text:
How would I fill out my employer on the graduate-school application?
I need to fill out a short history of my work experience (including volunteer). It’s not very critical for the admissions decision (they will have my CV, which is much more important), but I still need to fill it out. Anyways, I have worked as a research assistant for a professor. I was not employed by the school or the government (although I worked with people form both). My supervisor / professor was the one who paid me. In addition, I had a very similar role on my fourth-year project but was not paid. What would I put down for “employer”?

Did you volunteer in a research group associated with a university?

@Azor-Ahai No. I had a supervisor who hired me as his RA. I worked with a team of researchers that were positioned all around the country.

Who did the RA work for?

@Azor-Ahai both the school and a branch in the government

Look, if you're going to want an answer to the question "who is my employer" you're going to need to be a lot less vague. I get you want to be anonymous but you're being too vague to understand.


text:
Is it realistic to continue academic career if a supervisor is a sophist?
I was writing my bachelor's degree and that went quite bad. The reason was that my supervisor was a sophist, in my opinion. For example, when I wrote in my thesis:

"Let n be the cardinality of the set"

The professor said the proof was wrong. Then after tens of times of trial and error I changed that sentence to the form

"let n be the number of elements of the set".

He accepted it. There were tens of times such small mistakes like this and in hyphenation of a word and he just asked me to fix errors in the thesis without pointing where the mistake is.
Is my career in mathematics finished as I couldn't get along with my thesis supervisor?

Why do you think it would be finished?

This is just a bachelor's thesis. In the grand scheme of things, it won't play a very large role. Very, very few mathematicians are like this. It's a dying "teaching" form (thankfully). For the most part, mathematicians have shied away from the philosophy side of things and have really cut out the superfluous nonsense like this.

My response (and I admit I am quite often deliberately irritating to people who annoy me) would be to insert a definition above this, "Definition 1. Let the meaning in this document of 'cardinality of a set' be equivalent in every sense to that imputed by the phrase 'the number of elements in the set' " and I would leave the rest of the document as it stood. :)

Overall I find your question rather strange.  First of all the word "sophist" is rarely used to describe living people; in my experience it mostly refers to a school of teachers of rhetoric in ancient Greece.  I had to look up the dictionary definition to see what I think you mean.  The third definition here is

(loosely, by extension) One who is captious, fallacious, or deceptive in argument.

If it helps:

captious:

(obsolete) That captures; especially, (of an argument, words etc.) designed to capture or entrap in misleading arguments; sophistical.
Having a disposition to find fault unreasonably or to raise petty objections; cavilling, nitpicky

So it sounds like you think your advisor is finding fault unreasonably and making petty objections.  I have two points in response.
1) In my experience, the majority of the time students think that about their advisors, they are mistaken: the problem is actually one of miscommunication.  I think it is very likely that there are reasons for the comments your advisor has made and that you just haven't found them yet.  You wrote

after tens of times of trial and error

This is a huge red flag of poor communication.  You shouldn't be editing your thesis by "trial and error", and you shouldn't have to edit it "tens of times" to address any one sentence.  When someone tells you that a proof is wrong, you ask them why.  If they don't tell you, you double check it yourself, come back and say "I'm sorry, but I wasn't able to figure out your objection to the argument: it still looks valid to me.  Can we discuss it in detail?"  If the answer is a hard no, then more than a sophist, you would be dealing with someone who is not actually advising you.
In this case it is not even clear (to me, anyway) based on what you said that the issue lies with "cardinality" versus "number of elements".  You are not getting specific enough feedback, so how do you know that this was the problem?  That you think it was is in itself worth a followup conversation: the cardinality of a finite set is indeed the number of elements of that set, so why would one be acceptable and the other not?  You should find out.
2) Assuming that your advisor actually is captious, fallacious, deceptive, or is totally unwilling to explain himself: those are all bad things about him.  Why would his bad qualities ruin your career?  I could say more, but I'd need to hear more about why you're concerned.  At the moment this concern is at the level of a non sequitur to the rest of your question.

I think you make good points, but there are some wholly difficult "mathematicians." I've known a few who were a bit tyrannical and obsessed over minor details like the ones OP has mentioned. Undoubtedly you've probably run into a couple yourself. It's far from being common but it happens. :/ I think the reason OP is questioning themself is that this is probably not the first time such confrontation has happened and it's making OP question their worth as a mathematician. (Read: self-esteem issues.)

@Cameron: Undoubtedly probably.  But obsessed with minor details is one thing.  Being unwilling or unable to explain your obsessions to your advisee is something else: I have never seen that.  And not to sound unsympathetic, but: witnessing strange or pathological behavior of others does not make me question my self worth.  I'm going to need a little more information to really understand the OP's concerns.

Completely understandable. I haven't met people quite this.. difficult in mathematics (close, but not quite this bad) but I've known the type outside of mathematics. Some people enjoy the ego trip. Hopefully OP can keep it together enough to get through this and enjoy a master's/PhD with an advisor they get along with well.

It seems unreasonable to fault a question because in this particular instance you had to look up the definition of one of the words. ;)

@Calchas: Calling the question "strange" is not exactly faulting it: I didn't downvote or vote to close.  And I did know the word "sophist" but I needed help to understand the way the OP used it.  ("Sophistry" usually means slick-sounding but fallacious arguments, especially those that are made to win an argument rather than to get at the truth.  That doesn't square with what the OP describes.)  The combination of this unusually used word with the lack of logical connection between the flaws of the advisor and the OP's career makes the question asked in the title...rather strange.

Is my career in mathematics finished as I couldn't get along with my thesis supervisor?

If your account of the story is accurate, your advisor is either evil or a didactical failure. I would rather say that if you actually got along with this style of advising, this would count against you. So, this does not say anything against you and unless you want to specialise a particular subfield of mathematics that you can only pursue under this supervisor (which is very unlikely), your career is not finished. Choose a better advisor for your next thesis and that is it. The only drawback you suffer from is probably the sup-par grade of your bachelor thesis and not having the experience of writing a thesis under regular conditions.
As a sidenote: If your account is accurate, I would consider this a denial of supervision and thus inappropriate behaviour. You should take this issue to your faculty’s student body (or similar) as well as to appropriate people from the faculty (e.g., a professor responsible for student issues). This may not have any positive effect on you, but at least you can spare other students your fate.
However, you should also check whether you are at least part of the problem: If a supervisor acts as you described to everybody, it’s unlikely that you did not encounter any big red warning signs before choosing him or at least after starting your thesis work:

News of such bad supervising should spread quickly amongst other students.
The supervisor’s workgroup should be comparably small.
Other members of the workgroup are likely to have informed you about this behaviour.

