text:
Can I take a course and get credits without enrolling in a program in the US?
I am pursuing a master part time in my home country. My job is sending me to Houston for 2020, so I will have to pause my studies. I wouldn't like to stop studying next year so I wanted to know if I could take one or two courses at a Houston university given I comply with the academic requirements. Hopefully, I can get credits back home but that's not a requisite. Still, I would like to know if I would receive an official proof for having passes the courses.

You'll have to talk to folks at UH (U Houston) or Rice about that. Every school is different.

I'm guessing you're visiting with a business visa. You'll need a student visa to be able to enroll.

@Luck - it is a working visa. I would be able to enroll. Any recommentation? Thanks!

This is possible at many universities. You will have to check with them about enrolling as a non-matriculated student. There will almost always be a charge for tuition, but you can enroll (many places) as a student and get a grade. It is also possible in many places to enroll for non-credit, but you probably want the "credit" option.
Whether a university back home will accept them or not is up to them and not guaranteed, but, again, many universities are willing to do this for a limited number of credits. It might be best to check there as well so you avoid surprises.

As Buffy said, most likely, yes.  Back in my days as a teacher, it was fairly common for me to do this (although the courses were usually tied to some sort of program or continuing education).  Mostly, the universities are happy to get your (or your employer's) money.
As for official proof, you should be able to request an official transcript, even as a non-matriculated student.  It may or may not come with a processing fee (on top of whatever tuition you would pay just to take the course).


text:
Are there any recognized math certificates I can take to show self learned math knowledge for an application?
That's it. Any exam I could just sit and prove I know math beyond the courses I took so I can show an education institution my level is higher than what you could get from my CV?

Can you be more precise about what level you are looking for? E.g., "math PhD applications", "computer science masters applications", "undergraduate applications", etc.

Your other question probably offers a better path.

The GRE Math exam, maybe? (or the SATs for a lower-level test)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Put an AMS offprint (of my paper) on my academic page
I have an article published in AMS Contemporary Mathematics.
I want to put my publications on my academic page.
So I went to AMS site, log in, download an offprint, upload to the server which
hosts my page, and gave a link to it.
However, this offprint has the following statement at the bottom
of each page, in red color.
This is a free offprint provided to the author by the publisher. Copyright restrictions may apply.
I am not sure what I did is proper. Besides asking AMS directly, do you have
any thought about this?

The Sherpa/Romeo database is a great resource to find out what kind of re-use the journals allow. In your case, it seems that you can put online the final version of the paper that you submitted to them post-refereeing (with a statement like "published in..."), but not your offprint or the version which is on the publisher website. This is slightly inconvenient because the page numbers will differ, but it is the most common arrangement in mathematics.
The database is only indicative, though: the only legally binding terms are the ones in the copyright transfer agreement that you signed prior to publication, after your paper was accepted (they had you sign one, right?). Read the small print.
This is the theory --- in practice, I have never heard of publishers going after authors for putting the wrong pdf online, at least in mathematics. In general the AMS as a publisher is considered a Good Guy, so I would advise you to respect their requests anyway.

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


text:
Page breaking in undergraduate thesis
I am an undergraduate senior. I wonder why people keep doing page breaking in their thesis, like one diagram for one page. Is that for the page count? or just because they have to? Also, I wonder if it is a good thing to do in my thesis.
thanks.

if it is a good thing to do in my thesis Follow the thesis guide of your university and consult with your thesis advisor.

could you show an example?

What's the purpose of “This page is intentionally left blank” we see in books? in UX

A reason for some is because LaTeX will do this.
If you have Floating figures, and the layout engine can not work out a good way to place them, as to balancing the amount of whitespace, and other rules for an "good looking document" (eg No Figures on First Page is a rule for IEEE transactions) it will shunt them to the end.
The rules LaTeX uses to define what is a "good looking document" can (and often should) be adjusted. See for example this, where the rules for the various fractions of text etc to figure are adjusted.
Positioning can also be forced some, eg with !.
A lot of detail into how LaTeX placed figures can be found in this TeX.SE question.
Obviously this only applist if the thesis was prepared in LaTeX (or some other system with automated rule based layout, that prefers figure only pages to squeezing a figure in to a page badly).

In other cases, it could be because the page was inserted from the output of another program. Eg a simulator output printed to PDF, merged in. Or a scanned hand drawn diagram inserted as a full page image. This is not a good or attractive why to do things, but it is fast/convenient.
In general, as a undergraduate thesis is not heavily judged on its appearance, its often not worth the time to do better. I know when I was writing mine, I had 3 final year (and thus difficult/timeconsuming) coursework/project based units to do at the same time. I had better things to do, like ensure the wording was clear, and I didn't exceed the word-count. Placing figures well is hard, I was satisfied once I got FloatBarriers working, to stop the figures from floating all the way to the end -- FloatBarriers can be used to force figures not to be shunted beyond the current section (etc).
The undergrad thesis will likely be the first serious academic writing of that form they have done, and writing it comes at the end of the hardest work they have done, during or just before their final exams. Don't hold any up as perfection in method to judge yours by.
There is a quote (I believe from someone on this site) which basically said:
"Your PhD thesis will be the worst academic writing you have ever done; because anything written after will be better as you will now be more experienced."
This goes double for an undergrad thesis.

Please, do not answer technical LaTeX questions in other forums, it is not really helpful and it is difficult to maintain. It would be more useful to link the appropriate answer at TeX.SE: http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/39017

@yo' I didn't answer any technical question. There is next to no technical detail in my answer that would need to be maintained. I just give the information needed to explain that LaTeX has this behaviour. I like to several placed on the net including the very link you just posted for more details on how to actually influence LaTeX in this way.

They do it because they do not know how to do it differently.
In general, pages shall be "full" -- either there is text on them with a figure on top or bottom, or the figures are placed on a separate page if the figures are too large or you get a lot of them. Of course, at the end of each chapter, you will have an empty space, between "nothing" and "almost two pages", because each chapter should start on an odd page (on the right when you open the book).
To make long story short: You should not have a lot of white space on pages around figures; the figures should be arranged in such a way that you get rid of the white space.

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


text:
When is the official date a degree is obtained?
I've read that there is a difference between the date that a higher degree committee approves a student for graduation and the actual date of graduation. The first being the date that a student becomes a graduand and the second being the date that a student becomes a graduate. These two dates could be far apart. My question is which of these two dates should be shown next to a degree on a CV or resume? Obviously I would like it to be the first, but that would lead to a discrepancy between the date on the resume and the date on the certificate. Someone suggested I could show both the completion and graduation date on my CV.

Wouldn't graduand denote someone who is working towards their degree, without any statement on whether or not they will achieve that degree? As such, the date starting at which you are a graduand seems utterly irrelevant with respect to the degree.

Usually the date of graduation is stated explicitly on the certificate (which is determined as Dirk writes below). This is the one you have to list on the CV as "date of graduation". Of course, you are free to list others (as well or instead), as long as you make it perfectly clear what date you refer to. Thus you can write "date of thesis defense: YYYY-MM-DD" or even "date of thesis submission: YYYY-MM-DD". Caveat: If you don't list a date of graduation, the default assumption will be that you haven't in fact graduated yet.

The linked "duplicate" is about the date to list on job applications.  On CVs, I think most people just list a year, making this question moot in most cases.

In my case it wouldn't be moot because the graduation ceremony is next year.

Usually the graduation date is the date on which the last accomplishment needed for graduation was completed.
This could be a thesis defense but could also be something else. For example in some Master and Bachelor programs I know one may have a "final" presentation prior to handing in the thesis. So the graduation date is the date at which the thesis is handed in. Note that even though a thesis defense may not count towards your grade, it is usually still a required accomplishment and consequently it date counts.

Hmm, somebody seems to disagree with this. I'm curious to learn what's wrong…

I was wondering that myself. My best guess is that you're not actually answering the question (which is "can I list some other date than the official graduation date on my cv", not "what is the official graduation date").

Ah I see.  I answer the question in the title and your comment addresses the actual question.

Yeah, I've fallen for that quite a few times myself. (Incidentally, the top linked question has the exact same problem (mismatching title and body), but complementary: its title matches this body and vice versa.) Actually, one could close this question as a duplicate and make the whole problem go away :)

Retrospectively, in ten years time, when I edit my CV and the date of the ceremony is reflected on the CV, then all the hard work I put in to complete my degree earlier will be invisible.

@SANBIsamples I am not sure if you understood my answer correctly. As far as I know, the graduation ceremony is not a needed accomplishment. Anyway, I remember that I worked pretty hard to finish my thesis in October 2004 but my thesis defense was not until 2005…

@Dirk I consider the last accomplishment to be the date after the higher degree committee has approved examiner and supervisor marks. The degree is then practically finished - there is literally nothing left to do except wait for the graduation ceremony. Was your ceremony in 2005?

Yes, my ceremony was in 2005 but in fact the date of the ceremony is totally irrelevant for the graduation date (in fact, where I am one does not even need to attend a graduation ceremony at all).

Is this answer country-specific? I've never heard of this before.


text:
Redefining variables used in many equations in a publication
When using the same variables in many equations, should I redefine each time the variables and their meanings or is there other ways to avoid redundancy?
E.g.
c = a + b
where a is...
z = a / b
where a is...
It will maybe depend on the journal, but thanks for any general idea or opinion.

