text:
How to deal with academic burnout when collecting field data?
I have posted here before about the issues with my PhD, but now I get the feeling that I am suffering from burnout and I need to know what to do next. My degree is costing a lot of money and I feel like I have no interest in it any longer. I am currently five years in to a seven-year part time PhD.
I am supposed to be collecting field data for a write-up but I have not done any work for a year. The last serious work I did was around October 2020, but over the last 12/13 months I have handed in hardly anything to my supervisor. She has been very understanding [though sometimes growing impatient, understandably]. The thought of doing any fieldwork or collecting any field data seems crushingly dull. I schedule appointments with people then make excuses not to turn up. People write to me and I don't reply. I don't want to read any academic texts. I have grown terribly cynical about academia in general and see it as self-servient, incestuous nepotism.
I would like to finish the degree, but I have two years left and nothing about the degree makes me want to continue with the data collection process. Should I quit? Should I carry on? Should I explain my feelings to my supervisors [probably a bad idea]? I don't really know what the right thing to do is. Maybe I should soldier through and just hope for the best. Any advice would be appreciated.

Seven years is a long time. People get burned out during 3 or 4 year PhDs. Your supervisor shouldn't be surprised that you had a change of heart, and I'm sure is already aware of it given that you are basically ghosting everyone.

(1) Why are you paying for your PhD? (2) Why are you collecting data? Is it for you, or is it for your RAship?

I am really not that interested and the whole thing seems so daunting.

This is what you wrote two and a half years ago. I am sorry to hear that things have not improved. I can guess that there are many factors that led to this, some of them external - but still, after stagnating for 2.5 years, it may be time to make some changes.

Should I quit?

It kind of seems like you already have. You haven't done any work in over a year, and even before that, it seems like there were some periods of inactivity.

My degree is costing a lot of money

Eek! I guess this explains why your supervisor is putting up with this -- so long as she is not paying you, it really doesn't matter to her whether you make progress or not. If you are in a place where you can easily afford this, fine, I guess. But if you are going into debt, as many grad students are, I would urge you to consider all your options.

Should I quit? Should I carry on?

Only you can decide this. But, I certainly do urge you to make changes one way or the other. I recommend two things.
First, decide whether you still want the degree. Discount the time already spent, and calculate whether the remaining time, effort, and money is a reasonable cost for the degree.

You've made some comments about hating academia. Further, it sounds like you might be in a field where non-academic jobs are not really a thing. From that perspective, finishing the degree seems like an expensive exercise in futility.
But perhaps there are other days when you like academia and/or you think you have a realistic path to a job that will use your PhD. In this case, finishing the degree could make more sense.

But it is time to decide one way or the other; clearly, your strategy of moving forward and hoping things become clear on their own has not worked out.
Second, if you decide that you want the degree, come up with a realistic plan for getting your degree, and map this plan to a schedule so you know what you need to accomplish in each quarter between now and graduation. Meet with your supervisor and get her buy-in on this plan.

Hopefully, getting this plan written down will let you break your logjam.
But it's also possible that trying to make this plan will reveal that there's no realistic path to graduation. Or, it could be that you commit to a plan but the deadlines come and go without progress.

Either way, the right option should become clearer.

Should I explain my feelings to my supervisors [probably a bad idea]?

"Explaining your feelings" might not be necessary / advisable, but I do advise trying to reset this relationship. Frankly, she has probably already assumed that you are going to leave the program. It might not be necessary to formally broach this at all; if you show up for a meeting with a ton of progress and sharp questions (and the "plan" I mentioned above, for her review), she will figure out that you have recommitted yourself. Or, if you want to get her opinion on your prospects and options, you could do that too. But I would try to keep things fairly technical and fact-based (e.g., words like "options" or "opportunities" or "alternative directions") and avoid being overly emotional (e.g., words like "boring" or "overwhelmed" or "cynical").

There is an alternate explanation than burnout. Burnout mostly happens when you work too intensely for too long. Let me suggest that the work you hate doing is indeed boring. And you may be a person, like myself, who really hates being bored.
Let me also suggest that you find a way to get on with it so that you can get past the boring stuff. One way to do it is to intersperse it with things that are more interesting. Spend a few hours (or days, if necessary, depending on the work) with the fieldwork and then a few hours (or whatever) on something that is more interesting.
If you work too intensely on the boring stuff you may actually get burned out.
"Something more interesting" might be planning and background work on the next project you like to undertake. Your advisor might be able to suggest a few possibilities, but you may also have a cache of ideas that you haven't been able to follow up on that you might start thinking about. It might be a side project that helps your career, even if it doesn't contribute directly to your dissertation.
Maybe it's just physical exercise. I used serious but non-competitive biking (fast club rides) during my doctorate to help keep my head clear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boreout

Far more than most people realize, mental health, which includes the will to live and to pursue one's goals, is related to physical, social, and spiritual well-being.  As the latter two of these are more personal matters, which I invite you to consider as a part of the whole, I will focus my suggestions more on the first of them.
PHYSICAL HEALTH TIPS
Depression, boredom, and malaise all have some similarities, and the following tips can help to overcome them.  The relative importance of each one will differ among individuals, depending on their strengths and weaknesses.
Rest: Get on an "early-to-bed, early-to-rise" schedule.  One hour of sleep before midnight is worth two afterward.  This is because hormones that regulate metabolism are principally produced between the hours of about 9 p.m. and 11 p.m., and only when one is asleep and the lights are off.
It may take some time to adjust to a new sleeping schedule.  Do not be quick to give up trying.  You may find it easier to sleep at the correct time if you have not taken naps during the day.  Naturally, it helps greatly to switch off your internet-connected devices at sleep time, lest they keep you awake.
Exercise:  Regular exercise is hugely important.  It regulates one's metabolism, moderates the appetite, helps to cleanse toxins from the body, releases and consumes the "stress" hormones (norepinephrine/adrenaline), and improves one's ability to rest well at night.  There is no substitute for taking a long walk in the cool of the day and having some time for reflection along with it.
Nutrition:  Certain vitamins and minerals are especially important for the health of the nervous system.  When one is "burned out," it is often that the brain and nerves are weakened by strain and need some rejuvenation.  B-vitamins are near the top of the list, with vitamin B12 being especially valuable.  If you choose to find B12 supplements, look for methylcobalamin (the most common form is cyanocobalamin, but this is virtually useless, studies having shown 98% of it is eliminated from the body within 24 hours).  It is not possible to overdose on B12.
Healthful fats, including linolenic acid and linoleic acid, are important for good nerve function.  The myelin cells that form a sheath surrounding nerve axons are fatty cells.  Olive oil, being less processed and more natural, is one of the best sources of oil.
Detoxification:  Toxins in the body can hinder normal function and bring on depression or malaise.  Avoid them as much as possible, including cigarette smoke, alcohol, mercury (Hg) or its vapors or amalgams (dental fillings), lead (Pb), etc.  If you feel this may be a significant source of trouble in your case, a certified toxicologist should be able to assess your body's toxic burden and help develop a plan of therapy to remove the toxins.
Avoid caffeine.  Caffeine increases the stress in one's system.  It increases blood pressure and heart rate and opens the lungs, making one feel more alert and awake--but at the same time causing the body to function in a sort of "emergency mode" in which energy is borrowed from the future to meet present needs.  When the addictive drug is gone, one's energy levels drop below normal.   Caffeine is a common ingredient of beverages, including coffee, tea, energy drinks, and many sodas (e.g. Coke and Pepsi).
Sunshine: Sunlight helps the body form vitamin D which is an important hormone with respect to emotional and metabolic health.  It is especially important in combating depression.  Along with exercise, getting some sun serves to relax the body and induce sleepiness, making one's sleep at night more refreshing.
Water: Everyone knows the importance of water, but few realize how important it is to the brain.  At night, when brain cells are less active, they shrink slightly in size, which opens a larger channel between them for the flow of fluids which removes the waste byproducts from their day's activity.  Drinking plenty of water helps to cleanse these toxins from the brain, especially at night during sleep.  Personally, I have found that a good glass of water before going to bed is worth an hour's sleep, even if it causes me to get up during the night.
Socio-emotional Health: It is important to one's own well-being to feel like a useful, valued part of society.  This need cannot be met through self-centric activities; it can only be filled through focusing away from oneself to the needs of others.  Find someone to help, someone whom you are able to assist.  Whether or not you are thanked, you know that you have done something good and it will boost your own sense of self-worth--but hearing the appreciation for your efforts will really improve your morale.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Unless you know that this time of year is critical to some particular data-collection process in which you are engaged, I would suggest you take anywhere from a week to three weeks as a mini sabbatical during which you focus on your own well-being, in agreement with some or all of the suggestions made above.  Give your mind a rest; it will be able to accomplish much, much more when it is refreshed.  During this break period, make sure you have some time to reflect--away from the internet, social media, or other distractions.
Once you have had opportunity to put your mind back on track and to reflect on your goals for the future, I think you will be in a better frame of mind to tackle the final steps for finishing your degree.  You already sense the wastefulness of all your past efforts if you end up short of your goal.  The very fact that you presently seem to have lost your focus is indicative of just how strenuous those past efforts were.  Don't let them be for nothing!
You can do it!  After a bit of rest, buckle down and finish your work.  You will be very glad that you did.  Make it a goal to finish early.  Once it's behind you, then you can go on to more pleasant things.