Did you in any way communicate with your supervisor about these issues, such as asking him to explain your errors to you? In particular, consider that your supervisor may not have realised that he told you ten times that something is wrong and just thought that at each instance he was pointing out a new error or an error he had missed before – which would likely not render the advising good, but at least it would not be abysmal anymore.

Before escalating, the OP should talk with him and explain how the method is not working. If things don't change, then, escalate.

@Davidmh: Right, though if the asker did not already talk with the supervisor about this, we very likely have a case where the asker is part of the problem.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
To stay or leave PhD after having completed 4 years
I apologize if this is too long a post, but I could really do with a few
pointers about my current situation.
I am 25 years old and I will complete 4 years of my PhD in a computational applied mathematics  program in the US in August 2013.
My bachelors was in pure mathematics.  I had gotten interested in numerical analysis in that time and so I had applied to my current PhD program. I have been under my adviser for 3 years now (the first year at my university is spent in coursework).  A PhD at my university is usually 5 years long.
Right now, I have almost nothing to report in the way of research, and consequently no publications , no conference submissions. I am getting increasingly nervous and frustrated about whether or not I will make it, even if I give myself an extra year by funding myself.
My adviser has consistently been making me work on uninteresting stuff, where most of the work involved is purely technical like writing brain-dead code, with almost zero chance for innovation.
BREAKDOWN OF MY PHD
After monkeying around reading research papers, in the first year under my adviser,  he got very confident about getting an industrial project and got me working on that, in anticipation that the contract would go through. At the end of the year we found out that we did not get the project.
In the second year, he said he wanted to get into GPU parallel computing
and to implement a few fluid dynamics algorithms. I slogged over many manuals, spent months and months writing and debugging code, all the time thinking that
this would be used to do some simulations he was interested in and get them published. But at the end of the second year my professor completely lost interest in these numerical techniques he was making my implement.
Seeing his capricious attitude, I almost wanted to quit then and there itself. But I decided to just stick it out, thinking it might be 'just a phase'.  Due to funding issues, he once more got me working in the third year on another project which essentially involved writing a lot of stupid code, and running endless benchmark tests.
I have basically ended up trying to do a PhD in mathematics without any mathematics in this PhD.
Finally, a couple of weeks back, I told him that I had had enough, and to give me some actual
problems/material to work with. After about an hour of discussion, and informing him that I was ready to fund my self if required, he finally gave me a couple of possible starting points for what I hope would actually turn out to be worthwhile research.
MY QUESTIONS

I do realize it was extremely foolish waiting for so long before putting my foot down, and not having the courage to speak up before. My adviser is well-regarded by colleagues in his field, and maybe I was subconsciously scared of
contradicting his handling of my PhD for pissing him off.
But even though he has now suggested problems which do seem interesting, after having had so many negative experiences  I am very skeptical about the future. How should I proceed, and what are the factors I should consider ?
Frankly, I am feeling very burned out.  In the way of future plans, I have been toying with the idea of dropping out,  getting a break for a few months and then sitting for some entrance exams for a Masters in Economics in some good universities back in my home country. I always found economics very interesting through my undergrad and more so these past few-months while studying it has a hobby.
Continuing would require me to stay on for an extra year till August 2015,
which leaves me about 17 months tops from now, before I start hunting in academic job market. This includes about 2-3 months I will have to spend doing literature review on the proposed topics and learning the requisite mathematical tools.
So if I decide to stay on, how should I re-structure my study/research time and the relationship with my adviser in these 17 months so that I can make some head-way.

Maybe 17 months is too short a time? Any suggestions would be really helpful !!

What did your advisor say when you asked this question?  (If you can't ask your advisor this question, you're doomed.  Walk away now.)

@JeffE What left me somewhat aghast during my discussion with him was that he confessed that he too did not find my current assigned project(which is industrial)interesting.Also,he knows pretty little in that particular area.With regards to question 1,I am currently not sure how to breach the topic of leaving and being skeptical about the future.For question 2,whether 17 months is too short,he said he was hopeful(like he always does with other projects)but all would basically depend on how much progress I make(Duh!).Maybe I should ask again.Are there any other pertinent questions I shouldraise

I am seeing myself in a similar situation in two years. My question is: do you think you could push your code as the contributions to the packages that solve similar problems that you were trying to solve? (become a contributor or even co-author) If yes, do you think it may help your situation?

You are young ... I am sure you will make it. But if you are not happy with your field, professor, or university .. then run away now ! ... I am sure you have more experience in research now .. so if you switch to another topic, it will be easier for you to tackle it. My advice .. don't leave your PhD (take a break .. that's fine, but don't give up your PhD). You need to know (learn) how things work in Academic Research. They re really nothing but few tricks you need to learn .. if you get that, then everything will be fine.

What do you want to do with the Ph.D if you stick with the program and get one? It appears that you want to go into academia. Would your proposed topic be a topic that has two or three years worth of work in it and attract the interest of grant agencies?

@Irwin Frankly, at this point, I just don't see myself doing  what I am currently working on 5 years down the line, since there is almost no central 'spirit' to my PhD because of the reasons above. My primary interests (broadly speaking) were in numerical analysis and I wanted to get into academia to research in that area. But I am sure that the stuff I was being assigned to work on  won't be something grant agencies will take an interest in.

@RoboKaren: Good edit.  Poor advising is not the same thing as mental illness.

This question highlights why it's important for departments to have thesis committees, so students aren't left solely to the whims of their advisor. It's not perfect, but it really does help. I wish the poster good luck!

may i know any update on your situation now, i hope you completed PhD. As i am going through somehow same problems.

One thing that you need to consider is the way quitting is going to look in your CV. If I was a prospective employer and I saw that you spent 4 years in a PhD program without getting a PhD (or even publications, for the matter), that would be a huge red flag. I'd wonder if you spent those years doodling on facebook and hanging out in cafes. I could even reason that perhaps you are just not as bright as you claim to be. Either way, that's not the kind of person  I would want in my company. If you quit now, you should really find a way to preempt this kind of concerns.
With respect to time, I can tell you from experience that 17 months is more than enough provided that (i) you have a clearly defined dissertation topic; (ii) you work hard (and here we are talking about 60-to-70 hours/week; one of the guys in my cohort wrote his entire dissertation in 12 months and his girlfriend complained that, during those 12 months it was almost like she didn't have a boyfriend at all); and (iii) you have a good supporting network of peers and mentors to keep you going in the right direction. I'd say that, at this stage, (i) and (iii) are the most important points. If you can produce a proof-of-concept paper within the next couple of months  and a couple of more experienced people agree that it is a worthy project, then you've overcome the largest obstacle.