I think of this as a matter of "breadcrumbs."  If a reader is constantly wondering what "a" is and having to look back to try to find its definition, that is a problem.  On the other hand, if I put so much redundant definition in that the math gets hidden by uninteresting boilerplate prose, that's also a problem.
My preference is thus to take a two-pronged approach:

Create a table of symbols that collects all of the definitions in one easy-to-find location, and
Match every equation with a prose summary of its meaning.

For example, if I were presenting Newton's laws, then I might say:

"The force exerted by an object is proportional to mass and acceleration: F = ma."

and in the table of definitions "F" and "m" and "a" would all have their formal definitions.  In this way, I remind the reader about the definitions without repeating them, yet at the same time have a simple reference point at which all definitions may be readily found.

Your second part seems to only be useful when such an explanation is readable (I would certainly hate to try doing that for most of the equations I tend to write).

@TobiasKildetoft For more complex equations, you can usually still put a summary of meaning, it will just be much more abstract.

Different authors use different notations and when making a litereture review it might get confusing if there is no explaination of the symbols whatsoever.
In general I would say that it helps if all symbols are explained once in the paper, at a centralized table or by their first appearance. Even if to you it may be redundant, please keep in mind that the reader is not necessarily familiar with your topic.

authors: 姐弟4河东狮吼_三d姐弟关系第4集迅雷下载望其项背

authors: 姐弟的关系游戏登堂入室_姐弟关系第四集免费观看返璞归真

authors: 官场吴上进杨雨婷怀孕_杨雨婷全文在线阅读1一20集免费

authors: 林雪儿老杨全文免费阅读_杨雨婷与吴上进全文在线阅读

authors: 许吉如事件不言而喻_全国有多少人叫许安吉筚路蓝缕


text:
proof of english proficiency
I'm from an English speaking country where my education was predominately in English. I'm currently in the process of applying for studies abroad and they have requested me to provide a document of proficiency in English. I have no idea what kind of document this should be. Can someone enlighten me as to what this should be?

If you are from a country in which English is a native language (mother tongue), I doubt there would be any need for further proof than your school grade certificate.

@ÉbeIsaac a section asks me for a copy of my degree and the other asks me for proof of English proficiency

A degree from a country whose primary language is English might be accepted as proof of English proficiency. But you may have to push.  (I recall a former PhD student from Jamaica having to convince the powers-that-be that English was in fact her first language.)

@JeffE your comment is hilarious because I am, de facto, from Jamaica

Aha!!  Definitely talk to the department directly, by phone/Skype if possible.  In the case I remember, the people that needed convincing were campus-level bureaucrats.

Frankly, I would suggest you just ask them. There is usually a contact at universities and similar whose role is student services or enrolment support or similar. They should be able to advise you on exactly what is required. Often there is even a dedicated officer for international students.
Taking an educated guess, it may be they require something like a letter of reference, written by a teacher of yours who can attest to your English proficiency, or perhaps academic results from some sort of English class, or an example of your skills, such as a document you have written.
Keep in mind that this is a general question written with the expectation that many applicants will not speak English as their first language. You don't need to prove you're the next Ernest Hemingway, just that you understand English to a sufficient degree that you will not struggle to understand your teachers.


text:
How to (smartly) leave a postdoc early?
I've already spent some months in a multi-year post-doc in Europe, doing clinical research. However, neither the project nor the life outside the lab seem good enough for my interests, and I'm planning on moving forward.
I'd like go for either an industry job (1st choice) or another postdoc (2nd option). I have a few questions about this:

Should I immediately tell my supervisor, or might I just give her
a short notice?
Regarding the next move (either industry or other postdoc): will
it be hard to get a new position if I don't manage to get a
recommendation letter from my current supervisor? I guess I may have
to ask for recommendation letters to my PhD references. If this
could be a problem, how to avoid/minimize it?
...And any general advice/experience about the topic would
likewise be appreciated.

Thanks,

First off, since you do not already have another job opportunity simply waiting for you, I suggest you tread very lightly in this situation. Have you addressed your concerns (project/life outside of lab not what you expected) with your current boss? In addition, why do you believe that simply changing to some hypothetical 'different job' will address these concerns?

In most places in the South of Europe, immediately telling your supervisor means your supervisor immediately posting and ad for the position (takes a while finding someone capable of doing the work and willing to do it for little money) and your yearly contract (in best cases) not being renewed at the end of the year. AFAIK, recommendation letters are becoming less and less common. IMHO, they should disappear, as there is a clear conflict of interest. Shortly: people prefer to lose their worst subordinates, not their best, and IMHO better make as few assumptions on ethics as possible. YMMV.

This is a good point. I haven't discussed this with my current boss --probably she would respond positively/helpful, but I think she would not be 'super happy' about me leaving soon. I'm guessing that, at the end of the day, I would end up moving.

The answer to this question depends a lot on the legal nature of your employment- do you have a multi-year or annual employment contract?  Are you a regular employee?  In the US, many research post-docs are treated as employees (no contract, and they can give two weeks notice and leave) but other positions (particularly positions with titles like "visiting assistant professor") are on contracts like faculty (typically for a year at a time, each year you sign an agreement to work for the next academic year.)

@BrianBorchers This is a multi-year contract (starting from 2, and can be extended), as a regular employee. I'm not quite familiar with the US system, but I'd say that this contract is a bit like the "faculty" position you mention.

Does the contract include language about how you can terminate it early?  Are there institutional policies that discuss this?

@BrianBorchers I don't remember about it right now, but I don't think that it's >2months. In any case, wrt legal issues, I'd definitely act according to the contract. My question is more about "acting professional" than "acting legal" (which I will of course do). Thanks,

If you have a good relationship with your advisor, consider informing him or her early in a very respectful way. He or she will appreciate you took the time. Why give them a reason to (potentially) write a less than stellar letter?
If you do NOT get a letter from your current advisor and go for another post doc, yes it will absolutely raise a flag. You could expect the topic to come up, or the interviewer make even contact your advisor directly.  However, if it really only has been a few months, simply stating the environment/locale/work/etc wasn't matched may be sufficient.


text:
How to ask for a research project fee to an external investigator?
I'm currently a postdoc, and someone from another institution (a colleague of a colleague; I didn't know them before) contacted me to invite me to collaborate on their project.
While the project seems interesting, I would need to invest my own time outside my normal working hours, so I'm not willing to take it without proper compensation.
Basically, I would like to ask for a fee. The person who contacted me said something a bit ambiguous "we have no money, but we could probably get some". Do you have any advice on how to politely ask for a fee?

Are there various regulations/rules at your institution about holding a second 'job' as what you asks sounds as if you are favoring a second salary for doing similar work. which would set up potential conflict of interest in 'effort'.  While it likely is not an issue for postdoc (it would be issue for staff/faculty (at US universities). If getting 'overtime' pay isn't the issue, are you interested in funds that help get the work done? (travel expenses, conference, materials/supplies, etc).

Hi, no problem at all with holding 'a second 'job''. I would just expect to get paid for the time invested.

Pick up the conversation from that 'lead' s/he gave you and work forward from there:

Hi [Name],
When we last talked you mentioned the funding situation. You said there isn't currently any funding specific to the project. So - can you let me know what funds you guys right now as you work on it?

So you would already be insinuating that people working on the project need to be funded, without explicitly saying INSERT COIN. Then depending on his/her answer I would suggest that they/you all apply for that project-specific funding, without actually agreeing to start work - implicitly assuming (or proposing the assumption, if you will), and thus insinuating, that such funding is a prerequisite for you to start working.
If the message doesn't come across increase the strength of the hinting while giving some (but not too much) way preparing for the actual collaboration.

But also do be aware if there are various regulations/rules at your institution about holding  a second 'job' if it becomes something that could be construed as a second salary.

@Carol: I was assuming that wasn't an issue considering OP suggested s/he wants to ask for a fee. But - that's a valid point and I suggest you make it a comment on the question itself.


text:
Is it ok to ask for H1-B visa during postdoc interview? How?
I will have a couple of interviews for postdoc positions in the US (at big universities). I have read that it might be very convenient to get an H1-B visa (I'm from a non-US & non-EU country).
Shall I talk about this and/or try to negotiate it during the initial interview? Or maybe only after getting an offer? Or isn't it just 'not' under discussion?

I suspect that during the interview you'll be talking mainly to faculty who won't know anything about visas; those issues are typically handled by a dedicated "international scholars office".  You could perhaps contact that office directly; they are usually not in the loop of the hiring process, so any discussions you have with them wouldn't likely affect whether you get the job.

You don't negotiate anything during an interview. If/when they make you an offer, this is a completely reasonable thing to ask about. The only time it would make sense to mention it during an interview is if the visa issue is a deal breaker for you and you don't want them to even consider you for the position unless they are willing to sponsor you for an H1-B.

@NateEldredge I wouldn't advise a postdoc candidate to directly (and without solicitation) contact any other unit at the university where they are interviewing outside the department that invited them. The unit is highly likely to just forward the email to the department to ask them who this random person emailing them is and what is going on - not a way to leave a good impression.

Most place already has a policy which visa they offer for given people. Since taxes are completely different for H1b and J1, it also often means you need significantly higher salary if you are for H1b..