text:
Desperate and finding it nearly impossible to produce work for my PhD write-up, what should I do?
I have been severely struggling with my PhD for years, and my posts in this SE have been testament to that. I do a part time music PhD and I am just about to enter the eighth and final year. I am currently in writing up.
From the very beginning I was confused about the PhD i.e. my supervisor would repeatedly suggest academics to reference that I thought were irrelevant. She does not know about my subject area, but suggests things close to it.
I have always dreaded tutorials, I get nervous before every one. I was told for years not to write but to research, research, research. I just wanted to write. After six years I was told it was time to write; I was ecstatic and bashed out my first draft chapter of 14k words and proudly presented it in a tutorial.
My supervisor tore it apart. I nearly cried. I felt completely demoralised and demotivated.
It has taken me nine months to draft a subsequent chapter. There have been many tutorials since where I have been close to tears. During the course of this PhD I have seen three [three!] separate therapists because of the stress and unhappiness this PhD has made me endure.
I now realise it is not because of the course per se, but the supervision. My supervisor is an expert in her field, and a well-respected authority, but like a fellow student of hers said to me, "she has very high academic intelligence and very low emotional intelligence." I completely concur. My supervisor is not the kind of person who I feel would react well if I told her I thought the issue was her, no matter how I phrased it.
I am supposed to submit another draft of this chapter this weekend, but my progress is so glacially slow that now the school are thinking of moving me to an MPhil which I don't want. It is not possible for me to 'grin and bear it' and 'just write' because I cannot create in that way. I need inspiration and to like who I am writing for [if not me] and with every paragraph I feel like I am writing the thesis for my supervisor, not for myself and I am so nervous about how she will criticise it. I am not experiencing boredom, but hatred.
My wife says, "this is not your thesis, write it for my supervisor, it's hers, just remove yourself from it". I am sorry, I cannot create like that. It is literally impossible for me to do so [well, maybe I could it if was a small paper, but not a whole doctoral thesis].
What are my options now? I could ask to change supervisor but the dept is so strapped I don't know if there's any other staff member who could do it. I could interrupt but I don't know the point since I've been unproductive anyway for a long time. Quitting would mean wasting years of time and money and throwing a potential career away.
I am at the end of my tether. I am so stressed, I am drinking too much and losing sleep. I have no idea what to do. My brain will not produce for this course [this issue is just tied to this course by the way, since I write creatively for other pursuits with no issue]. I would love to know what the best course of action could be in this scenario.

Did you try talking to your supervisor about these problems?

@Adi as I mentioned, "My supervisor is not the kind of person who I feel would react well if I told her I thought the issue was her, no matter how I phrased it." There's no way I can bring it up with her. It won't go well.

What motivated you to take the PhD path?

What is the expectation of a music doctorate at your place? Is is production of a creative work, or is it extending the state of knowledge about some aspect of the field? These are quite different. The latter does, indeed, require research.

I am glad that you are talking to a therapist. We can give academic advice, but only people who know you can help you balance your academic goals against other priorities.

I would love to know what the best course of action could be in this scenario.

Finish. After eight years, it is too late to change advisors, or topics, or styles of working. It is time to write your thesis, finish, and move on to the next stage of your career, whatever that may be.

Now the school are thinking of moving me to an MPhil which I don't want

This is a serious red flag; the school is clearly thinking along the same lines that I am. It is time to finish. You are on borrowed time.

I was ecstatic and bashed out my first draft chapter of 14k words and proudly presented it

I would try to recapture this. Go low-contact with your advisor and try to finish a first draft of the entire thesis over the next few weeks. The goal is not to please your advisor, but to do something that meets your own standards. This should be fun.
After this, you will have to iterate with your advisor or other committee members. This will, granted, be far less fun, given what you say about your advisor's shortcomings. But if you have a full-length thesis and promptly address your advisor's comments, it will be hard for your advisor to avoid letting you graduate.

In addition to the previous points, I would like to challenge some of your framing:

It is not possible for me to 'grin and bear it' and 'just write'
because I cannot create in that way. I need inspiration and to like
who I am writing for [if not me] and with every paragraph I feel like
I am writing the thesis for my supervisor, not for myself and I am so
nervous about how she will criticise it.
My wife says, "this is not your thesis, write it for my supervisor,
it's hers, just remove yourself from it". I am sorry, I cannot create
like that. It is literally impossible for me to do so [well, maybe I
could it if was a small paper, but not a whole doctoral thesis].

Your thesis is a technical piece of academic writing showcasing your expertise. This is not about making an inspired creative masterpiece for your supervisor, it is about producing a document that fits the standards set forth by your degree program.
Continue to work with your mental health professionals, and bring this up to them. You are setting yourself up for failure by construing an impossible task that's irrelevant to your degree completion.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to give a short math talk on a very broad topic?
I am a graduate student in math (algebraic geometry) and a course I did was simply self studying a 600 pages textbook on algebraic geometry and discussing it with my advisor. As part of the assessment for this course, I need to give a 20 minutes talk. The audience are other graduate students and academics; the audience may not be algebraic geometers. My talk gets marked by academics and not students.
My problem is that I have no idea how I should give a talk about a 600 pages textbook full of technical details to a general math audience. What should I include or exclude? What is the usual practice? How do people usually give such talks? Please note that my audience may not be all algebraic geometers. I asked my supervisor and the only answer I got was, "Just give an interesting talk!"

