verbally.

just wondering, what makes you think you will be rejected?

All of the schools I've applied to have either already sent out acceptances, or have sent out interview requests.  I haven't gotten any acceptances or interview requests.

It seems that your question is US specific, could you please edit it and add more context to it? I guess, the answers might differ depending on the country.

It's difficult to really answer your question without actually seeing your application, but here's some general advice.

Remember that the admissions process is random. — There is nothing you can do to absolutely guarantee admission anywhere.  The most you can do is maximize your expected return.
Calibrate your expectations. — Are you really a good candidate for a top-5 department?  (Hint: Do you have a STOC/FOCS/SODA paper?)  For a top-10 department?  For a top-25 department?  Really?  Be respectful but brutally honest with yourself.  Ask your letter-writers or other faculty mentors to be brutally honest with you as well.  Listen to them.
Identify potential advisors. — Every department you apply to should have at least two faculty, preferably more, whose specific research interests closely match yours.  Your research statement should not only name those faculty but explain why you think they'd be a good match.  Ask your references (or other mentors) for feedback and advice.  Listen to them.
Spread your applications. — The rule of thumb I heard when I was applying was apply for four schools where you have a reasonable chance of being admitted, one or two backup schools, and one dream school.  Do not let the backup schools know that they are backup schools!
Get good letters. — Your letters must address your potential for research in personal, specific, and credible terms.  A letter that only describes your performance in class is worthless.  Your letters must come from research faculty — not PhD students, not postdocs, not lecturers, not managers.  If possible, your references should have direct experience with strong PhD students (either as a reference or as an advisor) to make direct comparisons.  If possible, your references should be well-known active researchers, but this is actually less important than experience with students.  Since you've taken half a dozen graduate classes, you should be in good shape here.
Write a good statement. — Your research statement (or "statement of purpose" as everyone bizarrely insists on calling it) must address your potential for research in specific and credible terms.  Do not start with an inspiring quotation.  Do not write about how computers are changing the world.  Do not write about how you've been programming since you were in the womb; nobody cares.  Write about your research.  Describe your experience.  Describe your specific interests (not just "theoretical computer science").  Describe a problem that you might want to work on, with enough background and technical language to convince the reader you know what you're talking about and that you actually care.  Bonus points if you correctly cite one of your potential advisor's recent papers, but don't force it.
Get feedback. — Send the final version of your research statement to your letter-writers (or other faculty mentors) and ask for their brutally honest feedback.  Give them plenty of time.  Expect to get your statement back soaked in red ink.  Expect different people to give you conflicting advice.  Listen to all of them.  Lather, revise, repeat.
But this is all about the form of the application.  The best way to improve the content of your application is DO RESEARCH.  Get paid to do research if you can, but do research anyway if you can't.  Find a mentor (at your undergrad institution?) if you can, but do research anyway if you can't.  Post technical questions and answers to cstheory.stackexchange.  Follow CS theory blogs and read the papers that they write about.  Keep a copy of the most recent STOC or SODA proceedings nearby to read while you're compiling, or waiting for the laundry, or riding the bus, or whatever.  Talk regularly with your letter-writers about your progress.  Write, write, write.

Random? Is there another definition of that word? Because, as I know it, random means that its outcome is completely unpredictable, and dictated solely by something akin to a dice roll, as opposite to decisions or algorythms.

@Lohoris Yes, I mean the standard dictionary definition of random.  Running the same process with the same people and the same applications will yield different—and unpredictably different—results.

What is STOC/FOCS/SODA paper?

@mothur STOC, FOCS, and SODA are the three most prestigious conferences in theoretical computer science.