Generally in an interview before you've received an offer, your overriding priority is making yourself look like an appealing candidate, and so bringing up points that will present a difficulty for your employer may not be so wise.  Trying to negotiate a point like this will at best put your interviewer in an uncomfortable spot (since they are almost certainly in no position to commit on a point like this) and at worse come off as arrogant.  I think it would be reasonable to ask if they can put you in touch with a staff person who can explain how visas are usually dealt with (it is probably not wise to try to look this person up beforehand separately).
After you have an offer, then you are in a better position to make requests, though honestly, most postdoc positions are pretty much "take-it-or-leave-it."  Visas (as opposed to salary or research funds) are even trickier since they are not usually handled by the department, and have legal constraints that most of the parties involved understand poorly.  You can try, but I wouldn't have a lot of optimism you will get them to do things differently than they would have.

Several suggestions:

First you want to get them to tell you what their take is on the whole visa situation. That is, don't ask for anything or even tell them what kind of visa situation you would like to achieve before they've described the "possibility space" to you (or made an offer without talking about visas at all).
Either before the interview or after the offer, figure out who is in charge of administrative affairs at the department/group you're interviewing at, call them up, tell them you're about to interview, and ask them, rather the professor whose time is better spent on academic affairs, what's it like for post-doc's with respect to work visas. It's an innocuous question and they are likely to answer it. I personally think it's ok to do so before the interview already, but if you want to be more cautious, then wait even with that.
After you've received an offer and are inclined to accept, talk to the person who made you the offer and say something like "I understand that w.r.t the work visa, sometime X happens and sometimes it's Y. Is that something that is up to me to choose? Will you be able to help me make it Y rather than X?"

Note that I've tried to make my advice non-US-specific (as I don't have much of a clue about the US visa situation, but your question is relevant in a wider context).

I'm surprised at the downvotes for this answer with no comments. In fact point #1 is extremely pertinent. Depending on project and funding source not all visa types are possible. Reg #2: I feel this should happen after the interview rather than before.

@kabZX: This kind of behavior is very common on StackOverflow, too bad we see it here as well. Edited your reservation in.

@kabZX I'm surprised that you are surprised. What exactly is wrong with downvotes with no explanation? They may not be helpful to the answer writer, but they still offer useful feedback to everyone else.

@einpoklum since you bemoan the lack of feedback: your advice in #2 contradicts (in a slightly dangerous way IMO) my Jan 31 comment, so I see that as a good reason to downvote. Also your recommended language in #3 is IMO not good language to use in a hiring negotiation. And finally, the question was US-specific but you don't address that context and in fact admit to not knowing anything about it, which detracts from both the usefulness and credibility of your answer.

@DanRomik therefore it is indeed very useful if voters actually point out what is wrong or you don't agree with. Also, i guess you are from US, so it would mean you have no knowledge of the visa situation neither


text:
For Ph.D application, which admission system used in Australia? Is it the same as US/Canada, UK, or EU?
Some questions before said that in US/Canada, we should apply first then select the professor and it's different from the system in UK or EU. So, what about Australia or New Zealand?

From my experience in Australia, the usual scenario is that a student makes contact with a particular academic at a university. The academic agrees to supervise the student's PhD. The applicant then applies through the official university process. The university process will involve additional hurdles (e.g., grades, English language requirements, past experience writing research theses, etc.). But in general, the applicant starts by building a relationship with a potential supervisor.
That said, some applicants get in contact with the university with an outline of their research interests, and then the university can facilitate finding a supervisor.
And of course, I'm sure there is some variability in the process across universities. So of course, it makes sense to check out the university websites and get in touch with the HDR office of any relevant universities.

Same in New Zealand...so very like what is done in the UK.

Thanks for the reply. I'm going to start contacting the professor, especially since they already post some topics for future doctoral students and its main supervisor.

The usual practice in New Zealand is that PhD admissions are formally carried out at the university level and not by individual staff or even individual departments. It is common to be in contact with prospective supervisors in advance of applying, and sometimes required, but they usually cannot actually accept a student entirely of their own choice. It is, however, required that there be a willing supervisor before a student is accepted.
A student can begin the process without a supervisor arranged, and the relevant department might find and assign one. Whether that happens before or after the formal application varies, but the effect is generally that the student will be interviewed by one or more of the prospective supervisors before an admission decision is made:

At my institution, the application form asks for the names of any staff you've been in contact with, and if you leave that blank the departmental committee enquires with staff who seem relevant about whether they'd like to follow up.
At others, you enquire informally with the university and they collate information to send on to the department, and only afterwards do you apply.

In either case, forming an existing connection with a willing prospective supervisor before applying means that's likely to be your supervisor if you're accepted.
Funding decisions are usually made by layers of committee, in parallel or separately to the acceptance process. In the (less common) case of grant-funded PhD studentships that can be sidestepped and the supervisor has more sway.
An accepted student will usually be assigned a primary supervisor from the start, but sometimes there may be a brief initial period where that is uncertain. It is possible to change supervisor after starting, but it's not usual that there's an unsupervised period after arrival where you're meant to find a supervisor like there is in some places.

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


text:
What questions to ask a famous mathematician
A famous professor mathematician is coming to my city next week and will be doing a lecture with a Q&A session afterwords. I’d like to ask a couple of questions afterwords but I’ve no idea what to say and don’t want to look silly in front of everyone else.
Do I ask them about things they researched? I’m really not sure.

Are you a student, a journalist, a politician, or what? How much mathematics do you know? Why do you want to ask the questions?

In a Q&A, you usually ask general questions. It is quite hard to go in depth into a research topic and answer a question on it, while still entertaining everyone present, in a minute or two.

Enjoy the presentation and don’t ask a question if you don’t need to.

How to find solutions? How to find worthy problems? Even better, how to "think"?

What advice would you give to a youngster interested in math? To a college student?
What do you do to overcome frustration when the going gets hard?
What sort of problems interest you now?
Where should I look for interesting problems?
What was your first interesting encounter with math?

other things like that.
Of course, the talk might cover some of this but might also suggest other questions.
Of course, if the talk is being given to specialists, rather than the public, then questions specific to the talk would be appropriate, but possibly difficult to prepare in advance.


text:
Should I mention teaching experience in my cover letter?
I am applying for tenure-track positions in R1 (say, top 50) universities in Computer Science in the US.
When writing the cover letter, should I mention teaching experience and competence?
Or should I leave it for the teaching statement?

Is teaching experience listed as one of the job requirements for the position you’re applying for?

You can surely mention it, yes. If you should go in depth in the cover letter or simply refer the reader to the teaching statement for more detail depends on how much you want to talk about your experience I guess.

I've been on the faculty recruiting committee of my American R1 top-whatever computer science department for more than 15 years, including three years as committee chair.  (But my experience is only in one department, so take this with a grain of salt.)
To first approximation, nobody will read your cover letter.
It's quite common to get faculty applications that have no cover letter at all, or that include a plain-text email "cover letter" that reads "I'm applying for an assistant professor position; I've uploaded the requested documents and the contact info for my references.  Kthxbye!"  I have never seen this affect discussions about who to interview or who to hire.  Nobody ever notices.  Nobody ever cares.
All the information we care about is already in your other application materials, your recommendation letters, and your papers.  In particular, recruiting committees already expect to see a detailed description of your teaching experience in your CV and in your teaching statement.  That's where everyone puts it, so that's where we look.  And we'll look there regardless of whether you mention it in your cover letter.  So why would we look at your cover letter?
In my experience, cover letters are only useful if they contain information that potentially changes the hiring process — like "I am applying for a tenured position at the rank of full professor." or "Please keep my application confidential." or "My spouse is also applying to your chemistry department."
Cover letters do play a more important role in some departments, because they want convincing evidence that you are seriously interested in a job there.  After all, if you're just shotgunning your application to every ivy-colored building in the country, then interviewing you is probably a waste of their time and money.  But this is much less likely to be a concern in a top-50 R1 department.  It's never been a concern at mine.

At an R1 university you will still need to teach. Mentioning teaching in the cover letter is certainly appropriate, but a few words will do. It needn't even be as much as a full sentence since you get to expand in a teaching statement here. But a sentence that simply says you have wide experience in both research and teaching is probably enough for the cover letter.
For a different sort of university teaching would be the most important thing to mention, but for almost any academic job, don't try to seem too focused on any one thing. The job has multiple facets. Your application will be evaluated by people with different viewpoints in most cases.


text:
Decision paralysis: MSc or PhD
Looking for advice on making a decision between studying for a MSc degree versus PhD. My thoughts are going around in circles to the point of decision paralysis. The main contingency is that I am reliant on government loans in either case.

PhD: I have a very specific research proposal of my own design that I desperately want to work on. As a self-funded student, I would have the unusual luxury of academic freedom. Owing to financial circumstances, I would need to work part time & study part time over 6 years. The main problem is that I don't know if or when the government doctoral loan will be rescinded. A snap election could overturn this policy As such, the uncertainty makes me inclined to apply asap as doctotal accreditation is extremely important for my professional development. However, my project would require intermediate coding skills including machine learning. At present I have taken beginner level short courses online.
MSc: Computer Science or Bioinformatics. This would give an intermediate grounding in coding necessary for my PhD project. Again, I would need to study part time, over 2 years. Since PhD completion rate is only 75% or so, a Masters degree is a safer option as a bridge to doctoral study. However, I don't think it's likely that the current doctoral loan will still be available in 2 years' time. With the state of the global economy, I think it's impossible.