What was the exact wording of the instructions or assignment?

When you say the audience includes graduate students and "other academics", are the academics all going to be mathematicians at least, or could you could have a linguist or psychologist in the audience?  Clear this up in your post.

What was the book?

First of all, let's be clear about what the purpose of this part of the course is. It is not to demonstrate that you have understood the material in the book – I imagine that your advisor already knows how well you understand the subject matter if you have been discussing it with them throughout the semester. People will not be sitting there trying to catch you out on some technicality. It is to give you an opportunity to learn how to communicate math to other mathematicians, which is a crucial skill for any mathematician to learn and it cannot be acquired without trial and, inevitably, error. The most fruitful way of taking advantage of this assignment would be to put any worries about how the talk will be graded to the side and think of this as a learning opportunity.
Secondly, let me suggest that it is not terribly helpful to think too hard about what you should include or exclude or about what the usual practice is. Instead, you can mentally frame the task in this way: you are being afforded a very scarce resource, namely people's largely undivided attention for the duration of 20 minutes. In return, people would like to learn something of interest. (Although in this case they will hopefully understand that this is more about you learning how to communicate mathematics than about them.) Therefore, I propose that you focus on the pay-off for the audience instead of real or imagined ideas about what a talk should or should not include. This, perhaps, may be what your supervisor meant when they told you to "just give an interesting talk". In a nutshell, you should ask yourself: what will a mathematician who does not know a whole lot about algebraic geometry get out of my talk? (The answer should not be that they will learn that you, the speaker, understand some algebraic geometry.)
Now this might be a difficult thing to do if you don't have a very clear idea of what the audience might find interesting. In that case, it is perfectly legitimate to focus on pay-off for the other grad students in the audience. You can be assured that the general mathematician's knowledge of algebraic geometry is not substantially larger than the average advanced grad student's. Hopefully, you do have some idea about what your fellow grad students might find interesting. If not, just ask them.
Finally, everyone understands that 20 minutes is not a lot of time, so just pick some small subtopic that you can reasonably say something about in 20 minutes. Less is more. If it were me giving the talk, unless I had better ideas I would probably pick some theorem from the book that I thought the audience might find interesting, illustrate it with some examples, and say a few words about how in fits into a larger picture. That's just one possible template for the talk. The most important thing is to give honest and serious thought to making sure that the audience gets something out of your talk, and to reflect afterwards on whether you have succeeded in this.
Good luck!

And be prepared for the following experience: no matter how narrow a topic you think you've chosen, it will turn out that 20 minutes isn't enough time to cover it :)

This comment is spot on. I would suggest some small issue that is simple, but explored in much more depth in algebraic geometry than is perhaps the case for other branches of math. For instance, just kick around the idea of what a zero is in algebraic geometry. Everybody understands the concept for basic polynomials, but in algebraic geometry, the concept is more intricate. So that topic is something they can already relate to, and something which you blow their mind about.

Note that your talk doesn't need to necessarily have to end with some grand proof or theorem  (and probably shouldn't due to time constraints). It could honestly be just a series of questions, and then musings about the implications of exploring some problem from a different world view. You can then subtly drop in comments such as, "Actually, we can show this to be true (or false), but that is outside the scope of this talk". 20 minutes is not enough to explain some very complicated topic with proofs. Just help them to see the world through your world view. That will be quite interesting.

Agree with all of these comments. One thing I’d add is that if there’s a topic that gets you personally excited or one you find very interesting and you think the audience may find interesting too, that may be a good candidate. A lot of great talks are great not only because they cover a topic useful and relevant to the audience, but also because the speaker has a deep personal interest or connection to the topic and discusses it in an engaging way.

I suggest that you give the talk you would like to hear if you hadn't yet read the book. You can even tell the audience that's how you decided what to say.

That's very good advice. I'd say that you can even assume that your past self (who hasn't read the book) is your audience.

Yep, think of it as a TED Talk, where you go into brief detail about 1-2 things, but what you really want is to get people interested in the idea/topic so they do their own research or read the book. You aren't there to give a comprehensive synopsis of everything.

@OP: Out of curiosity, do you mind telling me what this book was about? Was there anything especially interesting in it? (You don't have to reply to this comment; I just figure having a real person asking you questions might make it easier to follow Ethan's advice)

Rather than trying to summarize the book, or the general subject, in a ridiculously short time, (which would be pretty boring to essentially everyone), choose a specific topic/example that is understandable to any math grad student, and show how (perhaps fancier parts of) "alg geom" address that issue. That is, new, high-end things are not just self-referential, but do address pre-existing issue. :)
Leave out real proofs.
Don't give "definitions"... but, rather, give vague-but-generally-helpful descriptions. (Seriously, no one is interested in "definitions", unless there's an issue of higher precision, and definitions would kill an awfully large fraction of 20 minutes... and no one who didn't already know them would assimilate them, etc.)
Perhaps think of it as an extended "elevator pitch"... :)

Contrary to popular belief, the only reason to give a talk is to make the audience feel better than when they walked in. That is it. The speaker wants the audience to feel better than when they walked in.
One surefire way to make your audience feel better is for them to learn something (i.e. ONE THING). A second surefire way is for the audience to 'catch' your contagious enthusiasm for the subject. Do one or both of these things and your talk will succeed.
You arent going to revolutionize algebraic geometry in your talk. Drop the notion of 'complexity equals interesting' right now.  The primary pitfall that you will fall into in this scenario is presenting at an advanced/expert level. DO NOT FALL INTO THIS TRAP. If even one audience member checks out of your talk you have failed. There is never any excuse for losing even a single audience member. You are speaking to the dumbest person in the room, never the smartest. EVER.
Take your draft of your current talk and waterdown the information content by about 95%... yes, really. Eliminate all equations that are not absolutely necessary. There should not be more than one or two equations on the slides, max. You are here to give a good talk, period. Good talks do not have equations on slides. Anyone that argues that gives bad talks consistently and doesnt know it. Replace those equations with simple, pretty pictures and diagrams. People love and understand simple pictures and diagrams. If it is complex enough to require a three sentence explanation, eliminate it.
Each slide should contain one-and only one- point. Your talk is on one-and only one- topic. One simple topic, one simple slide. Do not be afraid to repeat yourself. Do not be afraid to repeat yourself. Repeat the same point with different language, leading to a crescendo.
Use the simplest possible language. This talk should make sense to anyone that listens, regardless of background. it is incumbant on the speaker for the audience to listen and understand. Understanding is not the responsibility of the audience.
Start slide 1 with something that you are enthusiastic about, and end with effectively the same message. Speakers tend to think of talks as continuous collections of slides, whereas audience members tend to consume slides individually (i.e. each slide is actually its own mini talk).
Try to emulate a circus, and not your daily lectures. Talks are show business, not research. Do not sacrifice entertainment for factual accuracy, yes really. Let the details or small print come out in questions. There will be time for questions because you are going to ...
END EARLY! anticipate filling half the allotted time, yes really! No one in real life will fault you for ending early. It will never happen at this stage of your career. this is not 8th grade speech class!