I just wanted to share my experience with you as I am going through almost the exact same situation.
After a promising two year start and killing my physics classwork and getting my Masters in physics, I picked an adviser and took over a project that a graduate student, who was graduating as I was joining the group, had been working on.  Like you, I spent almost all my time coding (a good deal of it CUDA programming) or dealing with certain mathematical problems.  I've spent approximately 5-10% of my time on physics and feel that I've done more reproduction of others research, albeit in a more innovative and optimized way, than answering new questions.
I chose to use my time guiding these different projects to learn job-market relevant skills.  I use my status as a student to take advantage of school-specific career fairs and professional development.  What I've found is that there is quite a demand for physicists (and even more so computational applied mathematicians) out there.  It also opened my mind to the types of skills the job market is looking for.
As a result, I've found my anxiety concerning lack of research results has dropped off dramatically!   The burnt out feeling I had dissipated considerably as I started seeing that the skills I was learning directly contributed to my future success.  I'd highly recommend you start the job search now and try and pick a project that you enjoy that would make you even more attractive to an employer you'd enjoy working for.  Also, as for restructuring your relationship, I agree with you that you should indeed take more of a lead in your own research topics.  Find projects that force you to learn modern, in-demand techniques and methods, especially those YOU find interesting.  It'll help you from feeling burnt out.
Don't worry about quitting the Ph.D.  Contrary to other answers, none of the employers I interviewed with cared about me quitting the Ph.D.  In fact, they were specifically trying to hire Masters or below.  I guess if you have your heart set on academia, then quitting the Ph.D. is an issue.  In summary, I'd just say start your job search now and tailor your studies towards employment : it'll help your motivation stay high, produce solid results and allow you to seamlessly hit the job market when you finish!
Another possibility : get an internship.  It'll help you get your foot in the door somewhere, give you some much needed professional experience on your resume and a much needed change of scenery.  I find that when I take a break and come back to a project, I can hit it all the harder and get over some of the bad humps.

Your answer seems suitable for people wanting to go to industry. But, the OP specificly said "before I start hunting in academic job market" and "I wanted to get into academia to research in that area.".

I don't see why it can't be applied to academic "employers."  You need to go somewhere after you get your Ph.D. and discovering your passions now well certainly help you get a good and appropriate post-doc.

Then why did you say "Don't worry about quitting the Ph.D"?

Because worrying about quitting the Ph.D makes slogging through getting the Ph.D all the more stressful.  Life isn't over if you bail on this piece of paper.  I've never quit anything in my life.  I hate my Ph.D research.  When I was not even entertaining the thought of quitting the Ph.D, it made life miserable to the point of despair.  When I allowed myself the fantasy of quitting the Ph.D, I realized that life would not end and that life was actually pretty decent.  Research became a lot easier to focus on and the feeling of burntout-edness went away.

That's an odd idea how to stay in Academia.

It has worked for me for the past 2 years ;)  Fake it til' you make it, right?

I had far more worse situations in my life than leaving a Ph.D, all were hard decisions. When something does not work, it is like trying to support a building severely hit by earthquake using temporary solutions. The problem is that you can never build a skyscraper and will always got stuck with a few floor tall building all over your life.
If you demolish your useless building, in the future you can build a strong skyscraper. Off course you will be homeless for some time, but you are still very young with many options. So if you can get a Master's degree instead of Ph.D definitely leave it. I think your advisor will also look this favoroubly. Even he can write good recommendation letters for you.

It really helps if you take some time off and get a job in your field if you can. That way it serves to rejuvenate your mind and gives you a breather. By doing so you can hit three birds with one stone: 1) you take a break and feel better 2) you have some money to use 3) you become more interested in other subjects you never thought you would have liked, such as technology, fashion, the business world, different languages and culture, etc. I didn't say to quit, I said to take some time off and "find yourself, to rediscover yourself". Will it help? Maybe or maybe not. Perhaps if you look at yourself in comparison to the rest of the world. You're doing a PhD which is one of the most prestigious and most sought after degree in the world. Not many people are able to do that let alone get a bachelor degree. Be grateful. Some people don't even have enough money to afford a days meal or a roof over their head. Hell be lucky you're not in combat or war. Sometimes it helps to appreciate with what you have. That may give you motivation to keep going. Maybe PhD isn't for you. Maybe it is for you. maybe you're meant to become the next Bill Gates or the next president. Who knows. My point is no matter what happens always keep your head up, stay confident, and don't ever give up. Take a break. But don't give up. No don't worry you are not alone. The fact that you made it this far shows you are a winner (Charlie Sheen haha just kidding). Don't give up doc.

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


text:
Should a postdoc talk about his depression with his mentor?
I am a postdoc in mathematics and I work in the US. Two months ago I was diagnosed with moderate depression. In retrospect, I can  say that I must have starting suffering from it last spring, though I was completely unaware of it at the time. I am currently under treatment, and symptoms are getting better. In particular my work rhythm is back to be  usual. Anyway, I was told that I should continue the treatment for a few other months for safety.
I was wondering whether I should talk about this to my mentor, coauthors or somebody at the department. On one hand, my concern is that they might have realized my slowing down and thought that I was lazy or that I was not interested in doing research on our projects; on the other hand, I am afraid of being stigmatized in the future as a non-reliable person because I had depression.

I am afraid of being stigmatized in the future as a non-reliable person because I had depression. People lead successful lives despite challenges, including those with depression.

@Compass I think postdocs tag suits this question.

@Compass: Unfortunately, not everyone understands this.

@EnthusiasticStudent It is not a scenario that applies only to post-docs, IMO. It could apply to teachers, PhDs, grad students, and undergrads.

Related at workplace.SE.com: Should an employee tell their supervisor about their depression?

There is a middle ground between not saying anything and telling someone in your department that you have depression: you can say you've had some health issues (without going into details), which are now resolved.

If it gets bad enough that starts to interfere with your work you'll have to bring it up. A friend of mine started their post-doc a few months ago, and has pretty severe bouts of depression with self-harm and has been hospitalized a few times. They have a good relationship with their boss and manage to do good work, but it's definitely a challenge. If your symptoms are getting better and it's not causing major disruptions you can probably get away with not telling anyone.

To add to Compass's comment, depression in mathematics is pretty common (and some people leave because another, more social career is healthier for them).  Most mathematicians I know would be understanding about this, and talking to them may even help you cope with it, particularly if they had similar experiences.