Should I (a) risk taking multiple online short courses in coding & apply to the PhD program (b) study a Masters and risk never being able to pursue my specific research question or never studying at PhD level?
I know you may think either way it's a significant debt burden but I am not looking to ever start a family or own a home, I just want to pursue Science.
Best wishes
Asymptotic_Tri

From my personal experience. Which is (working from 17 years old, doing studies and work together). I have a Bachelor, Msc and now i am a Phd Candidate (i am at 3rd year and my phd will take a lot more time with my current progress rate).
Firstly i would like to point out that your answer is clearly personal. Also you must consider if you want to follow academic career or go to industry.
I understand the financial difficulties you might face but if you want my opinion, i would suggest you to take your Msc first. Why?
Positive

It is much more easier than a Phd. ( I tell to my friends i would do 2 Msc in 4 years than 1 Phd in i dont know years).
Msc will open your mind. You will take a pick, about 20% ( of what a Phd is).
Also i condider working experience is much more better than academic. In your case you need money. It would be better to take the Msc, find a job and then after you take a little bit taste you will consider if you want to follow academic or industrial career.

I would continue to tell you more reasons, but i think you should go for Msc. You will also learn how to write papers etc etc. It will make your Phd (If you follow after) much more easier.

Thank you, that is probably wise counsel.

@Asymptotic_Tri I can say 100 reasons and more. And for last it is better to take a Msc, cause you have to face the probability of NOT completing the Phd for many reasons....... And this will make you feel guilty. Take certifications step by step.

Thank you, I think you are right & I will take your advice. If I try running before I can walk with programming I am liable to fall flat on my face lol. MSc will be a bridge & also I can use it to try out my research proposal in a safe environment. So if I get the chance to study my particular research question in more depth in the future, I will know the likely scope & stumbling blocks in advance. Thanks for your reply.

Thanks George, I am currently studying the MSc and I am glad because there is a lot of coding that I was not up to speed with.


text:
Once I accepted a postdoc offer with "A", is it ok to accept an invitation to present with group "B"?
Details are very important here:
I interviewed for postdoc positions at 2 labs (same university), and received offers from both.
I accepted the offer from lab "A", and when I declined the offer from "B", the PI told me that they were sorry about my decision, and that they would still like to invite me make a presentation for their lab. I thanked him for the invitation and agreed to make the presentation.
The two groups ("A" and "B") do not interact (they work on different fields), so this is essentially a matter of etiquette.
Is it ok if I make the aforementioned presentation now that I started my appointment with "A"? Should I inform the PI of "A" that I will go present with group "B"? Or should I just decline the invitation to present?

why wouldn't you give the presentation? Is there something hidden going on? why would you ask "A's" permission?  This is not at all clear to me..

@PsySp "Ask permission" might be a little strong. But it's courteous to at least check that your boss is OK with something you plan on doing during work time. Especially right at the start of a job when you're not sure what the expectations are.

Nothing to hide, not at all. But group "A"'s people might wonder why I still want to interact with the competence, and whether I'm interested in joining "B" (which is not the case).

@Elabore: By "the competence" do you mean "the competition"?

@ruakh yes, that's what I meant

Give the presentation.
There is no problem here (to be honest, I'm struggling to work out why you would think there is). Giving presentations is part of being an academic. Different groups can talk to each other. Different groups with close enough interested should talk to each other.

should I inform and/or ask for approval from my new group's PI?

I don't know. That will depend on your group. What would you do if today you received an invitation to give a talk at another university (within a day's return travel)? What did you do before in that situation?

Well, what makes me uncomfortable is the possibility that the new PI ("A") will not like that I interact with the competence. Although I'm not interested in joining "B", people at "A" might not like it... or maybe I'm just overthinking?

If your PI doesn't like you talking to to others, they have the problem, not you. It's possible you are working on something you can't share, but the acceptability of talking about what you've done before this position isn't affected by starting a new position.

@Elabore if you ever work in a group of someone who objects your giving a presentation to a group working on a different subject, run away. Fast. Presentations are an integral part of academia and while some people are indeed paranoid about others stealing their results, that's not relevant if the other group is working in a different field (and even when it is relevant, all you need to do is not give out all the details).

Giving presentations is not a conflict; it is a normal part of academia. Interviewing with a group does not alter this.
The only question of conflict that arises here is if the time when you are to give the presentation is after the start date for the your work at PostDoc A since this means that you are unable to fulfil your normal duties. In this case you should inform your new PI of when you intend to give the presentation and it would be extremely unusual for your new PI to object, especially as it is at the same university.

I would argue that giving seminars is part of the normal duties of any academic. So I completely agree that it would be very unusual for the PI to object, though it's definitely courteous to let them know what you're doing.

Absolutely, I don't think that the PI would object, but they might think that I want to jump to the other group. That's my main concern.

I'd probably mention it to A's PI, mainly to avoid surprises if you bump into them or they see the seminar advertised in the department.  They may well want to come to the seminar to hear more about that aspect of your work, or ask you to call meet up for a coffee while you're there.


text:
What's the shortest "acceptable" postdoc length?
So, the postdoc is going ok and there might be one or two publications after a few months. However, I've realized that I'd like to move forward and start applying to industry jobs.
Now, my concern is whether having a few-month postdoc in the resume/CV might hurt, and I wonder what would be the minimal "ok" length for a postdoc. I have the feeling that an ultra-short postdoc might seem suspicious to a recruiter (it may look like I was ultra-bad and was kicked out, which is not the case).
While some people would claim "leave the postdoc ASAP, especially if you want to go to industry", I was wondering whether something around 6-8 months is fine..., or maybe I should wait >= 1 year.

If you have 1-2 publications to show after a few months, isn't that evidence enough that your postdoc time was very productive, i.e., successful? This detail might however be lost when people glance over a CV. Note: PhD student here, thus I cannot talk from experience.

Maybe it is better to ask this question on [workplace.se] to get the perspective of the industry people. Here you will mostly find academics.

Some postdoc positions may only be 6 months long (I think 3 has occurred but I can't remember exactly).

My question in a job interview would probably be "Why did you start the postdoc, in the first place?". What would your answer be?

@JessicaB Agree, there are many short term contracts, so no surprise if someone leaves after a few months.

Is this a "fresh" postdoc, or rather a continuation of your PhD? In the latter case, you could claim that you finished a project (or similar) during those 6-8 months, which I think would be perfectly fine. Otherwise, I agree with @AnoE - I'd have the very same question, better be prepared to answer it.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is about obtaining jobs outside academia.

@AnoE I guess this could be answered with something like "I started the postdoc to learn a technique".

If you know that you are not interested in staying in academia, the common advice is indeed to go on the industrial job market as soon as possible.
Every month you stay in a lowly-paid postdoc, if you are not enjoying it and are not building an academic profile, is essentially wasted.
Your question is based on the somewhat suspicious premise that an industrial recruiter cares about how long you stayed in your postdoc, i.e., that your market value goes up by staying in a postdoc. I highly doubt that this is the case, but you can easily evaluate it yourself: go on the job market right now (without quitting your postdoc!) and see if you get offers that you find acceptable. If you do not (for whatever reason), you can still continue your postdoc and improve your market value on the side; if you do, well, quit within an appropriate time frame and start your new life.
Note: this advice is based on the assumption that you can delay the start date of your industrial job by a few months so that you can leave your postdoc in order. In my experience, this is often the case for the kind of jobs that PhD holders tend to look for, but obviously your milage may vary on this.

I think your advice is sound. On paper. In real life, some postdoc positions might only be reasonable to leave in July or so, making "find a position now" almost silly, nobody will wait a year for an employee. And on the other hand, an industry job hunt which has a strong research side to it will benefit from having an active academic profile.

@Inkblot A postdoc position shouldn't have a notice period of nearly a year, unless it is really a teaching position under another name (and even then...). By 'only reasonable to leave in July' you mean if you are looking for an academic position in the northern hemisphere, or from the point of view of the supervisor, not for the postdoc wanting to move to industry.

@JessicaB: All the positions I've encountered in the US were "teaching included" and they were not "teaching position in disguise", it's just what is expected of you. In most of the other cases you apply for a grant, and you are expected to stay and see that research through, or give back a hefty sum of money (which they may or may not pursue, I don't know). Of course, if someone hires you as a postdoc, then you can leave whenever you want (especially if you let them know this might happen, and they agreed to hire you anyway).

"some postdoc positions might only be reasonable to leave in July or so" If that's your experience, then sure - but I am willing to bet that 90%+ of postdocs, at least in CS, are much more flexible than that. Source: have been a postdoc for 5-ish years, and know dozens of postdocs who quit half-way. Note that your mentor may not love you leaving during a project, but at some point you need to find a compromise between the needs of your mentor and your own, and waiting for many months to go on the job market to make it less inconvenient for her/him might not be the correct tradeoff for you.