It reads like I met my talk buddy ^^

I feel you, I've also been there. Since I'm doing it my resp. your way I receive a lot of positive feedback, be it people from maths, physics, engineering, or even finance and business. It's much better to present few and easy-to-grasp content instead of a lot and/or even difficult. From my feeling, even difficult content can be transported such that people understand it without bending their mind. But then you have to think about how to do that and I guess many people simply don't care whether other people understand them. Sometimes it feels like they think it's a good sign when they don't..

i think most speakers just think its the audiences job to understand. the speaker can sound as smart, complicated and sophisticated as they want during Q&A.

The answers posted so far have avoided suggesting a topic.  I'll suggest one: explain what projective space is and why it's such a big deal in algebraic geometry.
The elementary definition of projective space (n-tuples up to nonzero scaling) does not suggest why the concept is so important.  People who have not done anything with algebraic geometry might wonder what the big deal is about projective space when "affine space" looks to the novice like a more natural geometric thing to use. So after explaining the definition, discuss some nice properties of projective space at a level that they can understand.
Show them the real and complex projective lines are a circle and sphere, so they will understand when you say projective space is compact while affine space isn't.  That is a big, big deal. All mathematicians understand that compact things are nicer. Anyone who has taken complex analysis knows that for rational functions it's really good to think about them as mappings on the Riemann sphere and not just on the complex plane. In algebraic geometry, projective space is a very useful compactification of affine space.  Compare with something at the undergraduate level: closed bounded intervals in real analysis have far more useful properties than open (bounded) intervals, and  that's due largely to their compactness.
For some concrete things to show about the projective plane (both geometrically and algebaically), see my answer to an old MO question on a similar topic here. That has too many suggestions to fit in 20 minutes, so don't try to do all of that. I once gave a 50-minute undergraduate talk whose only goal was to illustrate how asymptotes to a curve are revealed in the projective plane to be tangent lines to a missing point on the curve "at infinity".
Don't forget to give some practice talks in advance in front of some actual students so that you know it can fit in 20 minutes and you get feedback. Give the first practice talk to yourself first since it will probably be a disaster (time management). And expect in the actual talk to lose the last 5 minutes of material, so give yourself several exit ramps in the talk. Do not leave the only payoff to minute 19.  Have multiple payoffs sprinkled throughout your talk.

Yes, apart from "why projective space?", the point of having many good "exit points" toward the end, when you find yourself (inevitably) going almost overtime, is essential. Do not go overtime more than some seconds. No matter what you think, it will not be greeted happily (unless you've something truly amazing to present...) So you need to prepare several "graceful exit points", so that when you discover that you'll be over-time, you can finish nicely, rather than "just stopping". Again: "exit points".

@paulgarrett What about ending early?

@cgb5436 twenty minutes is truly almost no time at all.  It would look quite bad to end a 20-minute talk after 10 minutes. But ending at 18 or 19 minutes if that is a natural stopping point would be fine. You did not ask the original question, so what is it you really want to know about ending early?

I was actually thinking about ending early in the more traditional 50-minute setting (5 minutes early or so).

@cgb5436 why are you keen on trying to end a 50-minute talk 5 minutes early? I have attended many 50-minute talks, and of course it can be annoying when people go over time, but it is really rare that someone would end 5 minutes early. It's a noticeable amount of time.

Based on many observations (which include a surprisingly small number of "ending early" cases out of the whole), people are surprised and happy if you'd end one minute early out of 50, for example, but would wonder why in the world you wouldn't want to use your time, if it was more than that. After all, the opportunity to have the attention of a room full of people to talke about real math doesn't arise every day... :)

If you have sufficient insight for it, I'd suggest that you talk about (a) the essence of the field itself, not the book, (b) how it is related to other math fields, and (c) how it differs.
Applications of algebraic geometry to other fields is part of (b). One or two key theorems would be under (a), but insight is probably better than theorem statements.
End with some observations about why students of math might want to consider studying this field. Alternatively a few words about future directions as much as you can predict them.
The above is based on your statement that the audience will be general in nature, so you need to say things of wider interest than just the technicalities.
And, perhaps, developing an outline like this will aid your own insights into he field.

You might consider reading some reviews of the book --- MR, Zbl, AMS Notices, Bull. AMS, EMS book reviews, various lesser known journals that publish reviews (example), googling the title of the book, etc. --- and see if anything especially praise-worthy or critical catches you eye and suggests something that you could discuss.

For such talks I usually refer to myself: What are the main points I learnt through the entire book? Then I will consider whether they fit to the audience and also in time regarding broadness and deepness.
I also often thought like "Well, all others probably know at least half of the book so I should focus on the advanced stuff so I can also impress them" but, no. My feeling is, the older the people are, means the more experienced, the more they prefer the concepts and ideas instead of hard proofs and technical details. You can hardly impress them with your roughly gained knowledge but you can stick out the main and most interesting patterns, so everyone will learn something and might consider it for their own researches to dig deeper.
Despite that, the talk might also be much easier when you look at the content more from a higher level and the more fun the talk will be.

+1 This. When you should give a talk to an audience broadly similar to you, simply ask yourself what you would find interesting to be told about that book. Then transform that topic into a short narrative with motivation, some (technical) substance and a broadly understandable summary.

20 minutes is a good time to address one interesting specific point.
In such cases, I usually go the funnel way: a very wide overview in 2 minutes to place the topic of the book (how wide depends on the audience - if they are all mathematicians (but not algebraic geometers) then explaining what geometry is is not useful. Stating that the topic is in geometry is.
You then would quickly dive into one interesting topic.
The topic should be self-contained ("you have three doors ... should you change?"), interesting on its own (maybe something counter-intuitive), or groundbreaking.
You are then left with 12 to 15 minutes to explain the exact problem and its solutions - and possibly the 2 interesting points of the proof.
20 minutes is very good timing to train people to choose wisely what they want to say. When you have no experience, you are either at the first paragraph after 20 minutes (and your audience is gone), or you have wrapped up everything in 7 minutes (and your audience is still digesting your second sentence).
Lastly:

practice several times alone, in front of the computer and your presentation. This will give you a rough overview of the timing
then record yourself two or three times and review the key points. You will find the "euuuuhhh..." parts where you forgot what to say, the "I need to pee" parts where you make a small dance because you are stressed and the "I was not aware of my arms" part where you need to do something with your hands.
and finally have someone suffer though two or three presentations of yours, some good friends who will tell you what they understood or not

Also, speak louder. But do not shout either (except when you want to startle the audience, always a good thing). Do not hesitate to address the audience.

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


text:
Is there any scientific research on how to do college admissions correctly?
In India, the criteria for college admissions is very unambiguous and the question of whether you study in a prestigious institutions or not boils down to whether you score well in a standardized exam (e.g., institutions like IIT, AIMS, NITS etc....with some notable exceptions like BITS and VIT).
In USA, there was a related idea with tests (e.g., the SAT, GRE) being used. I infer that these are 'benchmark' tests rather than competitive tests since there is no relative grading and marking is absolute. However, in recent times we can see that the country as a whole is moving away from considering test scores to seeing a student's essays and their personal accomplishments. This was heightened in 2021 where many top colleges dropped standardized testing requirements completely. This leads, in my opinion, to a highly ambiguous admission process.
Between all these different philosophies underlying admissions, was any research put in attempting to find what would be objectively the best criteria / method to choose students? What were its findings?
In essence, I am asking if there is some science which can be used to figure out what is the best admissions procedure. I am not asking for metrics based on personal feelings, but rather from systematic unbiased scientific studies.
This post is in regards to any very competitive admissions process (college, grad school, internship, ...). In less competitive environments (e.g., lower ranked colleges), admission is almost certain if you have just have some minimum quals, and so any aspect of ambiguity is gone.