Is there any special reason to think your mentor will be supportive or have any advice?  How is the relationship with your mentor generally? How long remains of your job contract? Has your mentor/colleagues/coauthor actually said anything explicitly?  If you've found your work rhythm, and there's a decent amount of time remaining in the postdoc, then my gut feeling is not to say anything.  On the other hand it might be helpful to discuss it with an older trusted person.

I'm a tenured faculty member with chronic depression. Even though one of the flareups was in my early twenties, I didn't tell anyone in graduate school. Because of the stigma involved, I'm  unsure even now whether I would advise telling your advisor about this unless you were absolute sure that he would be receptive. The worst case is that he could view you as less than capable and won't push you when he should. Even now (when I'm relatively open about this), I have  used the gloss of personal or family issues when going through particularly difficult times.
But you should also not struggle alone. Your school should have mental health services. There may also be an ombudsman for student affairs. You may also find many of your peers also have mental health concerns. Create a strong support network for yourself.
I also agree with one of the commenters that depression is a chronic condition. I've had several severe bouts through my 20 year career -- and moments when the sun came out and everything felt great. I no longer hold the illusion that any sunny period will last and that I'm free of depression forever. The OP should also plan on what they will do if their depression is chronic, pharma-resistant, or remitting.  That being said, I believe that some aspects of academia are good for people with depression (flexible schedules and being able to work from home for some of us) although there are obviously a lot of negatives as well (toxicity in some departments, incessant deadlines, stress before tenure, contingent employment etc.).

Because you're in the position of a professor, perhaps you can also answer from the professor's POV. If you were the student's mentor, would you want to know? Not the specifics, but just a "Oh, I'm having some personal issues" as you've indicated.

Because I have depression myself and open about this status to my students, I would not have an issue. However, I have seen other faculty use the mental health status of students against them in faculty meeting. Maybe I'm in a particularly toxic department, but it does happen and so I would not divulge unless you are entirely sure that the professor would be receptive. You can't stuff that genie back into the bottle.

I no longer hold the illusion that any sunny period will last and that I'm free of depression forever. This really is the key. After realizing this fact, I've been more cautious and less frustrated with myself if I fell back into that same state again.

I would be particular about who you share this with in your department, and outside of your regular circles. I would ask myself, how close am I with the people I am considering confiding in - in particular, how much have they been open about their own lives?  If I am not certain, can I be somewhat open with them, without being detailed - can I, for instance, clarify that I had a family or personal issue impacting my work, without specifying my condition? I would also ask myself, is the drive for me to tell someone about this, about an existing group of relationships - e.g. these people are close to you, and you feel like you're hiding something from them - or about my need to develop stronger bonds and friendships, but not necessarily with this group of people. I think it is tremendously valuable to talk about depression or other illnesses, but perhaps not always at the workplace.
I was working on my master's degree when I confided in my advisor about a medical condition, and how that had led to a period of depression and unhappiness impacting the pace of my work. We had not been deep confidantes prior to that, but she tried to be understanding, and at one point mentioned other faculty members who were dealing with similar issues. (Actually, another committee member alluded, in our meetings, to having coped with cancer - not my diagnosis, but something that made me feel so much better nonetheless.) I was then given an extension on my work by the dean after I explained my situation in writing. Everyone in this scenario was female, in a predominantly female department, in a field that encourages reflection and expression - and I still felt very vulnerable discussing my problems. Ultimately, it was the right decision for me, but I think you are right to consider the potential for problems if you discuss your experience at work.

Although my level of education and position at the learning institution I work for are not comparable to yours, and the specifics of your situation are going to be a major component in your decision; the defining issues in dilemmas such as the one you are experiencing are universal.
Being the pragmatic individual that I am, I can see (and I believe that you too understand this to be true as well) that the answer to your problem ultimately hinges on one thing and one thing only. Will the revelation of your struggle improve or hinder your career?
My husband, who works as a graphic artist has been fighting depression for his entire life, and he had a particularly nasty bout with it earlier this year. When he asked for my advice on the matter, I told him that because he worked for a small business whose owner is extremely involved in his work, she had a right to know due to the fact that it was directly affecting the quality of product being put out. He took my advice and has gained empathy rather than a negative stigma from his employer and colleagues.
That being said, I was hired as a high school Spanish teacher a couple years back. I was struggling with depression as well as anxiety issues. Three weeks into my first semester, the headmaster of the school learned of my conditions, stated that he never would have hired me to begin with if he had known, and asked for my letter of resignation.
Deeply understanding the need for a sense of community when illnesses such as depression arise, I would still say that so long as your work performance has returned to normal levels, you should not confide in anyone associated with your work environment. However, you may want to look into forming bonds with someone in a similar position at a different institution in conjunction with the continuation of your therapy.
Remember, a professional's reputation is one of his most important assets.

I am in the same situation doing my postdoc. Due to the micromanaging style of my PI I have been developing anxiety for a while and at the moment I write this I am totally unproductive at work. The tension is building up as my boss can see me disengaged and I decided that I have to tell him.
My plan is ask him to direct my work so I can be a robot producing data during one or two months while I assist to therapy.
I think that in this world you have to share how you feel. Once you do that you can face two situations. Or your PI doesn't show empathy, or your PI works with you to help you out.
My philosophy in live is that being honest with your feelings will make you aware of the environment where you are. If he doesn't understand and does not want to help, leave your position, that's what I will do. I think that by behaving this way you will always be surrounded with people that has empathy and is less toxic with your personality.
This way, you are moving on to find the best place for you to work.
Needless to say I apply the same with friends and colleagues, as I believe that you have to surround yourself with whom you feel comfortable with.

Depression is a burden, and one that nobody should have to carry on their own.
There are people in life who are meant to help carry the burden.  A therapist is someone who is paid to help, while a friend may be someone who wants to help.
A colleague, depending on how close you are to them, may be in more of a situation where they ought not to add to the burden.  You might tell a colleague what you are going through if you feel it is necessary for them to realize so that they don't add to your burden.
If you feel that your colleagues will not add to your burden regardless, then sharing with them would probably depend solely on how close you are to them.
This is a complicated issue, so I hope I didn't oversimplify it.

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


text:
Is it possible to get an assistant professor position that does not require doing research?
I know the Lecturer position is a purely teaching role (and can even be obtained with just a Master's degree). However, is the Assistant Professor role necessarily tied with research (or can it also be exclusively teaching as well)?
The reason I ask is because I have just finished a Master's degree and want to teach at the university or community college level. I believe obtaining a PhD will open up more doors at various universities and community colleges, and was wondering if that would enable me to land higher up academic positions that are exclusively teaching roles.
Any insight is highly appreciated!