@Inkblot "nobody will wait a year for an employee"; That's not true. People generally won't want to wait a year to fill a specific position. However, there are plenty of companies with ongoing needs (such as consultancy, large development teams) who require skills and ability to learn for long-term business rather than specific projects. These organisations may well be perfectly happy to offer a position for a year later.

postdocs are temporary by nature. Its an internship. A postdoc leaving midway shouldn't be a surprise to anyone....

Your question is based on the somewhat suspicious premise that an industrial recruiter cares about how long you stayed in your postdoc... Good answer, but I think you are sacrificing accuracy for politeness. "Somewhat suspicious" should really say "manifestly false".

@JessicaB's comment is right:

Some postdoc positions may only be 6 months long (I think 3 has occurred but I can't remember exactly).

I've seen a few people recruited for 6 months, and applied for one less than a year long myself.
Don't go into detail about why you left unless asked.  Being thrown out of a job is rare in most places, especially academia, so this probably won't even be on the recruiter's radar.  They're more likely think either "no wonder they want to leave academia with that kind of job security" or "this applicant is going to jump on every better opportunity that comes their way". Your task is to steer them towards the former view.

@Jessica B and yourself mentioned a very good point: some postdoc positions last <1 year. I wasn't really aware of this. I guess that, as you mention, I could claim that "there was very low job security" (which is actually true for yearly postdocs).

If your goal is to go to industry, every additional month that you stay in your postdoc is costing you both money and valuable work experience. Money, because industry jobs pay better than postdocs. Experience, because a month of industry experience is worth more for a career in industry that a month of postdoc experience.
In other words, the "shortest acceptable postsoc length" is zero.

Although this is not so common, there are people such that doing postdoc with them would be actually a great benefit for industry positions (mostly due to connections, but sometimes also due to know-how learned).

If you are in a postdoc that you feel has served its purpose and you want to move on, I imagine the only question is not what employers will think but what the faculty you're working with will think.  Were they expecting you to leave this quickly, and if not, are you leaving them in a bad position?  If they're fine with you leaving, leave.
But now I'll answer from a different perspective, which is the one I assumed was really being asked when I saw the subject line.  A related question is, how long is a useful duration to make a postdoc worthwhile?  I think this is worth addressing.  I did a postdoc in computer science many years ago, then went into industry.  The professor I worked with had a postdoc before me for a year, and me for a year, and then decided to start recruiting 2-year postdocs because he felt that one year wasn't really enough.  Basically, at least in some fields, by the time you're coming up to speed and really getting things done, it's time to leave, and time for the professor to train someone new.
So I personally don't see a 3-6 month postdoc really as a "postdoc" but more like a "let's fill the gap in the schedule while I wait to apply for jobs" thing.  I recommend that those who do a postdoc plan to spend enough time to settle in.  Teaching a course in that time, by the way, is excellent experience.


text:
Results or Methods - What comes first in discussion section?
This question is about structure of scientific texts. This can be master thesis or published journal article.
The Disucssion section: Is there a reasonable rule why the discussion of results comes before the discussion of methods?
I often see this in published articles and I argue about that with my professor. But no one gave me a reason for this - not even a bad reason.
In my opinion the order should be different: Discussion of the methods first and then the discussion about results. The reason is that I need to see the results and their value/weight in the light of the methods they are obtained.
I am asking here because I am naive and optimistic and think there is a reason why all journals and professionals do it that way. I don't want to modify their opinion. I just want to know why they do.

Just to clarify, you are asking about the discussion itself, which follows a standalone methods section and a standalone results section, correct?

In short: the assumption that the discussion of results always comes before the discussion of methods is wrong. There are no rules.
The purpose of a separate results and discussion section is to keep facts clearly separated from opinions/interpretation. What happens inside the discussion section depends on your writing style and the content/goal of the paper.
For example

if your paper presents new methods there is no difference between the discussion of results and the discussion of methods
if the uncertainty in the measurement methods may have affected the results, methods and results are discussed at the same time

A possible reason to discuss results first might be that readers are most interested in the results. Unless your paper is about the method itself an expert in the field probably knows the methods already. But as said, there are no rules.

btw: I wouldn't agree to your first example. The methode you used to come to the method (as a result) need to be desribed separate from the methode (as a result) itself. ;)

I think you misunderstand. There is always a separate methods section. The question (and my answer) are about what happens in the discussion section.

In many cases, the methods are not especially surprising. Often, an experienced researcher would be able to guess more or less the general method just based on the question, and only needs to check the methods section if they want to know specific details.
When speed-reading papers to see if they are worth looking into more deeply, it's common to read introduction, results and discussion only. Pushing the methods towards the back (or even to an online-only expanded version like Nature does) accommodates this. Nobody but the most interested reader will slog through a boring description of exactly how many times an hour you pipetted which brand of solution where. The discussion will hopefully raise the relevant points of how the methods influenced the results already.
An in-depth reader would go over the paper several times, so at that point the order of the methods and results section will matter little - they will flip back and forth to compare specific points.


text:
Why do I need to declare parallel grant application(s)?
Some funders (e.g. the ÖAW and the FWF in Austria) require the grant/fellowship applicant to declare if they have submitted any other grant application(s) at the same time. (This is asked during application submission, but they also need to be notified if you submit another application elsewhere later on.) It of course makes sense that they don't want anyone to be doubly funded, but that's a different matter: then they should just specify this and say (as they in fact usually do) e.g. that if you win more than one grant, you need to decide which one you choose. But my question is: why do they care about other ongoing applications? Do I for any reason lower my chances for one grant if at the same time I'm applying for another (and hence have to declare it to them)? Does it matter if it's the same project proposal or something completely different? (Though they don't even ask specifically about this, I just need to say where I submitted, but not what.) Or is this declaration just something for administrative purposes only and should not matter at all for the decision?

Presumably to get them on a list of applications to keep an eye on and check with other grant agencies. No sense in different places making 'final' decisions only to have to unwind several of them when conflicts are found.

These are mostly internal decisions and it is difficult to conclusively tell you why. Since that brings us to speculating, here are my two cents:
(1) They do not want to reinvent the wheel. The process was probably designed years ago and nobody wants to take the initiative to change it. Unlikely, but possible.
(2) The actual reviewers with expertise in a field are limited. It is possible that some of them review for multiple grants and the funding agencies then collaborate to share the workload over multiple reviewers rather than burden a few. Explains why it does not matter what you apply for, only where.
(3) As you speculated, they want to get an idea of how serious are you with them by judging you over the fact of how many places you apply (more = not good).

In my experience, (3) is not true, at least for scholarship applications. We advise our PhD students to submit to more than one funding agency, usually something like three. We always explain this to the funders and have not found that to harm the chances for a successful application.

Yeah, point (3) is the main issue, but as Snijderfrey also says it's only common sense to try at least 2-3 places, so it would be crazy to be "punished" for that. But maybe it really is so nonetheless... Anyway, I hope there might come a more authoritative answer.

@gaspar Well it still could feasibly be a deciding factor in a tiebreaker. But my understanding is that it's just to facilitate tracking potential double funding - explicitly lying on an application is a big deal and presumably people won't do that, and past that double funding shenanigans could get fairly complicated.


text:
Who do I ask for a letter of recommendation if my advisor and I do not get along?
My relationship with my advisor did not end the best. He took months and months to get me my thesis edits (I am currently finishing my 5th year as a Master's student because of this), and I ended up having to involve the department chair and dean to get a response. I was also made the leader of our project after other students graduated or left with little to no guidance, so there were many mistakes on my part because I didn't know what I was doing and he wouldn't help me, but got upset when I asked other faculty for help.
Last time I asked him for a letter of recommendation he took so long to respond to me (despite me asking/reminding him about it daily) that the job closed and a person was hired before he even got to it. I don't feel that I can ask other faculty members because he would find out and get mad at me for not asking him, whether he would write me a letter or not.
I am looking at potentially getting a Ph.D., but they typically want 2-3 letters of recommendation. I am not sure who to ask at this point. I know I could have done better, and I have good relationships with other professors, but I feel that I can't ask anyone at this point and I am struggling to get a job that isn't seasonal/temporary.
Does anyone have any advise or suggestions that could potentially help me?

[deleted my first response as I entirely missed the point of your question]
I think other professors with whom you have worked are the right place to go.  As for hurting the feelings of your previous professor, based on your story of the delayed last letter, I would read that to be that he is unhelpful and wants to put distance between you two.  I doubt very much that he will ever know if you have another professor write you a letter, let alone feel bad about you asking another professor and not him.

Thank you for your response. I feel as though I have been overthinking everything and this helps a lot.


text:
Reporting multiple undergraduate GPAs for PhD applications?
I am looking for advice on how to present myself in the best light to future PhD programs in the humanities.
I currently am completing my MA from a respectable state school in the subject that I wish to get a PhD in. I expect to graduate with a GPA of 3.98. I have good GRE scores, letters of recommendations, statement of purpose, and writing sample.
My concern is my undergraduate GPA. I transferred from a top liberal arts college after two years to an Ivy League institution. My GPA from my first two years of college is high (3.8). However, the last two years of my college, my GPA dropped significantly (3.1). Combined, I have a respectable GPA of 3.45. However, most applications to the PhD programs make the applicant fill out the GPA boxes of the institutions attended separately (i.e. "was your GPA on a 4.0 scale?" - "If yes: enter GPA"). I do not have a good excuse for this decline. Furthermore, the PhD applications make you choose which was your "primary institution." To exacerbate my issue even more, some have a cut off of 3.3 GPA, which would make my application seem to be automatically rejected even though it is not reflective of my whole time as an undergraduate.
My questions are:

How much does undergraduate GPA matter compared to a master's degree GPA? Do I even have to report my undergraduate GPA given that I have an MA degree? (It seems that I do, but it's worth asking here.)
Is there any way to list my college GPA as "combined" given the very specific constraints of the application? Or would any efforts to show a holistic grade appear dishonest? I would not like to draw more attention to my low GPA if possible.
Is it prudent to list my liberal arts college as my "primary institution" even though my degree was conferred by the Ivy League one? Which would make my application stronger?