If you intend to do a PhD, then you're tackling the academic career path, so you're at the right place here :)
I am as well applying for a PhD currently, and went through the process of applying for a masters, here're the things I learned the hard way,
In general, there are two phases in acceptance, the university acceptance and the departmental acceptance

You should avoid applying to programs directly without contacting anyone in the department you want to work in. So first, check the faculty's members, see their research interests, and contact one of them, telling him that you would want to work under his supervision for your masters because you find his research topics matching your interests and expertise. That person may then make the departmental admission easier.
Most of us google for the top most universities and apply there, which makes our chances lower. Try to look for the 100-200s or search for new offers.
When you contact faculty members, NEVER COPY PASTE EMAILS! these will be very easy to detect, and will result in considering you a spammer. Make sure you tailor your email on the person's research interests and write your most interesting qualifications in the body of the email (not as an attachment, because usually they are too busy to check that, unless you really impressed them through the email's body)
Try to target funding organizations that give out scholarships based on minorities, ethnic groups etc.. these are easier to get accepted in, than the ones available for all the public
Narrow down your focus of the research area that you like most and would love to work in. If you have worked in that area before, it will make your application more unique.

So take care of the above points the next time you apply. As for the skills you can work on

Do some research, try to publish scientific papers
Work on a research proposal, learn how to write a good one as it will help you in future applications and when contacting faculty members. Try to contact your undergraduate university's professors and try to join a research group or work with one of them on a topic that you can publish papers from.
Take the GRE General test, that is a must in most of the universities in the US
Take the GRE computer science test, which is optional in most of the applications but distinguishes your application

If you are not from an English speaking country, make sure you

Take the TOEFL exam, most programs require 80/120, in US they usually ask for 90, which is pretty easy for you from what I can see in your question (take care as the score expires in 2 years, it has to be valid till the time of being admitted, not just the application time)
Make sure all certificates/transcripts are translated to English (by a trusted entity)
It is usually difficult to get funding for your Masters, because it is mostly studying and not actual working, and you're just staying for two years, thus not contributing that much to the funding organization, but keep trying, never underestimate yourself and go on applying. And remember that even if you keep failing, you are still a long way ahead of those who never tried.

All the best

Take the GRE computer science test — If you're going to do that, you'd better do it soon!

You should avoid applying to programs directly without contacting anyone in the department you want to work in. - In my opinion, this is poor advice.  I know it seems to be widely believed among some student populations, but it's more false than true.  Please do not spread this meme.  A random email that you spend 10 minutes on does not help your case.  See my detailed explanation elsewhere.

I still maintain that emailing faculty members is important. If you manage to impress an internal professor, and exchange more emails and discussions, he will definitely have a positive influence on the departmental admission (which is usually the second phase of admission at any decent place). Copy/pasting emails is a bad idea as I said, you should pick the professor with the most relevant research work, with whom you can talk and brag about your achievements. So probably you'll end up finding at most 2 professors that match this criteria in a department that researches in your area of focus.

The most important thing you can do to strengthen your application is: get additional research experience.  PhD programs focuses on research.  This means that the most important criteria for admission is arguably: likelihood for success at research.
One of the best ways to demonstrate the likelihood that you will be successful at research is to provide evidence that you've already been successful at research.  To do that, you need to get involved in an active research and do some serious research.  So, my recommendation is: go do some research.  If you've already done some, do some more.  The more successful research experience you have, the better your odds of being admitted in the future.
Beyond this, it's hard to give more specific advice without understanding why you were rejected and what were the weakest aspects of your application.  Therefore, my recommendation is: contact a mentor you trust (a faculty member who is active in research at a Ph.D. program) and ask them to review your application and give you advice about how to strengthen your application.

How would a college graduate go about getting research experience?

@user13491, that's a different question!  I suggest posting it separately; you'll probably get some good suggestions.

How are your grades? Grades are a large factor when it comes to Ph.D admissions and it may be worth taking courses that enable you to increase your grades.
Presumably, you are applying to a University abroad, but if there is a local University that performs research where you are, then you may want to work with a professor at your institution for a summer. The chances of getting this type of position may be slim but if you do get one, it gives you some research experience that you can put on your application materials.
If neither of these are good options, then you will probably want to spend your time reviewing related work in the area and working on your research statement. Write it using principles from the foolproof grant template. As a potential student, you might not use all of the elements (as you are limited in both experience, as well as getting about a page's worth of writing) but you should follow the structure for the "first two paragraphs".

My overall GPA is 4.84, and my GPA in just math and cs courses is 4.93 (both are on a 5.0 scale).  I think these are inflated however, because I took graduate level courses and my school has liberal add/drop policies.  I've also been thinking about trying to do research with a local professor, but I don't think such a position is likely to happen as you said.