The US, at least, is chock full of smaller colleges and a few universities that are devoted almost entirely to teaching. The phrase you are looking for is "teaching college" (or occasionally "teaching university"). The expectations for "scholarly activity" from the faculty at these institutions are much lower than at major research universities.
The downsides include:

Generally a higher teaching load. Count on at least twelve credit-hours per term.
A lack of money, space, time, equipment and assistance if you do want to do a little research.
No graduate students---these places generally only offer bachelor's degrees---and perhaps a less prepared or motivated undergraduate population from which to draw perspective research students.
Generally lower pay. Sometimes quite a bit lower.

Departments are sometimes smaller in size which means a good opportunity to develop a relationship with the major students and to mentor more than a few of them. To the degree that incoming students are less prepared but just as able you'll have a chance to really help them grow.

There have been some comments about the preparation of the student body: my "perhaps" above is a bit of a weasel word. Teaching colleges span a wide range of prestige and competitiveness, and their intake varies accordingly.
Some that are highly competitive and prestigious and are able to select a very able student body.  I'll offer the opinion that the expectations at the most competitive teaching schools looks more like those of research universities than like those of a generic "teaching college", though you should pay close attention to these questions on a case by case basis. The breadths of expectations described by the people I met at a recent teaching workshop was staggering.

The incoming student body at my school are an interesting bunch. The range of preparation and ability is very broad, and we do have some students with real potential but in most cases there is a reason they didn't get into a more competitive school nearby.
Some breezed through secondary school never learning how to work at their schooling. Many are non-traditional students with heavy family commitments. Some have never been in an environment where learning was valued and have never found out what they are capable of in that realm. A few are determined slackers. Some are just not academically gifted and won't be going on to further schooling after they get the credential they are here for.
As I indicated above, I'm finding this a very rewarding environment but choices in students with the ability and motivation to engage in research are limited and the institutional support is limited.

"perhaps a less prepared or motivated undergraduate population": stress the "perhaps".  Some teaching institutions have extremely good students, many of whom are destined to go to grad school, whereas some research institutions have no lack of poorly prepared  and unmotivated students.

Many small liberal arts colleges (SLACs) are primarily teaching. Carleton College in Minnesota is a good example.

@MarkMeckes Though, I think the sort of place which has a more prepared or motivated student body will also expect a bit of research, with a special emphasis on work joint with undergrads.  My general impression is that expectations for research at SLACs are steadily increasing (mostly just due to the supply of candidates who are good teachers and researchers who can't or would prefer not to get jobs at research universities).

I know people who got jobs at community colleges without even finishing their PhDs. As others say, there are other teaching colleges that require little research for tenure (But if you want a job at a pretigeous SLAC, some will still require publications). However, beware that the teaching load for these schools can be very heavy while the pay is considerably less. I've even seen a 6-7 load being advertised for a school that barely pays a $40,000 salary.

@BenWebster: That's my impression, too.  Nevertheless, one shouldn't assume a very strong relationship between research expectations and the quality of the undergraduates.  Some large state schools (I won't name names) have very good research profiles (at least for certain departments) but notoriously mediocre students.  Though I admit this point is moving farther astray from the OP's question.

@MarkMeckes Certainly. I applied at Reed College, but didn't get the job. There is such a wide range in these institutions that I feel hard pressed to really cover it all in a brief post and tried to describe some kind of median teaching school.


text:
delaying Phd application to publish in order to get accepted at a better university, a valid strategy?
Is it better to wait a couple of years and publish in order to get to a prefered program or go to any program that would accept me?
Sorry in advance for the length of this document. It is in part about writing down and refining my ideas, and inner turmoil, in writing. Thanks for your patience.
So, publish now and go to a top tier school later or go now to a lower tier school and build a reputation afterward?
I have no illusions that I could get into a good program now. I graduated top of my class at the BBA and MBA level but that was 10 years ago at a regional ranked college. I have only been self employed, doing stock-trading, so no real reference there, nor great job experience. I wrote an MBA thesis but didn’t publish it. Moreover my 2 years MBA program is apparently perceived not to be in any way precursor to PhDs and some unis I looked up even require MBA holders to re-do a “proper master” prior to applying to PhDs.
I long to attend to a top PhD program. I know it should matter less than a good fit, but I have reasons for wanting that. Since my school is virtually unknown I desire the recognition that a top ranked diploma gives. Also, if I go the academic route, I believe, maybe mistakenly, that famous names do matter. I also think that their PhD programs are much more rigorous than at lower tier schools, which would result in a better preparation to publish at leading journals. An equally important reason is that I would be seeking a full fellowship as a foreign student, and top programs tend to have the most available and accessible financial aid funds.
So I was thinking that I should try to publish several papers at solid journals. My understanding is that it would very greatly help to ensure an admission at top universities, even if it would delay my application by a year or two.
If I applied now, I do not think that I am likely to get into a decent program or even to get financial help. I also find the whole application process a burocratic nightmare and an expensive one at that. Plus i would rather bother my former professors, for reference letters, only once and for a good enough school.
In order to do some research and write papers now, I will virtually need to design my own PhD program, which will be I believe similar to a lower rank school formal PhD. I have to read widely in adjacent fields, review research in my field, polish or learn new quantitative data analysis methods, learn and develop a variety of new skills.
My belief is that if I do all that properly, I would not only be accepted at a prestigious university, but my PhD years should be a breeze. This in turn would allow me to focus on producing and publishing higher quality papers during my PhD. The net result should be that I graduated from a top program with almost as many quality publications as someone who went for academia directly without a 10 year gap. This number, and quality of publications plus the degree for a top uni should fast-track me to a tenure at a top school or a least a prestigious post-doc, or research grant, or position.
Please comment and tell me what you think. I am making a lot of assumptions and I have beliefs that are grounded in my present understanding of the academic world. I would greatly appreciate to know if I am wrong or making partially faulty assumptions or totally erroneous suppositions.

Update 2014.11.4: Thank you all for your honesty. I did say that these were assumptions I was not sure that they where true. I am still rather unfamiliar with the academic world. I realize now that my post was much more naïve than it should have been. From my thesis I know that I do like research. I like the feeling of an organized world after stumbling into the dark. I like the almost physical stretching of my mind as a grapple with complex ideas. I like the sense of achievement of having written a monumental piece and being one of the world’s experts in my field. I believe that I got a similar experience with my MBA thesis which was 250 pages long though much lighter in original findings than PhD’s, I am told. For the multiple papers I thought of cannibalizing my old thesis and other old projects, but I guess that may not be realistic as they are rather outdated and maybe not that original. I hope that these answers also help others who may have had a similar strategy in mind.