I am applying to extremely competitive programs and I really hope to get into one. Any and all suggestions on how to handle this is appreciated. Thank you for advice on the matter, I really would be grateful for it.

Welcome to Academia.SE! Sorry to state, but this is what most institutions and companies call consistency of your educational performance. Its just a way to make their filtering process easier. But it is true that quite a few talented students are rejected due to this procedure.


text:
Has anyone transfered from an MPhil to a Phd?
Has anyone applied for an MPhil then switch to Phd 1 year into the course?
How is the process like and are there any implications?
I have applied for Phd program but I was unable to secure any scholarships for Phd. Therefore, I was thinking of applying for an MPhil first, then if possible, switch to Phd halfway through the program.
Is this possible and advisable?
Is the scholarship selection threshold lower for MPhil?

Some programs are designed like that, start on MPhil and transfer at a suitable point to PhD.
The suitable point is usually agreed with your advisor.
You need to discuss with your advisor and plan accordingly.


text:
Should I still apply for a phd if the PI can't confirm if he is able to fund?
I have found a potential advisor that is keen on advising me for Phd and has offered to fund me. However, he isn't sure if he has sufficient funds and budget to do so (something he is still figuring out and things don't seem too hopeful). He has told me to proceed with the application nonetheless.
Should I go ahead with the application and continue waiting on the news about the funds, knowing that there is a good possibility that there wont be sufficient funds? Or would it be better to turn down the offer early on and apply for jobs instead?
I'm asking because I don't want to wait too long for something that might not work out, but the PI has gone through the trouble of working out plans to make things work and I feel really bad if I backed out now. Furthermore, I am really interested in the projects the group has to offer, and everyone in the lab were lovely. I've also heard many good things about the PI as a Phd advisor. So I was really looking forward to joining the lab. On the other hand, I feel that if I were to decline the offer, I should notify the PI as soon as possible so it saves the PI further time and trouble.
Thanks in advance for any advice!

The only thing you have to lose by applying now and waiting to hear is the fee and your time. These are small, in the grand scheme.

@AzorAhai, actually for someone who hasn't done it before, the experience is probably worth the cost in any case.

@Buffy Also true

If the cost and time are reasonable by your standards the I'd suggest you do it for the experience if nothing else. There is little else to lose in this.
Applying isn't a commitment on your part, it is just an expression of interest. Even in the worst case the professor will probably continue to have good feelings towards you, which can help in the future if you work in related areas.
But there is no reason to wait for a decision. You can explore other opportunities in parallel with this. Decline only when you must.

Your decision may depend a lot on when the PI might know for sure. Why don't you start by asking him how long that might take?
If either (1) there is a chance that he can secure the funding or (2) you might be willing to work even if there is no funding, then it makes sense to apply. This way, you retain the option of either accepting or declining later.
In other words, you simply postpone the more consequential decision: whether you will actually join the lab. Hopefully, by the time you have to make that decision, he will know whether the money is there.


text:
Should I mention that I will be opting for the non-thesis option in my statement of purpose?
I am planning to apply for Master's in Electrical and Computer Engineering. I have prepared most of the application requirements (GRE,TOEFL,transcripts,LORs,Resume). The only thing left is my SOP. I intend to take up the non-thesis (project option) in my final semester. Should I mention this in my SOP?
If yes, How do I go about stating this?

I don't see a need to state this.  Who wants to read a negative?  Focus on the positive.  Plus, you never know, you might change your mind.

@aparente001 How do I go about? I dont have much research experience. But I have 2 years of related work experience

Please clarify what you asked in the comment.  (The answer to the Question is, don't mention your lack of interest in writing a thesis when you write your SOP.)  What do you want to know how to go about doing?

As a prior commenter noted, you can be silent on the issue without prejudice from the admissions officer.  In fact, it's quite common for graduate students not to make the thesis/no thesis decision until they have a semester or a couple of quarters behind them.  The decision to write a thesis is often the product of one's evolution during graduate work.  For example, if you were to decide that you want to pursue a doctorate, then writing a thesis has distinct advantages, the most important of which is that it prepares you for writing a dissertation.  Conversely, if you want the broadest knowledge and lab experience, course work is preferable.


text:
How do I explain work experience in a different field on my SOP?
I want to pursue a masters degree in Electrical Engineering. I have a bachelor's degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, but I have two years experience as a software engineer. I want to state the reason for shifting from EEE to software in my SOP, but the main reason was purely financial; to clear my loans that I took up for my undergrad. The software job paid me thrice the amount of the Electrical Jobs. How do I explain this on my SOP? Can I state any other reason that sounds better compared to financial motives?

Are you sure this is even such a big issue? Those fields are still very close actually. Most of the engineers I know work in slightly different fields than their University major (not even counting all those working in sales).

@user7019377 I am unsure if not stating the reason for a job in a different field could be a potential reason for rejection


text:
review a review paper with unpublished data
I am reviewing a paper, which is a review paper. The paper seems good, but the authors included many their own observations, which are unpublished. Is it good for a review paper to include may unpublished findings?
Thanks

Systematic or anecdotical observations?

What did the editor say when you asked them? Does the journal's advice to authors cover this? What have previous review articles in this journal done?

Thanks. I haven't contact with the editor about this. Usually, when the authors talk about something, they will briefly say what they found related to that topic in a sentence and mentioned that the result is not published.

This can be very helpful to other researchers, and some journals encourage it. To me, the dividing line is: is this useful to the field? Sometimes it is a good way of opening up the "file drawer" of things people tried, but didn't work, e.g. "we thought about X, we found Y, it wasn't worth publishing." But if the authors are presenting data that could support future claims like "we showed X causes Y," then they should also present the requisite methodological detail!

This is pretty common in book chapters, but for a true review paper, I find this questionable. A review paper should lay out the current state-of-the-field on a particular issue, and it would be difficult to do so if most of the data is unpublished, and thus not peer-reviewed. What is the ratio of new (unpublished) data to old (published) data? Is the unpublished data presented as anecdotal evidence in a discussion, or does it play an important theoretical role?

A review paper contains commentary about previously published work, a critical evaluation of that work, and possibly a synthesis based on that published work. I can imagine a rare case where an author might want to include one or two pieces of new data, possibly referenced as "to be published." If there was very much of this I would recommend that it be removed.


text:
Studying for the exam or for learning? Is there time later?
I don't know if there's a correct answer to my dilemma, but I'd like the opinion of other people, in and outside the field, maybe older and more "experienced in life" than me. This is my situation
I am a graduate student in theoretical physics, I started my undergraduate courses in an extremely humble way, looking at professors and physicists in general as some kind of superhumans I would have been unable to match. Thus my only intent was to exploit them and get from them as much knowledge as I could, before coming back home and looking for a job, even totally unrelated with physics. So I always studied for passion, taking exams just to be able to be get the degree and then follow graduate courses to extort more knowledge to the professor. Without taking the degree my parents wouldn't have allowed me to stay here with no "tangible results" while receiving their financial help, so I couldn't just follow lectures and study without doing exams.
During the years I kept studying for passion, the results at the exams where excellent and I started considering the fact that maybe I wasn't that bad. Then I started to get closer and closer to professors and assistants, and my view of them changed, they became mere mortals, I thought I could fit there and actually become one them one day, maybe not a great one, but still a person who can be properly called a physicist.
That's the birth of my problem: I decided I can become one of them, I still know quite a lot excellences that I think I can't reach but I can definitely be an average guy in the field, in my mind that's a fact now, and I want to be that guy.
This semester I started graduate school. To stay in the field after it, you have to keep the highest marks and all sort of things in order to get the PhD and to keep working with people better than you who can teach you and make you a better scientist.
This is changing the way I study, I started studying for the exams, and not in the free and careless way I used to do before. A problem is that in Theoretical physics there are a lot of different approaches, styles, conventions and notations to do the same stuff. Two years ago I would have taken 3-4 very good books, my notes from lessons and then I would have mastered the subject in the best possible way for my level. At this point I would have taken the exam mainly careless of the mark, especially if positive. A negative one is a sign you probably didn't master the subject at least at the level required, so I would have cared about it.
That's what I'd like to do now, but I have to be realistic, graduate school is a little bit harder (at least for me) and doing that would require me a lot more time than it used before, slowing down the pace at which I take exams and making me finish graduate school later. But now I suppose I have to care about the exams and taking them as soon as I can. And if doing as I always did I don't master the subject good enough to take the highest marks? I could have prepared that exam in less time just focusing on it and take the good mark that would allow me, in future, to stay in the field.
I have a lot anxiety for the upcoming exams, they never scared me, but now they do.
I don't like the situation, but should I maybe just accept it, swallow the bitter bill, study just for the exams, stay in the field, getting the Phd, and then and only then studying what I want more freely?
In a line: Time and marks has never been a problem for me, now they are a burden.
PS:
I don't consider myself able to do decent research on my own staying out of the academic world, far from better minds I can get help from, so studying just for me and then doing my own research isn't an option here.