Grades are a large factor when it comes to Ph.D admissions - In my experience, grades are not a large factor for top PhD programs.  Poor grades can get you rejected, but good grades cannot get you accepted.  Research experience and strong letters are more important.

I have applied for FALL 13 in US and awaiting results. Therefore what I am writing here is a mix of my own experience and the accumulation of my understanding of others (includes forums/blogs).
I applied to all colleges which I thought were good in theory (my area of interest). This list was basically influenced by -
i) the papers I read during my master/undergrad and
ii) the fact that each of the college in the list must have at least 3 potential advisors in theory.
Now the BIG problem was : am I a good fit for these colleges? Frankly, these colleges never disclose their candidate profiles and mostly, the home-pages of the current PhD students do not exist. So I went to forums like gradcafe where there is ton of data but very little useful information but still worth a visit. Some people suggest to mail prof before you apply. In my case I have been advised to not to contact them unless I have strong reasons. Plus, I do not expect any prof to evaluate my profile and see if I am a good match.
What do the admission committee look into any candidate? - research potential. If you have published work then it speaks for itself. Otherwise we have typically three recommendations and statement of purpose (sop).
For recommendation letter, two things matter -
i) Is your recommender known in your area?
ii) How good he knows you? (your association)
Now ideally you should have done some research work with your recommender.
SOP is important and can be seen as you recommending yourself. It also shows your proficiency of writing and communicating with others.
GRE,TOEFL - Some basic cut-off should be cleared. I do not have any idea about the cut-offs.
Funds - If you can manage funds then you cost nothing to college and therefore would be preferred by them.

It only makes sense to contact a prof if you have a specific questions about their specific research projects. One of my most successful long-term professional relations grew out of email I sent to a prof asking his advice of the application of a method he recently developed. I usually regard emails from potential students as spam; from most of them, it is clearly seen that they have little clue about what I do, as they are basically cliches with keywords taken from my webpage [ctd]

A real email goes like, "I stumbled upon your webpage as I have been researching grad programs. I've been banging my head against the wall with [YOUR RESEARCH] for the last couple of weeks. In my application, [WHY MY APPLICATION DOES NOT FIT YOUR RESEARCH EXACTLY]. Is [YOUR METHOD] really applicable, or should I look elsewhere?" That's a much better introduction than "Dear Esteemed Sir/Madam, I know that you are the international expert in [KEYWORD FROM MY PAGE], and I want to come study [THE NAME OF THE DISCIPLINE] under you". But yours must be a real problem, and I can tell if it is.

Also, your recommendation letters should say how good you will be in research. If your basic degree is in say astronomy, and you've demonstrated all the good habits of a good researcher (self-motivated, able to find the relevant works in the literature, able to tell a good paper from a lousy one), and researched everything on image processing, so you are now more interested in that than in stars per se, it would still be a very good recommendation even if nobody in the prospective CS department really knows that star plasma physicist you've started working with.


text:
Is writing recommendation letter job for a faculty required?
Do professors who are in a position to write a recommendation letter for me "have to" write a recommendation letter? For example, my PhD advisor, can he suddenly (without any reason) say that he won't write a letter? I mean does it depend on their will?
More specifically, if some professor has promised me a recommendation letter earlier, can he suddenly change his opinion without any reason?

Yes, anybody can go back on their promise. Even a faculty member. It is not good form if done for no reason and might not get them the best reputation, but any person can, and many do, change their opinions. It is often frustrating. A verbal agreement is worth the paper it's written on. Such is life.

If someone suddenly reneges on a recommendation letter, then I expect: either there is some emergency which got out of control and they have no time left to write one (in my experience, recommendation letters usually get amongst the highest priority with responsible academics, once they agreed to write one), or there must have happened something that deters them from recommending you. More rarely, they are upset that you do not stay with them (but that's seriously unethical).

You don't want a letter of recommendation from someone who is unwilling to write that letter- it will probably be negative or at least not positive.

I had an informal policy of not writing letters for undergraduate students who earned grades less than B in my classes, based on "if you can't say something nice..."  One student insisted, and after discussing the matter with him, I wrote, "Perhaps he will do better at your institution than he's done here."  That is what happens when you insist.