I think this question is too narrow -- the answer depends strongly on your own values and particular situation.

You seem to take for granted that you could do research and get several papers published in top journals all on your own. I would be careful to trust into that too much. Doing some research at any kind of research facility (i.e., with proper supervision, mentors, work you can build upon, etc) might be a better idea.

@Niko has a very valid point. If good papers were just a function of time spent, why would you even care whether you are accepted at a good university? In that case, just grinding your time would be sufficient to build a great research resume.

Please don't add "meta" comments about voting or accepting answers to the content of your question. If you want to send a message to someone who answered your question, post a comment on the answer.

I added his November 2014 update into the body of his question. He had added it as an answer that was (rightly) deleted, but deleted answers are only visible to people with high-enough ranking.

Although @Niko and @xLeitix are spot-on that your plan is not feasible, I will try to elaborate more, so to clarify some details. Note, do not take any of this personally, since I do not know you personally nor your abilities but I need to warn you of some misconceptions you may have.

So I was thinking that I should try to publish several papers at solid
  journals. My understanding is that it would very greatly help to
  ensure an admission at top universities, even if it would delay my
  application by a year or two.

This is simply not feasible to borderline delusional. A good journal needs 3-12 months to review a paper AFTER submission. How will you be able to submit several papers and get them accepted in a year?
Papers are not just ideas. In practical sciences like finance, you need data, a theory and experiments to prove them they have any worth. Do you have any data to work with or you simply think that your ideas are so revolutionary that they deserve publication? If you believe so, you should seriously reconsider.
Another reason that your plan is not feasible is that a typical PHD student needs at least 6-12 months for literature review if he knows more-or-less what he is going to research about. That is what usually advisors can help you with. They have identified a subject / gap on a specific area and point the student (who has some common interests) and then the student has to exhaustively search for any work on this specific, tiny area of research to see what has already been done and what can be done. This process does not happen overnight, as you presume it is. Note that during the months of doing this literature review, if this is an active area, several new papers might appear which make your initial idea obsolete. And then you have to start over.

In order to do some research and write papers now, I will virtually
  need to design my own PhD program, which will be I believe similar to
  a lower rank school formal PhD. I have to read widely in adjacent
  fields, review research in my field, polish or learn new quantitative
  data analysis methods, learn and develop a variety of new skills.

So you believe that a lower-tier PHD = doing research on your own. That makes all advisors on any school (except the top-ones) obsolete. If everybody could do research on his own there would not be a need for PHD programs. And without wanting to sound mean or harsh, why do you believe you can do it on your own? You have not published anything, you do not have real industry experience or worked anywhere to remotely touch research. Also, believing that one can do research on his own is one of the characteristics of cranks. I am not suggesting that you fall into this category but keep this in mind too.
Another thing to watch is that you presume you really like research, before actually doing it. Research is not always fun as many posts on this SE site emphasize. So, make sure you like it before actually proceeding.
So, perhaps you should tone down your idea about "top-schools or nothing". You should always aim as high as possible, but within your reach. In your shoes, I would apply to as many good (but not necessarily top) places as possible and depending on their answers I would re-evaluate my plan. During this period, I would also do a literature review on the subject that really interests me, find the active people on this area and monitor their work. This will give you a headstart when / if you start a PHD and also test you if you really want to do the PHD, during this necessary, yet tedious part (literature review) for any PHD.

Also, even if you have excellent writing skills, an academic paper is likely very different than anything you've written before. It's very difficult to learn this on your own. That's one of the things a PhD advisor will help you learn.

+1 for "Another thing to watch is that you presume you really like research, before actually doing it. "

To complement Alexandros's answer, let me put this to you:  if you are smart and talented enough to write a couple of papers in a year with no supervision or training and publish them in strong journals (which as he says, is fantastically unlikely; I have never in 15 years in academia encountered anyone capable of that, I would say), then you're certainly smart enough to enter an undistinguished masters or Ph.D. program, blow away all the professors there, and get letters of recommendation that will allow you to get into a top program.  That's not easy, but I have seen it happen.  That's a much more plausible road to success than what you've suggested.

Although I think you should be more realistic, but I am in favor of your ambitiousness!
It frequently happens that the weak environment has bad effects on your path in your life which can not be compensated forever! Weak people try their best to convince you that you are like them while they are wrong, not only about you, but also about themselves!Unfortunately the decision is too dynamic and complex and you have to base your decision on "expectations" of what is going to happen. It is also possible that you enter a low-level university but the people there are encouraging and you can flourish, and vice versa.
You should consider some facts:
1- Ambitiousness is always good but with open eyes about what the reality is.
2- Your performance in the future is very similar to your performance in the past unless under some special changes(don't expect any revolution but some occasional improvements).
3- Put away your fears. As far as I understand, you are obsessed with somethings and they prevent you to think in a proper way. For example you are afraid of asking your professors to write for you reference letters! Ask them in an appropriate situation-time and place- and they will help you every time.
4-In reality you can not have all things together in the way you imagine. To have one thing you have to forget about the other things. The one who wants to have a peacock must deal with the hassles of going to India(Persian proverb which means: the best fish swim near the bottom)!
5-For some one like you, I suggest engaging in the process of try and error! I feel that you think more than to act! Start PhD at a university which is not top and get feedback from your environment and see if it is possible to reach what you want or not? If yes, what should be your approach in the path towards your goal(what level of concentration and hard work is needed?, should you change your environment?, etc.). Get feedback every now and then to prevent big mistakes.
6-As a last general(but useful) point: Accept that you don't have lots of things at time "t" and place "P"; This means that you can live without them! Being happy(and using what you have in the best way) or sad(and wasting what you already have) depends on your choice! Be happy with what God has given you but ask him "the best possible".
I was awake at night, so, forgive me if there are mistakes.