I would question the validity of any "objective" answer to a question that is so involved with local culture, history, and objectives. There are probably too many variables for anything to be very valid generally. Even deciding between "strict" and "permissive" is a cultural issue. Letting an AI handle it would probably produce the worst of all outcomes.

This seems opinion-based to me. The “best” way to do something depends on what your goal is, and defining the “correct” goal for admissions is largely a matter of opinion

Define "correctly". Correct according to whom? To what standard? How do you measure it?

Hmm I mean, what we study is universal and humans are humans everywhere.. so I'd guess though the individual choices for how it's done in a given area was due to it's history, there could be a collective best found out by scienctific analysis if that makes sense @Buffy

@JonCuster Yes that's a philosophical point, I am asking if there was research done and there was found on some tangible metrics that one method was superior than the other. That would be correctness to me. The finding of what metric to find correctness is a part of research as well , isn't it?

I'd say it depends on your goal and also your knowledge on the subject. For a fixed goal, if you have more knowledge then you can choose a more optimal way to tackle the same goal. My question does this knowledge exist? Have people tried to venture and ask about this?

There are certainly many parents who think universities do it wrong since their son/daughter was not admitted. I would postulate that there is no universal, unambiguous, unanimously agreed-to metric of what is 'correct'. There are many things in the real world where metrics are useless, or even inappropriate and thus less than useless.

I am not asking for metrics based on personal feelings from college admissions but rather from systematic unbiased scientific study. Disagreement between different research on this topic is fine, if a survey of the two conflicting schools of analysis could be shown, I'd be glad to see that. In this particular case, I believe it is a very relevant question to ask what's the "right way" to do something

Not only in India, Asia countries, China, South Korea, Japan,  and Taiwan, to name a few, all use common college entrance exams.

You may be interested in reading this BBC report China's Class of 1977: I took an exam that changed China. In that report, there is an important paragraph,  "He called a meeting in August 1977 to discuss the possibility of restoring college entrance exams. Many were in favour, but others were not sure, the main obstacle being that Chairman Mao had endorsed selecting college students from workers, peasants and soldiers' backgrounds and there was little time to prepare for the switch." The "he" was Deng Xiaoping.

I just want to add that there will never be a single answer for what is "best," given how different the countries, their cultures, and histories may be. In the United States, for instance, there is such massive wealth inequality and such inequity in access to educational opportunities that basing admissions on any single standardized test would simply sort out the poor and disadvantaged. (I would actually argue the same applies for India, which much larger and much less equitable). A small nation with less inequity and a stronger public schooling system might find a standardized test optimal.

The comments already say this in so many words, but the reason nobody wants to answer the question is because your question is ill-posed. You ask

Between all these different philosophies underlying college admissions, was any research put in attempting to find what would be objectively the best criteria/ method to choose students?

The issue is with the phrase "the best criteria". Everyone will have a different way of defining what the best outcome actually is, and many of the following (though not all!) could be considered "reasonable" definitions of best outcome:

The student population should be a representative sample of society, including adequate number of women, people of color, people from different income levels.
The student population should consist of only the best high school students based on exclusively academic criteria.
The student population should reflect in their chosen majors the anticipated demand for future employees in their disciplines.
The student population should reflect in their chosen majors the current demand for employees in their disciplines.
The student population should be chosen in such a way that it maximizes the future tax revenue of the state or country that finances the university.
The student population should primarily be composed of the children of the state or country that finances the university.
The student population should give underrepresented minorities a chance to catch up and undo historical injustices that have led to their underrepresented state.
The student population should be chosen in such a way to maximize future charitable giving to the university by only selecting those who will likely have large incomes.
The student population should be chosen in such a way to maximize near-term charitable giving to the university, by only selecting those whose parents have large incomes.
If you're a white nationalist, you would want to make sure that no non-white people get accepted.

With a few minutes of thought, you will probably be able to add another half a dozen possible criteria. The upshot of this thought experiment is that it is not clear at all what the best goal actually should be, and as a consequence it is entirely unclear what the best admission strategy should actually be.
There is almost certainly a large amount of research on admissions (which I'm entirely unfamiliar with), but it will not address your question about "the best way" -- it will only be able to address how different admissions choices affect certain outcome metrics.

There's a plethora of such research, just look on Google Scholar with search terms such as "university admissions". Below are two example abstracts.
Theory-Based University Admissions Testing for a New Millennium

This article describes two projects based on Robert J. Sternberg's theory of successful intelligence and designed to provide theory-based testing for university admissions. The first, Rainbow Project, provided a supplementary test of analytical, practical, and creative skills to augment the SAT in predicting college performance. The Rainbow Project measures enhanced predictive validity for college grade point average (GPA) relative to high school GPA and the SAT (an acronym that originally stood for Scholastic Aptitude Test but that now stands for nothing in particular) and decreased ethnic-group disparities in test scores. The second, the University of Michigan Business School Project, provided supplementary tests of practical skills to augment the Graduate Management Admissions Test (GMAT) in predicting business school performance. Scores on two types of measures of practical skills predicted performance inside and outside the classroom and explained variance in performance beyond GMAT scores and undergraduate GPA. The measures tended to exhibit less disparity across gender and racial or ethnic groups than did the GMAT. The findings from the two projects demonstrate the potential value of including a broader range of abilities in admissions testing.

Implementing quotas in university admissions: An experimental analysis

This paper studies the implementation of quotas in matching markets. In a controlled laboratory environment, we compare the performance of two university admissions procedures that both initially reserve a significant fraction of seats at each university for a special subgroup of students. The first mechanism mimics the sequential procedure currently used by the central clearinghouse for university admissions in Germany. This procedure starts by allocating reserved seats among eligible students and then allocates all remaining seats among those who were not already assigned one of the reserved seats in the first part of the procedure. The second mechanism is based on a modified student-proposing deferred acceptance algorithm in which all seats are allocated simultaneously. In theory, the two mechanisms should lead to similar outcomes. Our experimental results, however, suggest that, relative to the sequential procedure, the simultaneous mechanism significantly improves the match outcomes for the beneficiaries of reserved seats.


text:
Is there any research showing a correlation between wealth and academic performance?
It is well known that wealth is not distributed equally; even within a country, the wealthiest families are sometimes significantly wealthier than average or poor families.
My question is: does owning wealth mean these higher level groups of society do better academically than those who have less? Can a correlation or (better yet) a causation be established?
"Doing better academically" may be quantified with test scores, admissions rates to colleges or graduate schools, etc. (Since primary and secondary education are off-topic here, we will consider performance in college and beyond).

Interesting question. I rewrote a bit to bring it more in line with what we might be able to answer here. Of course, the challenge is that this SE only covers college and beyond, so there may be some selection bias (IIRC, wealthier people are more likely to apply to college). But I expect there is enough literature on this topic that smart people will have found ways to account for this bias.

Why is it interesting? What will you do with the answer? Even supposing it is clear and unambiguous which, looking at the answers given now, is not brilliantly the case.

I don't think you need research to realize that poor people tend not to be able to afford a long education, as they need to work and make a living sooner rather than later in life. Or - do you only mean once people are in an academic institution?