Grades actually matter less in graduate school than they do for undergradute studies. Graduate school is when things get non-linear and you have to make your mark by participating in research rather than just learning. Of course, learning is an essential part of it, after all, you do have to catch up to the state of the art before you can think of pushing forward a bit. But it's no longer a "study to get good grades" affair and if you are thinking about it on those terms you may be in for a hard landing.

I'm not sure why studying for learning and studying for an exam are in opposition to each other in your view. If you really learn the material, you can pass the exam and use the knowledge well in to the future.

@Jon Custer you're right they aren't in opposition, to pass the exam you have to learn a lot. But since the purpose is totally different since it is to pass the exam my approach changes, for example I may not go deeper than required in a topic just cause that is not required and I'd save time to focus on other things more important for the exam and how to show I know them. I find this approach a time saver but at the same time a boost for anxiety and fear of the exams

@Depressed Daniel Thank you, that kinda encouraged me. But to make it clear, in your institution you start doing research that early during the courses, or were you talking about the thesis work?  Here we just have exams to pass and then the thesis work can be considered research, but since there aren't enough PhD s for everyone, professor tells us we need to excell in marks in order to get one.

In my experience (which has been both as a student and a professor), the best way to do well in theoretical physics graduate school is to get a really good understanding of the material.  That will give you the best path forward.  If you try to memorize a bunch of recipes for solving all different kinds of exam problems, you are missing the forest for the trees.  Moreover, once you are done with courses and exams, you will need to put what you have learned to use in a research context.  In doing research, it's how well you really understand the underlying physics that is going to matter the most.
To solve particular problems in E&M or quantum mechanics, you may learn a lot of mathematical techniques, which can seem unrelated or disconnected at first.  However, many of them are really variations on the same underlying methodology.  For example, the solution of the Schroedinger equation using energy eigenstates is really a form of separation of variables, like that used in E&M.  Similarly, separation of variables in spherical coordinates is really the same as a multipole expansion.  The best way to see these connections is to work examples problems, and most good textbooks at the graduate level have problems that are specifically designed to illustrate the deeper connections between the different techniques you have learned.
So my advice to you (and to the students I teach) is to go for deeper understanding of the physics and why certain strategies work in certain situations.  If you master that, you will also learn how to apply various techniques as a necessary corollary.

Thank you very much, your answer and perspective really helped me. The fact that going for a deeper understanding immediately will be very useful later is a very important thing, it may slow me down a bit now but I'm getting convinced it's the only way to actually go on.

@Runlikehell - Right.  It's not a race. // Are you part of any study groups?  That can be fun and really helpful with the anxiety.

I always studied on my own and then confronted my preparation with some mates of my course, the confrontation has always been helpful for increasing the knowledge. I don't know about studying all the way with them, I'll follow your advice and try to do it. Did you mean it is good for anxiety cause you see the level and the understanding of the others and if it's not superior, in that moment it calm you down?

@Runlikehell - I'm sorry I didn't see your comment before now.  (Tip: pin the person by writing the "at" sign and then the username.) // Well, if that competitive approach works for you, great.  That's not the approach I took to working in study groups, though.  Why don't you try it out, with someone you don't feel competitive towards, and see what sorts of enjoyment and satisfaction you can get from it? You could try it first as an enrichment activity, not connected with any specific coursework or homework.  Just get together and try some problems from some book.  Use a chalkboard or whitebd.

I'll try to analyze why it's helpful....  Maybe it's because isolation can increase anxiety.  Connecting with other people is comforting.


text:
Research plan vs proposed research for class project?
A proposal format for that class project requires student to provide research plan as well as proposed approach. Can you please help me in understanding differences between the two?

From which standpoint are you asking? As a student, advisor, or instructor?

In general a research plan will include within it a section that deals with the proposed approach. As this University of Michigan page explains:

Research Plan (Approach)
This section includes a comprehensive explanation of the proposed
  research, and is addressed to other specialists in your field (not to
  laymen). The section is the heart of the proposal and is the primary
  concern of the technical reviewers. To make it clear and easy to
  follow, you may need several subsections tailored to your work.
  Research design is a large subject and cannot be covered here, but a
  few reminders concerning frequently mishandled aspects of proposals
  may be helpful.

As always, you should talk with your advisor/professor to ensure if this is exactly what they have in mind, or if there is some specific template or example for your field/subject/use that you should follow.


text:
What to do when a prospective PhD supervisor doesn't follow up after an initial positive response?
A few days back I emailed a potential supervisor in one of the Top schools in Computer Science. To my surprise I got an instant reply from him mentioning that I should apply and he has funding for research assistants like me. He also mentioned a few questions about research topics so to follow up I sent him the answer and asked his opinion. However I didn't hear from him after that. Here I would like to mention that questions were not to test me but just general research questions which he is interested in, and my reply was also more like a discussion and asking his opinion. Now I am confused what I can get from this, and also should I ask him somehow to have Skype interview? He is really a great professor and has his own funding so may be he can even effect committee decision.
Thanks.

If it was a few days ago you sent him an e-mail I should wait a bit more, he probably has a busy schedule.

Professors have a habit of forgetting about emails. If you don't hear back from him in a week, it wouldn't be rude to send one follow-up email.

@Ric - Very well put.

Please specify the country or the part of the world.  We can't give a good answer without that.

As I mentioned in my comment below, university is in USA and one of top in area of Computer Science. One more thing to add here is that I send him 4-5 lines of proposal in my first email for which he instantly replied that he have funding for research as I outline..

The professor encouraged you to apply --- so that's what he expects you to do next. It is nothing wrong in your attempt to establish a more substantial connection with him and to promote yourself in his eyes, it increases your chances to get selected. However, imagine that at the same time there are probably 100+ other candidates, trying to do exactly the same --- sending him several smart research questions, involving him in some discussion, and expecting to chat over Skype with him in a few days. How would you feel in his shoes?
Of course, professors want to be available for their potential PhD students, TAs and colleagues, and of course, they want to participate in the selection process. But many of them do not want to carry out all the communication themselves --- that's what secretariat, admissions, and HRs are for! I assume there is a formal route to submit your application, and I suggest exactly what your professor suggested --- prepare your application and submit as instructed.
If in a meantime you receive a message from him --- go forth and suggest a Skype meeting. If not --- assume that the professor is busy, and submit your application before the deadline anyway.

Thanks for reply but what I am thinking is the level of interest he have in my work do I have higher chance ?

You can put this in the Cover Letter, or/and in the Research Statement as a part of your application. If you application is shortlisted (i.e. you satisfy the essential criteria), the professor will read it.

@muhammad: Depending on how the department handles admissions, the professor may not have that large an influence on whether you get in, and may not want to raise your expectations or may not want to spend a lot of time talking to you before you are accepted.

@muhammadharis - This depends on the country.  (In the US the answer in general is no, this doesn't raise your chances.)

I am in my first year of a PhD and I went through similar experience while I was searching for a PhD position.
Since you have mentioned your potential supervisor is from a top institute, he sure will receive numerous applications all over the globe. Since he had replied positively and told you he have funds for the position makes you an eligible candidate but bear in mind that you are one among many.

However I didn't hear from him after that.

You mentioned you have applied a few days back. It is normal for the reply to take a few weeks. I am sure the professor would be using the same approach to other students who had applied. I went through one such process in Germany, the potential supervisor asked me to answer some questions which is not very specific to his field of research. After my reply, he invited me for a skype conference.  Consider the questions as a preliminary screening test.
You haven't mentioned if the position is advertised or not. If it does the selection involves a several steps, may be two or three rounds of interviews.
I got the reply after two weeks inviting me for a skype interview.
I suggest you to wait a few more days.

No position is not advertised and university is in USA ..


text:
Signaling Interest for Job at Low Ranked University
How do PhD graduates signal job interest to low ranked universities? I am envisioning a scenario where a candidate does not get interviewed by a university because the university believes the candidate is "over qualified", but the candidate is actually very interested in working at that university because of some outside reason (family in the area, spouse employment, etc).
How does the candidate tell the low ranked university to consider hiring him/her, even if the candidate is overqualified? (I don't intend this to sound snobbish, I am just interested in how the process works).

Mention the outside reason in the application cover letter?

I should comment that there can be legitimate reasons someone is a poor candidate that, in the first simplification, seem to boil down to "overqualified".  For example, someone in a high-powered, extremely abstract research area, even if they are very good at it, would be a poor fit here because our graduate student population is simply not good enough to be able to work with that person.

If you have a faculty contact at that university, it may help to express to them your genuine interest.