I think you should take the best PhD university you have for now to access more resources. And then you could publish much better stuff than you have for now, and then apply visiting graduate positions, PhD transfers, postdoc positions, or even AP to better university after you published very good stuffs.


text:
How to treat papers or other work from dyslexic students?
I know that as a student with dyslexia you get all kinds of benefits such as extra time for work, exams, access or licenses to spell checkers, etc. (Never used or been offered any, not that I needed it.) However, I cam imagine that by the time you graduate you would be expected to have a competence level of at least a certain degree. I myself am currently graduating for a bachelor's degree in Business IT. While the focus here mainly lies in IT, I have been told that my use of language is seriously sub-par for the degree despite knowing of my dyslexia.
Now, I have been told that my work is well above average (average of 8/10) but that due to my use of language, the grade doesn't reflect the work. Having teachers fail me fully based on language has become quite common for me. In particular my use of the Dutch language; I should note English is my second language.
Just to clarify, the spelling is not the problem, the way I build up my sentences is (think of starwars-yoda). While the text can be understood, it's not something you can breeze through with a martini like some other papers.
So as the final question here: How should students with dyslexia be handled? How would one get them to improve on their language? Should we even need to help them improve their language? Other than just redirecting them to some dyslexia institute. And, how should their work be looked at?
Edit:
To clarify, I'm interested into how both students and teachers alike could approach this. Not just myself personally.

Is your English syntax much better than your Dutch? I am asking because I don't find anything wrong with your English (based on the text of this question). Naively, I would expect syntax problems to be only worse in a non-native language.

@amoeba Yeah, my English seems to be a lot better. However this might also be the result of speaking a lot of English with international friends on a daily basis. Also I feel that English is much easier since there's not nearly as much grammar than Dutch and seems to have way more leeway. Still, after living with dyslexia for so long, you will slowly pick up on small habits and learn to avoid them. For example, I sometimes repeat words. If I write something incorrectly, I can read it incorrectly over and over and it will always found correct to me.

"not nearly as much grammar than Dutch" (a) That should be as, not than. (b) That's almost certainly wrong. It's very very difficult to measure the complexity of a language's grammar, but certainly English isn't massively simpler than Dutch.

The disabilities office at my Univ (large state univ in the U.S.) strongly advises that instructors not attempt to improvise accommodations for students with disabilities, whether self-declared or documented through the disabilities office. Their point is that we (outside the disabilities office) are not at all experts in such things, in the first place. Rather, the disabilities office will discuss with faculty the possible sensible accommodations, and in effect negotiate something. Faculty should not "get creative" and take initiative.
A significant point is that, although the circumstances or environment or timing or... for exams can accommodate, there is apparently never any notion that the grading rubrics should accommodate. That is, it's absolutely not that lower standards are applied to the output, but that the situation in which the output is produced can be modified. Indeed, it is not that we expect less in such cases, after all!

For what it's worth, at my institution the disabilities office currently proselytizes for "Universal Design for Learning" (UDL) which proposes that instructors give multiple methods of representation, expression, and engagement, including different types of assignments and assessments tailored to each type of student. Not that I agree with it, but in some circles that's pushed pretty hard.

@DanielR.Collins, yes, there is something of that here, too, but has been quiet for a while. In fact, 20+ years ago, the disabilities office was willing to certify "unable to do math" as a disability, even for math majors and so on, with various ... surprising... notions of how to accommodate... but we talked them out of it.

Now that's an article I'd like to read. :-)

I do strongly agree that the standards that the school carries should not be modified. Otherwise it would be troublesome to stamp quality onto a student with pride. I do however wish that the disabilities office were to somehow help instruct teachers on how to handle dyslexic students better. As 10 to 15% or maybe more people have dyslexia I could see it being worth taking into account. As you "might" improve the quality of 10% or more of your students this way. Which in my opinion is quite a lot.

For the student perspective, I would put forward that a learning disability will not stop you from becoming an expert in something you are currently bad at. The notion that if you cannot spell or write at 17, you will never publish a best-selling book is just not true. Speaking from experience as someone who's parents were told "he will never go to university", but is now about to submit his PhD thesis, you can literally learn anything if you spend enough time on it.
And let's be honest, you can sugar-coat it as much as you like at school, but out of academia you will be penalised for being deficient in some area. The best thing you can do is work on it to bring whatever it is that you are not so good at up to par. For example, I was terrible at spelling, my handwriting was not legible even to myself, and my sentences were confusing. I suffered a lot in exams as a result, particularly the handwriting since no one ever asks you for clarification on a word.
However, after typing into a computer for every day of my life since then, and learning from the autocorrects by manually re-typing them, my spelling is near-perfect, and my sentence structure - well, i'm not going to be writing any novels any time soon, but it is ok. My handwriting still sucks though. In short, the best tools to improve your written communication is website comments, a pen pal you can e-mail, and IRC. If you cannot write in those three scenarios, you will be abused, embarrassed, and ignored, respectively. (and you will learn!)

I would like to add to the existing answers, that besides the disabilities office it good to have some fellow students willing to help.
The student affected by dyslexia could benefit from a second pair of eyes checking their text and improving before submitting. Perhaps it would also help for future writing if you get to know how other people word or structure sentences. It would certainly make sure that everything that is submitted fits the quality standards.
I would not expect too much of teachers, professors or TAs. Often they will not be aware of the situation the student is facing. So it would help to communicate the problem not just through the disabilities office but in person.
IMHO if the information and arguments that you provide in your work are accurate and scientifically sound and it is only for course work, then the dyslexia should not be affecting your grade.

Most universities have a disability support office.  They have staff who are trained to help students with dyslexia, which is not rare.  You should go and seek their help.  In the United States, the university would be obligated to help by law.

Sadly this is only partially true. In my case they have sent me towards special "tutors" who are free-lancing teachers. you'd need to pay for extra help that may or may not even help. Furthermore, when you are above the age of 18, they no longer give any sorts of financial aid. While many universities and colleges are obligated to help, here they try to do the bare minimum or simply outsource it. forcing the student to pay for it. I appreciate the answer though. But in my personal case it wouldn't be applicable.

Universities typically invest a lot of time developing policies for disabilities, but they aren't always communicated well to staff and students. You should check that your marks and feedback are in accordance with your university's own policy, as your teachers may not be aware of it.

contesting marks is not a sustainable solution

@anonymousphysicist The question asked how should students with dyslexia be handled, and my answer is in accordance the the university's policy, which should have been developed by the disability support office. At least in the university where I work, once a disability is registered the office works with teachers to ensure they comply with the policy. Not sure why you're so unhappy with my answer.

It's certainly a good approach, unfortunately my school itself cares very little about such things. As I replied to someone else, they place the problem on the student simply by pointing a finger into the direction of freelancing tutors. "Technically" they have complied with the minimum requirements and can say they give full support, While it comes with attached strings. Teachers themselves are aware of my situation as they themselves are the ones who redirected me. I'm just curious if there are ways for teachers to help these students on their own accord.