@einpoklum most developed countries have government grants, subsidies and/or loans available for students. Why would poor people need to stop their education to work?

@BrtH: 1. Those are mitigation mechanisms for the problem of not being able to afford education, indicating its existence. 2. Loads are super-problematic, as the example of the US student debt crisis shows. 3. Those grants-and-subsidies would typically not cover most of what students pay, as otherwise the state could simply fund the academic institutions instead of students paying tuition (which is indeed what happens in many countries).

Why would there not be a correlation between wealth and admission rates and successful higher education when the former is at least in part a prerequisite for the latter as education costs money?? Isn't that in principle like asking "is there a correlation between wealth and driving supercars?"?

This question is a shopping question since it asks for any research or resources. It is also vague and too broad. It may have different answers from a country to another, from a field of study to another, from a type of university (e.g. private institutes, public universities, technical schools, etc.) to other ones. Very interesting question for a panel discussion or a volume of a journal, but I find it to be out of scope of this community because of too many reasons, and consequently marked it as off-topic.

I supposed this would be an excellent 'type' of question for this site since it's something which can be answered exactly. From the answers, it seems clear to me that in every country more or less the same thing is happening disqualifying that point in your comment (good thing it came late for this point :P). Also, I choose the answer with green tick based on the Quality of answer. The rest of the answers were very good as well in terms of content, but Cag's answer, was in my opinion, the most well written (hence, most upvoted (iguess?) ) . @enthu

Hi Buraian, When I see 'Is there any research [...]' in the title, this may be a good question to ask from 'search engines'. When I see that each answer covers a country, as Sursula mentions, the answer may vary depending on the countries we look at. By the way, I may be wrong and more probably your question will remain opened (based on the votes it has received so far). Anyway, the comments is not a good place to chat on our points of view, so I won't continue to duel on my ideas. I am most glad you found the posts useful, and thanks for contributing to Academia.SE. :)

In the US, the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 selected a "nationally representative cohort" of 10th grade (~16 year old) students in 2002 and followed up on them in 2012 to see how far they had gotten. This study quantified economic status by equally weighting "their parents' occupation, highest level of education, and income."
The results are here, but the bottom line is that:

for those in the top quartile, 60% got a bachelor's degree or higher
for those in the bottom quartile, only 14% did.

This is a well-regarded study, and the results are striking. My concern with this analysis, however, is that you asked about "wealth," but income comprises only 20% of this study's "economic status" variable. The rest of it takes into account the parents' educational status and careers. So, unemployed parents with tons of student debt could conceivably end up in the top quartile, while rich parents without a college degree could end up in a lower quartile.
This New York Times Article shows a simpler analysis: college attendance vs. parents' income percentile. This blog post redraws the curve showing college attendance vs. income in dollars. The latter is particularly striking:

For family incomes of $50K, ~40% of children attend college (the exact number is a little hard to read on the graph).
For family incomes of $200K+, ~90% of children attend college.

It's not possible to infer causation from this: did the extra money open doors directly (e.g., for tutors, private schools, fancy summer programs)? Or is there some other explanation (e.g, that parents whose parenting style engenders college attendance also tend to be rich)?
More broadly, questions like this are plagued by the definitions:

How do you quantify "academic performance"? Grades? Test scores? Merely attending college, as in the study above? Any proposed definition will attract criticism.
Defining "wealth" is a bit more straightforward, but still challenging. Income alone overlooks several complications, such as debt and the local cost of living. Total net worth has similar challenges.

Hence, it's unlikely that any number from any study would be universally accepted; the two studies listed above seem to be the best that we have.

I'm not convinced that attending college (measured in your NYT example) really corresponds to "academic performance". It probably does correspond for the lower-income groups, where college attendance often becomes possible only by winning a scholarship. But for the wealthier groups, college attendance may be just a matter of the parents' willingness to pay, regardless of academic performance.

Note that income is not the same as wealth (i.e., net worth). But there may in fact be no studies on the latter. Perhaps income info is easier to obtain (e.g. from tax data)?

These are not analyses of academic performance, they are analyses of academic acceptance and completion which is a very different thing.  It is obvious that in the U.S., financial means significantly affects the likelihood of applying for, attending and completing academic degrees.   The question however was not phrased with a basis on these measures, but rather on the basis of test scores and admission rates, neither of which are mentioned in this answer, nor AFAIK in the referenced articles.

An interesting definition of "wealth": "This study quantified economic status by equally weighting "their parents' occupation, highest level of education, and income" (?) or is that clearly a proxy for something other, as college professors (a notable occupation), assumed highly academically rated with modest income is clearly not the portrait of the wealthy.

I think this might vary across countries. I can give you an overview on Germany.
On this website, an offcial report on academic education from 2020 looks at the socioeconomic status of university attendants from entering university to PhD. It is only in German, but some of the main points can be gathered easily from the graphs even without knowledge of German:
People with academic parents (and thus presumably also a higher economic status) are three times more likely to go to university, 4 times more likely to obtain a bachelors degree and 10 times more likely to complete a PhD compared to those coming from a non-academic household. On all tiers (BA,MA,PhD), the number of drop-outs is much higher for people from non-academic households.
Reasons given are that more students from non-academic households are more likely to study part-time, as they are more likely working on the side. 72% of university drop-outs from non-academic households do so because of financial reasons - even though university education is free in Germany.

I'm fairly certain that being able to dedicate all the time to your studies and not worry about money is universally helpful. A country would have to invest into science so heavily that both stipends and wages are higher in the academia than any other sector so that financial aspects are fully aligned with academic success. Maybe there is such a country of course but I'm yet to hear of it :)

The question relates to a wealth effect and, especially in select countries like America, associating PhD families as a prominent constituent of the wealthy class (more likely just upper middle) is a stretch, in my opinion.

In Australia, the Department of Education, Skills and Employment (DESE) has conducted some crude analysis on the correlation between education level and wealth.  This analysis does not go down into the details of academic performance beyond segmenting into groups based on highest education level.  Nevertheless, as with many other studies on this topic, they find a substantial correlation between education and wealth.

Can you go into further detail? How substantial is that correlation? Yes, I know that it's probably all in the paper you linked, but stack exchange answers should be valuable even after all the links in it break.

The link to the article answers the title question, so I'm happy to leave the details for the reader to peruse from the linked source.

This addresses the converse question: higher educational attainment is associated with successively greater future wealth. (The summary divides people aged 30-65 into six categories ranging from highschool-dropout to masters/doctorate, looks at different kinds of asset wealth; apparently controlling for income/age/gender/occupation does not alter the trend.)

There is no converse question with statistical correlation; it is a symmetric operator.

On the question “Is there any research showing a correlation between wealth and academic performance?”, interestingly in America, we have an extensive parochial school educational system. Here is a report with statistics as available here, to quote:

Math and reading are included in the most recent Digest of Education Statistics, published in February 2021 by the National Center for Education Statistics. The NAEP science scores were released Tuesday in conjunction with a press conference.
“Every year for the last 20 years, Catholic schools have outperformed public schools on NAEP tests—reading, math, science, computer literacy, geography, history,” said Sister Dale McDonald, PBVM, director of Public Policy and Educational Research for the National Catholic Education Association. “We’re happy to have our achievement validated by an outside, public, federal agency.” …NAEP, also known as The Nation’s Report Card, assesses academic achievement using the frameworks developed by the National Assessment Governing Board. The assessment measures student progress in grades 4, 8, and 12.