As stated in the other answer, no professor has to write a recommendation letters for a specific student. The most common reason is that it would be a letter the student wouldn't want anyway, ie a bad recommendation.
On the other hand, it is part of the job of a professor to write recommendation letters for students in general. So if a professor states that he/she categorically refuses to writes recommendation letters for anyone that would be a reason for complaint to their dean or head of department.

Just out of curiosity (I absolutely agree that it is expected of a faculty member to write recommendation letters), is this really codified somewhere up to the point where it could be taken up with the dean? I taught the consequences would be more informal, i.e. word of mouth that you won't get any career opportunities from working with the prof as he doesn't write letters, so he would eventually lack (good) students to work with.

@penelope I don't think it is written down specifically but I would expect that there are some general statements in the contract that can be interpreted as containing writing recommendation letters.

Unfortunately, I just looked through mine and it seems a very far stretch from anything written in the contract. Says that my duties will periodically be specifically defined by my Line Manager or something along those lines, so there is room to include it officially in my duties, but it is not in the contract. So it seems like it is down to the head of department to "enforce this" -- and if the department culture is bad, there might not be anything to do about a faculty member like that. Sad :/

@quarague I could easily imagine an academic who makes it known that they will only write recommendations for a handful of rare and truly exceptional supervisees and will say no in all other circumstances.

Short answer, no they don't have to write your a letter; yes it depends on their will.
No one has to write you a recommendation letter. It is poor form not to write one for a supervisee, but nothing compels letter writing and there is no requirement that you be given a reason.

+1 if you compel anyone to warmly recommend you, expect bad recommendations...

@Spark: More specifically, if some professor has earlier promised me for recommendation letter, can he suddenly change his opinion without any reason ?

@GrotesqueSI: More specifically, if some professor has earlier promised me for recommendation letter, can he suddenly change his opinion without any reason ?

@RIchardWilliams Of course. It's bad form, sure, but nothing forces anyone to ever write you a recommendation. They can even tell you that they will write one and just never do it if they feel like it. Seriously, what do you think would force them to write one for you?

More than that, what do you think a forced reference say about you? Your advisor can tell all sorts of truths about you, not all of them pleasant.

It is poor form not to write one for a supervisee — Well, that depends.  If the professor cannot honestly write a strong letter for a supervisee, refusing to write a letter is arguably better than either writing an honest weak letter or writing a dishonest strong letter.  But even in that scenario, the professor should be honest with the student about their reasons for not writing a letter.

@GrotesqueSI I don't think the OP is asking if they're literally going to be forced to write a letter of rec, but rather how strong/codified the expectations around LoRs are. For example, would a prof who failed to write a LoR get in as much trouble as one who stopped showing up to teach a class?

I would nuance this answer a bit. When as a postdoc I taught in the US, I was specifically told that there was an expectation that I would write LOR to students who asked for it. Imo, unless there is a reason not to recommend the student and if the student asked sufficiently in advance, it is more or less a moral obligation of the professor to write the LOR

@AzorAhai I was just answering the question that was asked. However, a prof who failed to write a LoR is unlikely to get in trouble with anyone. One who stopped showing up to teach their class might very likely be in violation of their contract which would be a very serious thing indeed.

@glougloubarbaki A moral obligation is not an actual obligation. An expectation is not a requirement. It would be poor form to outright refuse a recommendation for no reason, it would be expected that a person wouldn't do that...but if you did nothing would happen to you. People might think you are a jerk but that's about it.

Writing a reference letter is a courtesy, never an obligation.
It is possible for a thesis director to decline supporting a student for a job.  It is usually a bad sign when a director is not writing a reference letter - either because the director has declined or because the student did not ask - and indeed in many cases employers expect a letter from the thesis director.
On the other hand, if the professor promised a letter, he or she is morally bound to provide this letter.  Basically, the time to decline is passed and reneging on such a promise is extremely bad form.
There’s nothing to be done if the professor no longer wants to support the student except ask someone else. If things have gotten that far, one can rightly wonder how strong would be the letter of support, and a letter from someone else might be a good way for the student to cut his or her losses.

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