I've been involved in many faculty searches over the years, and my institution and department probably meet your definition of "lower ranked."  In the searches that I've been involved in, we simply don't skip over a candidate because they're "overqualified."  Rather, we try to attract the best candidates and hope that candidates who aren't really interested in our position or who find a more attractive position will drop out of the search as early as possible.
Given the nature of the job market today, it's inevitable that many well qualified applicants who will ultimately end up at some more prestigious institution will have applied for our position.  Even the most well qualified candidates need to hedge their bets by applying for dozens of jobs.  I don't blame them for applying to our position as long as there is a reasonable chance that they would accept an offer from us.
We invite the best qualified candidates to phone interview.  During the phone interviews we do our best to make clear what the job would be like (research expectations, teaching loads, salary, benefits, location, etc.)  If a candidate is truly not interested in our position that lack of interest may be apparent during the phone interview.  Some candidates get screened out for showing such a lack of interest.   Sometimes applicants figure out during the interview (or shortly thereafter) that they're no longer interested in the job and ask to withdraw from the search.  We invite the candidates who did best in the screening interviews for full on-campus interviews.
After the on-campus interviews we're typically left with two or three candidates that we like, and then we start making offers.  It's not uncommon for our first or second choice to turn down an offer, but in practice we end up with what we consider a good candidate who is willing to take the job.
In the worst case we could always close the tenure track search, hire a visitor for the year and try again the next year.  That hasn't been necessary in my department in the last 22 years.
If you're particularly interested in a position because of some family issue, then you can make that reason clear in your cover letter.  In my experience, these personal reasons for applying for a job seldom end up being the factor that makes a candidate decide to accept an offer.  From my point of view as a search committee member, I try to avoid using such factors in making my decisions.

This is true up to a point, but in my experience, there are a number of candidates who don't get asked to interview because it's clear they will have a better offer.


text:
Ethical obligation to correct other people's mistakes?
In the course of some research, my adviser and I noticed that a formula that is widely used in the field has an inaccuracy. It corrects for an effect that doesn't exist, so the correction makes things worse than they would be without it.
This formula was first published in the 1970s, and other people seem to have assumed it was correct. It has since found its way into about 30 papers and a handful of commercial software products.
However, my adviser does not want to publish a correction. He feels it would be bad for him politically and financially. He has a business that would be negatively affected if he makes too many "waves".
What ethical considerations are at play here? If we do end up publishing the results 5 years later, would people be upset that we sat on the data for so long? Is there some sort of compromise.

I assume you have evidence that the effect being corrected doesn't exist? And if so, is there a chance that 40+ years ago, that effect existed for one reason or another? For example, hardware may have been different 40 years ago when the formula was developed, so it may be time to "update" the formula (which would make for a great paper).

Keep in mind that science is the process of getting progressively less wrong, and that publicly sharing your knowledge that the correction is inappropriate will help advance the state of the field (I've found this paper to be inspiring in that regard).
Also, if you're working in a field where your formula is widely known it is likely that someone else will eventually come to the same conclusion that the correction is inappropriate.  Personally, I'd prefer to have a publication record where I correct my own mistakes, rather than having someone else do it for me.  My rationale is that self-correction demonstrates a meticulous approach to research, which is generally viewed as a positive attribute in a researcher.  Not correcting your own mistakes risks the appearance of carelessness, especially if it is known that you had the means of finding and correcting the mistake and did not do so.
I would recommend publishing the revision to the formula as its own finding, complete with examples of how the revision alters the output of the formula and in what circumstances it meaningfully alters the result, rather than as a correction.

@virmaior 's answer is more in line with the title, I'd agree that there is no ethical obligation on your part (without further complicating factors) to correct the mistake.

There is no prima facie ethical obligation correct the mistakes of others.
Any need to correct the mistakes of others would only arise due to other reasons. For instance, if you knew that a machine in a factory was prone to having its blade fly off in the direction of a group of people, you'd be under an obligation to do something about that (to the degree that your belief is certain and you have a capacity to do something).
Apart from variations on the above, you're not under any obligation to correct others even if erroneous equations are running around.  Consequently, there's no research failing for your advisor not to publish it.
That being said, you would/do have an obligation not to propagate the errant equation. Since you know it's mistaken, you shouldn't include it in any of your publications as if it were true.
Similarly, it does seem questionable for your advisor to make his research decisions based on the interests of his company, but that's more a conflict of interest in general -- i.e. that he would put the interests of his company ahead of his research choices. Maybe to reword all of that into a few cases:

Researcher A chooses to research and publish thesis P rather than thesis Q.
Researcher B chooses to research and publish thesis P rather than controversial in field  thesis Z.
Researcher C chooses to research and publish thesis P rather than career-damaging thesis Y, because it will/might hurt his career.
Researcher D chooses to research and publish thesis P rather than potentially business damaging thesis X, because it will/might hurt his wallet.
Researcher E-1 researches thesis W, learning W may result in harm and does not publish it.
Researcher F-1 researches thesis V, learning V will very likely result in harm and does not publish it.
Researcher G-1 researches thesis U, learning U will undermine his business and does not publish it.

Actually, I don't think there's anything wrong with any of the cases above... but E-G are capable of wrongful variants. For A-D, we are not under any compulsion (generically speaking) to pursue any particular research agenda. Of course, we may be compelled by funding sources or bosses to do/avoid certain things and violating these sort of obligations can be immoral.
Skipping these employment obligations, E,F, and G can be immoral when we "and failing to inform relevant parties." In other words, if we have great reason to believe W will cause harm, then we should tell the company making it or the clinical trial using it. If U shows a business model is faulty, we should not defraud others with what we know is false.
tl;dr - without further complicating factors, there's no requirement your boss either research this further or publish about it.

Separately, it may make a great paper if you can show a well-cited equation is errant or needs updating. There, the challenge is knowing how to get it through in this political landscape.


text:
How should I address a professor's inconsistencies?
"How do I address the following incidents before the end of semester, without alienating the professor whose good graces I rely on to pass his class?"
I have a professor who is quite friendly, and obviously more knowledgeable on the topic he is teaching than I am. However, he consistently makes major errors, and is very inconsistent with his statements, assignments and testing. I have been tracking these inconsistencies, as they make it very difficult to keep up with the class. Copied and pasted from my notes:

A list of Professor X’s major inconsistencies in Math 555, Complex
  Variables
As a fellow student in my class commented, Dr. X's inconsistencies are
  “astounding”. So, I decided to keep track of them.
Incident 1
  Professor X, in two class periods, could not prove the
  sufficient conditions for differentiability (i.e. converse of
  Cauchy-Riemann). he made errors so numerous while presenting the proof
  that he never finished it, and told us to just look at it in the book
  and practice it at home.
Then, when asked about the proof in the book, he said that the proof
  was incorrect, but did not provide any suitable
  explanation on how the students might approach doing it correctly.
So, he could not do the proof himself, could not explain why the one
  in the book was wrong, and yet he required us to complete the proof
  for homework…
Incident 2
  Midterm #2 was held on a Monday. The Friday before the
  test, he explicitly told the entire class to bring a handwritten sheet
  listing all of the algebraic properties of the Logarithm and
  Exponential functions of complex numbers. Further, on Friday before
  the test, he told us that the test would cover all of chapter 2 and
  through section 31 of Chapter 3.
When the class arrived to the test on Monday, we were all surprised to
  see written on the test, “Turn in homework for sections 34-36”. These
  sections covered trigonometric identities and hyperbolic functions of
  complex numbers not log(z) or exp(z).
Instead of admitting his mistake, he gave zero credit for the
  properties we turned in. Further he said that we should have proved
  them, when he only asked us to list them.
He then proceeded to tell us that if we wanted to get credit back, we
  could prove them and turn them in again. I explicitly asked in front
  of the entire class “Do you want us to prove the properties of Log and
  Exponential functions, or do you want us to do Sections 34-36, as was
  written on the test, or both?” He responded that he wanted the proofs
  of the Logarithm and Exponential function identities. So that’s what I
  did.
When turning them in, he did not accept them, because he wanted the
  trigonometric identities instead. So, after wasting hours of my time,
  again, I find myself in the library doing work that he did not assign
  instead of moving forward to reinforce topics that we are now
  covering.
Incident 3
  When reviewing test problem 3 (determine the derivative of Log(z)) he told us
  that we should have used the polar
  form of the derivative: f ‘ (z) = exp(itheta)(u_r + iv_r) that we
  derived in problem 1.
The problem is, he didn’t ask us to derive that formula in problem 1.
  When I pointed this out, he looked at me like I was crazy. So I went
  to his office hours and very politely showed him the test and asked
  “When did we derive the polar form of the derivative in problem 1”. So
  he proceeded to do problem 1, and sure enough the polar form did not
  come from it. It took the answer to problem 1, plus an extra page and
  a half of derivations to arrive at the required formula to solve
  problem 3.

So, I want to address this because it is driving me crazy, but I am unfortunately a fairly poor student when it comes to test taking (high levels of anxiety). I rely on the fact that my professors like me and see how hard I work in my classes, to get the extra few sympathy points that often are the difference between passing and failing.

This is an uncommon situation. It happens that a professor has a blackout in front of class or screws a proof - but this sounds much worse.
It is hard to tell from the distance, but to me it seems like the professor is having serious problems (maybe health issues, personal issues, ...) distracting him.
I would suggest talking to another trusted faculty member (if you don't know whom to adress: There are usually dedicated ombudspersons at every department / university) and tell them your observations.