Now, Catholic schools are part of the private school population but have fees generally accessible by a large portion of middle class Americans, who would not consider themselves as wealthy.
As such, while there may be an overall seemingly significant correlation between wealth and academic performance, clearly wealth is not a causative variable, given the statistics presented. More likely, it is just a proxy variable for other beneficial characteristics including hard work, discipline and family support, also demonstrated in the more successful wealthy families, that generally promotes good academic performance.

Hard work, discipline and family support presumably also correlate well with education achievement but what makes you think that wealth is a proxy for these variables? Do you have any statistic that shows that wealthy families do better on hard work, discipline and family support?

There is a huge literature in sociology on inequality in educational opportunities. A fairly recent review of that international literature can be found here:
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.31.041304.122232

From the abstract, it's not clear how the linked paper is related to the question. Could you please expand your answer to summarize and include the relevant conclusions?


text:
What is the purpose of asking whether a prospective grad student would attend the program in the absence of financial aid?
I need financial support to join a specific university. There is a question in the Master's application that says "Will you be willing to join the program even if you didn't receive financial aid? "
If I answered No to this question, would that mean that if I got accepted in the university but without financial aid I would receive a rejection letter from the university?
If I answered Yes, would that decrease my chances in getting a financial aid?

(1) yes. (2) probably. Is it a tick-box, or  do you have a bit of space to give a one-sentence explanation?

It's a tick box

One way or the other, I advise you to answer honestly.

@aparente001 Definitely. Thank you for your advice. I just hoped there was a way I can still know the university's decision about my application regardless of the financial aid.

I don't think you can know that. Suppose they have X places but only Y scholarships. So they'd choose the top Y candidates for the scholarship and fill the rest with the best remaining candidates who agree to come without aid. If someone isn't chosen at round 1 but needs a scholarship, they won't even consider them at round 2, probably.

I have a family member who was accepted to a U.S. PhD program in a context like that, and they were basically milked for tuition indefinitely with no intention to graduate them, until they switched to a different program. So beware.

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


text:
What is the timeline for graduate admission in Japanese Universities? When should I apply; when should I contact supervisors?
Can anyone give me a general idea of the timeline for graduate admission application in Japanese Universities? Such as

When's the prescreening evaluation starts and how's it evaluated?
When's the good time to start sending emails to supervisors?
Is there a different timeline if I want to attend the fall semester?

I have been through the graduate school websites of different universities, but it seems very complicated.

See https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/177170/

@Allure thank you. It was really helpful.

At this moment, it's very difficult to give a clear timeline, although the following information is generally correct (link):

Application periods generally last from June through October or November and, in some cases, January. Most schools admit in April while other schools also offer options to begin studies in the fall. In many cases, application timelines are the same regardless of your intended start date. Please check with the school you are interested in for specific dates.

As mentioned, every university has its own specific date for submitting the applications. There are universities that have a deadline of 1 November, others have 12 November, and others might last until the end of the month. Another problem is that the pandemic might cause the universities to make last-minute changes to the deadline dates, so you need to check their websites for news frequently. Lastly, not all universities allow for students to enter in the fall semester, so that is another thing that you need to double-check in advance with each university.
Edit: for most universities, you need to contact and secure an advisor before applying, but there are universities that don't need you to secure an advisor beforehand (in fact, some universities even forbid students from trying to email professors). It's unfortunate that the situation is so confusing, and this is one reason why most students start preparing the application 6 months or 1 year in advance. Keep checking those university websites in the next few days, you might find some that still accept applications (however, I admit that I don't know which ones). Also, keep sending your emails to professors, according to the template that you already prepared (its contents are fine). If the advisors do not respond to you, it will be because they are too busy or full of students, not because of your letter's contents.

thank you so much. Should I mention the year I want to commence my program in my email? For now my email subject is this, "Prospective graduate for October enrollment 2022"

@afsana rahman Yes, it's best if you mention the year in your email subject and the actual email contents. Your current email subject seems fine to me. Try to contact professors in January, and until then, use this time to carefully read all of the application guidelines, and prepare all of the papers in advance, so that if you get accepted by a professor, you can get things ready quickly. As I mentioned in another comment, if you wait until the last minute to get anything done in Japan, that is a recipe for disaster. Be sure to ask many questions to university admissions staff. Good Luck!


text:
How appropriate is sharing a recommendation letter with a student nowadays?
I've been asked by a student in the US to write a recommendation letter.  I've not written a recommendation letter before (I generally work with younger students), but I know the student well enough to write the letter and he is deserving of a positive letter.
A quick search online tells me that there is much disagreement about the ethical ramifications of either sharing a letter with a student or keeping it a secret.  (As referenced in this question)  Since that question is almost 10 years old now, and it was for college students, I'd like to ask this one:
Is is appropriate for a US student to be allowed to view a letter sent on his behalf?  Why or why not?  And, what are some reasons that I should or should not offer to share the letter?

I have edited the question so that it does not reference undergrad admissions (which is off topic here). Of course, high school teacher recommenders may follow different norms than academic recommenders, but we can only advise about the latter.

Don't share. This relieves letters from the pressure to satisfy the candidate and them being confidential makes them more believable from the perspective of the recipient.
A second, less common, but still possible reason: the student may be disappointed even with a letter that you thought was strong. In some cases, unfortunate formulations may actually trigger lawsuits.
There is no benefit in sharing the letters, but many disadvantages.
In cases where candidates have the right to request access to the recommendation letters, professional candidates know this and waive that right. The only reason not to waive that right is if you suspect the recommender will not provide a constructive letter.
TL;DR: keep it confidential to keep its value.

I have a different view than was expressed by Captain Emacs. I don't claim that you should always show the letter, but think that it is ethically fine to do so. But ethics also assumes that you give an honest appraisal to the institution requesting letters.
When students ask for letters, it is, IMO, valid to let them know if it can't be entirely positive and say why. Give them the opportunity to seek letters elsewhere. You aren't infallible, after all.
I have experience, in fact, that a poorly worded letter by a non-native speaker cost a candidate dearly as the wording gave the exact opposite impression to the reader than intended by the writer. The intent was to be superlative, but that was negated entirely by poor choice of wording. This only came to light years later.
A student might be disappointed, but that might actually be warranted so that they have a more realistic sense of their position.
I would not, however, be very happy in a system that required such sharing.

Wouldn't it be better for a recommender to get advice from a native or near-native speaker or from consulting recommendation advice on the internet? Recommendations are one of the overlooked, but most important part of an academic's job, as they define the future of our students. So, a recommender should learn it properly and not from feedback from the junior candidates who may themselves not really know how to write a recommendation properly. For instance, I know that in Germany, students often underemphasize their own achievements in self-evaluations.

@CaptainEmacs In the case I cited, a colleague of the writer saw the recommendation, but only years later and noted the problem with the candidate. Far too late to make a difference. Yes, it would have been better to have had someone look at it, but not many would think to do so, I'm afraid.

Would showing the letter to the candidate have changed something? The candidate needs also to know what an appropriate letter looks like.


text:
Can I recommend my own [non-academic] article to an author in a peer review?
I am currently peer-reviewing a paper for a journal. I will recommend acceptance with majors, though the journal has asked for any other citations which may be useful to be presented to the author.
I have written one such article for an online publication which was published a few years ago. It is not an academic article, but is it extremely relevant to the author's paper. Still, the author would not read it or cite it if it weren't for my recommendation. Also, this article is written under a pseudonym, so the citation would never come back to me.
Should I recommend this article or leave it out of the review?

If you think it’s relevant, then sure, recommend it. That would be the right thing to do even if it wasn’t written under a pseudonym.

If your article is relevant to the paper then it is desirable to recommend it.  You should bear in mind that reviewers are usually selected precisely because they are experts in the relevant subject matter, which often means they have published relevant things in that area.  In some cases, a reviewer will have written one or more papers that are relevant to what they're reviewing, and indeed, this may even be the basis for their selection as a reviewer.
In this kind of situation, the editors already know who you are, so they will notice if you recommend citation of your own paper.  If the editors have any concerns about the impartiality of this recommendation, they are free to view your paper themselves to determine its relevance, and let the author know to ignore that recommendation if needed.  If you really want to head off any possible issue, you can specifically draw this aspect of your review to the attention of the editor when you submit your review (there is usually a section to allow direct comments to the editor that the author does not see).

This is an ethical question about exploiting your role as a reviewer. If you cannot possibly profit from the recommendation and if you make it clear that acceptance of your recommendation does not influence your evaluation of the paper, then there can be no exploitation. The suitability of the citation will depend on the outlet. Online can mean many things, from blog to prestigious journal, but you will now better.
You can clear this with the editor. Editors tend to be reasonable people and no reasonable person would think that you are doing something unethical.


text:
Bored with PhD - should I tell my supervisor?
I am in the fourth year of a part-time PhD. Lately I have found it very difficult to stay focused. I was really motivated at the start of this academic year, but my supervisor wanted me to do things in a slightly different way to how I was doing them: I wanted to collect field data from all over my territory sporadically - this would have made things fresh and interesting and I would have weaved things together at the end - whereas they wanted me to focus on one thing over a period of time.
Since I had this discussion with my supervisor things have fallen really flat. I have no motivation, I'm continually procrastinating and I keep making excuses at tutorials (a lot of which are true, but they haven't affected things quite to the extent that I have made out).
Should I be honest with my supervisor and tell them the way they suggested I do things doesn't work for me? Or should I just force myself to continue in the way they suggested? I often think that if I did things 'my way' I would have more success in collecting field data but if I do things 'their way' I just end up more bored. This is not to say my supervisor hasn't made good suggestions - she has in many cases - but this is not one that makes me more productive.
I am not thinking of quitting, but something in the methodology has to change.

Why did you sign up for field work?

I would think that framing it as "being bored" isn't going to be helpful, even if it is true. But you can certainly have a new conversation, suggesting that you think you would make more progress with a different strategy.
And burn-out is pretty common at your stage of things, so maybe it is that. I don't know whether telling the PI that you are starting to feel burned out and need something to refresh you would be helpful or not, but likely better than "bored". But it is a question of knowing the supervisor well enough to judge their likely reaction.
And be sure to telegraph that you aren't at the point of quitting.

The answer to this is 2 parts. Part 1: If the suggestion from your Professor was to ensure a solid study design for the research project.  I would chalk this up to the tedium of research.  I often mention to potential students that the PhD teaches you the tedium of research. Research isn't always interesting all the time. Sometimes to get the work done you have to some repetitive and uninteresting tasks.  Part 2: If the quality of the study design isn't affected and you'd prefer to do it another way that is just more interesting to you.  I think it is fine to bring up to your advisor that this other way "excites" you more.  And ask if there is a way you can do that instead or in the very least incorporate it into the project.

I think your plan of a goon should include the goal you would like to accomplish. As a fourth year PhD I would guess you are reasonably close to graduating. What are your plans for after graduation? How will the current research impact those plans? Is it worth trying to accelerate the path to graduation or is it better to work on a methodology/project that sets you up for your next steps?
I think answers to those questions should drive your decisions. Of course though to echo others: Sating you are bored is very unlikely to accomplish anything useful.


text:
How can grad students file complaints when the university fails to perform basic functions like providing a computer?
I'm a UK PhD student and my uni recently decided to open the offices and allow us back on campus.
Since I didn't start with the new intake (I started and worked since January at home because campis was closed) I haven't had a computer provided to me.
It was ordered in August and a promised install date was the 30th September (when campus opened). Well, as you can probably guess this didn't happen and after weeks of emails sent by my supervisor, IT said they haven't got the machine after all and can't provide even a standard desktop for me to work on.
I'm supposed to have an i7 workstation to develop my simulations but they're backordered by months (we weren't told).
My supervisor said the best bet is for him to write to the graduate admin team and request an extension to my PhD work time to cover for their blunder.
I'm not happy and want to make a formal complaint. what's the procedure? I literally can't use the office I'm contracted to work in. There isn't a computer in it nor is there one I can use.

I think your supervisor is going to be a much better resource than us, and the answer is going to be very specific to your university if not your very specific circumstances. At a minimum, though, what is it you're hoping to achieve? I can't see even a general answer without including that.

I want a computer provided so I can work in the office I'm contracted to

Ok, I don't think it's feasible that anyone here has a magic procedure to get that to happen. How does your supervisor think you should proceed? What does IT say are your next steps? Have you asked them about alternatives? Is there a temporary solution you can use in the meantime? Do you have a personal machine you can get started with or does someone else have a machine they aren't using all the time?

Unfortunately, month-long delays for computers and accessories are common these days. I hope you can find some other computer you can use in the meantime.

They don't even have a basic one I can loan. That to me is unacceptable. I'm not expecting a magic wand here.

Okay - what other options have you tried?

I suggest reviewing this. "Poll questions" like "how formal are your meetings" or "what are your hours" are not a good fit here, but an answerable question would make a good title. I have edited your title along these lines; please try to ask "answerable" questions in future.

"That to me is unacceptable" Do you want the magic words that fix the supply chain?

It's worth noting that the world has been experiencing a pandemic that has killed nearly 5 million people worldwide in the past couple of years. While things may seem to be back to normal where you are, that's not the case everywhere. Some disruption of the supply chain is not unexpected.

Filing a formal complaint does not sound like a good idea at all.
First of all, there are no "formal complaint about a failure to provide lab equipment form" that I know of. Your complaint will likely be a letter to one of the offices higher in the hierarchy than that of your direct supervisor. You don't seem to have a good reason to complain about your supervisor actions in that situation, either - what is the purpose of complaint then instead of keeping sorting it out?
Would you feel happier for it if you register a formal complaint and receive a formal response saying "unfortunately, due to the extraordinary circumstances taking form of global supply chain disruptions we were unable to fulfill you request"? It's not like when it's a formal complaint, dean magically turns into a wizard and becomes able to do things they couldn't before.
Now, keeping a paper trail is very sensible in your situation. Your supervisor is your best companion here; you may pester them outlining your concerns and demanding to come up with step-by-step plans, but try to do so without antagonizing them - it'd be lot more efficient that way. "I am extremely frustrated with the state of affairs and we need to come up with the course of action where I would stop losing time (and PhD funding!) and be able to be productive" is fine. "Fix the situation ASAP or else I'll file a formal complaint to your superiors!" is not only counter-productive, it's also extremely immature in your situation.