@migz That is sad and frustrating. Teachers have to be very careful to be consistent and appropriate if they adjust marks in response to a disability, but in principle they could, fire instance, reduce the weighting on writing quality in the marking rubric.


text:
Repeating abbreviation in body text if already in chapter/section title
This is a follow-on question to Is it reasonable to use full word and abbreviation in parenthesis in a chapter title?
One answer to that question indicates that in some cases, using an abbreviation in a chapter/section title is acceptable, other times not.
In the cases when it is acceptable, should you redefine the abbreviation before its first use in the chapter/section?  Here is an example:

Chapter 4 - Results of Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC)
The apparent crystallographic phase transition of the sample material suggested that Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) was warranted to determine the phase transition temperature and heat capacity.  The results of the DSC measurements follow.

Just don't put the abbreviation in the chapter title.  Better yet, if you have the option, don't use the abbreviation at all.  Ink is cheap.

@JeffE I'm just asking a follow on question to the one I referenced; the discussion of whether or not to put abbreviations in the chapter/section title in the first place belongs there.  My interest is just what to do in the body text if we were to follow aeismail♦'s (accepted) answer.

@iwantmyphd you've misundestood aeismail's answer. And because of that, your question here does not make sense.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is based on a misunderstanding of the answer to another question

@EnergyNumbers With all due respect, my understanding of aeismail♦'s answer is that the only correct use of abbreviations in titles are for"'standard' ones that are normally (or at least very frequently) written in their abbreviated form."  The abbreviation in my example (DSC) is an example of such an abbreviation; it's well known, perhaps not as ubiquitous as say, LASER, SCUBA, or RADAR.  In a case like mine, should someone then completely ignore the full name when first introduced in the body text of that chapter/section?  I think that's a valid question.

Just my opinion, but normally I wouldn't include the abbreviation in a title or chapter heading. Instead, I would introduce the abbreviation in "normal" text. So in your example, I would change the heading to

Chapter 4 - Results of Differential Scanning Calorimetry

but leave the rest as you have it.
An exception would be if this is a well-known abbreviation, so common that people tend to forget what it stands for. In this case, not including it might actually be confusing. For example, if a heading mentions "Internet protocol address", it might take me a split second to realise you're talking about an IP address!

So in the exception when it's a really common abbreviation that is ok to use in a title, do you spell it out before using the abbreviation the first time in the text?

@iwantmyphd if it's common only in a specific area of research, spell it out once to help cross-discipline researchers. For truly commonly known abbreviations I do not know, but I believe the entire point about spelling it out is to remove ambiguities, so if there is reason to believe that truly everyone understand the abbreviation, that's an interesting question.


text:
Forcing to list a co-author that did not contribute after publishing
We published a paper, me as first and corresponding author. There was a technician who repeatedly refused to work, did useless measurements after having been forced, which he never evaluated and basically said "help yourself", never had a look at the publication during working on it, and now tries to force the group leaders to be included as co-author afterwards by lying about his contributions (still, he would have done no intellectual work but was pipetting down my protocols). Data integrity steps are not provided by the institute, so everyone could copy measurement files from the shared server. The group leaders want me to give in although they agreed with me on the phone, just because they fear more consequences from him than from me, since I was nice so far. Now I don't see why I should constantly reward such a person.

The paper is published. They agreed. Can they even force me if I (and another co-author) say no?
Would - by your experience - the journal be willing to amend at all?
Can he/they force me legally? I am not even employed there anymore.
Do I have to prove anything after publication? Can someone claim data from a shared server anyway? Is it my turn to (re)act?
Would you do some "preparing steps" from my side if not willing to give in?
Do you have any advice from former experience?

Kind regards and thanks for any help!

I think you will have a hard time arguing to the journal why an author should be added at this stage, and it will make your and your group look bad.

Does this answer your question? Excluding a coauthor based on data misuse and misrepresentation?

I think it is perilleous to make a judgement on this one-sided story, especially regarding the point

There was a technician who repeatedly refused to work, did useless
measurements after having been forced, which he never evaluated

I do not know your former lab policy, but a technician is just a technician: he should just provide you working tool, but he has not to do any research himself (see the technicians like a car mechanic fixing your car, but not driving it: yes, you can fix the car yourself, yes you have to check yourself that the car is in working condition).
Said this, the issue "Data integrity steps are not provided by the institute, so everyone could copy measurement files from the shared server." is not an issue, unless you think the technician will try to demonstrate he collected the data and that you stole them (can you provide a proof you collected the data? do you have any mail where you discuss the data collection /results with your professor?).
I would courteously ignore the technician request, although it is possible he may have some ground in asking to be part of the authors'lists.
If you cannot find an hard rule about authorship in the journal rules (something that states "authors'list cannot be modified after submission), I suggest you two steps:

write the editor asking if there is the possibility of updating the authors'list after submission (and acceptance, if I understood correctly);
forward the negative answer to all the authors and the technician;

If the editor shows some opening to changing the authors, do the Pontius Pilate way: write the publisher, with the technician and all other co-authors in cc asking if you can add an author to the list of authors. Without motivating it, just asking it.
See how it evolves. In the end, it is a paper and you are just the first author, if the co-authors think the technician contribution deserves authorship, let it be ...

You might take a look here; and as for a more detailed response, let me focus on this one question:

Would you do some "preparing steps" from my side if not willing to give in?

You could ask everyone to tell you which contributions they offered based on the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT). And make sure that the CRediTs are visible in the publication as well.
On the one hand, it is possible that they will hesitate to point out their contribution in case they do not find anything worthwhile to pick from CRediT. On the other hand, you might actually end up finding one minuscule contribution of that co-author that does merit a mention according to CRediT. The "objectified" nature of CRediT might help to resolve such conflicts.
And if you have the CRediTs published as well, then the readership will at least know the variation in efforts of each co-author.

Technically, and it is generally honored, a journal needs every author's consent on the paper to be published at all. The implication of that is that they can probably, or at least possibly, force the withdrawal of the paper, but not a change that you don't agree with. This assumes the editor is both knowledgeable about the situation and ethical. An amendment to the paper requires everyone's consent. And if it is literally already published, an editor would be reluctant at best to make a change, especially in the face of a dispute.
They can, perhaps, make your life miserable in other ways, depending on your current position. You will have to evaluate the seriousness of any such threat. But it won't be a legal threat.

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


text:
Contacting a potential advisor: Where should I go from here?
About two and a half weeks ago, I contacted five potential advisors at a school that I am planning to do my master’s at. Three of them got back to me and said they are not expecting any graduate students next year, but seemed interested in me (they said they would consider me for the future). Two others got back to me, very interested, and I scheduled phone calls with them. I have one phone call next week.
However, I had a phone call with a potential advisor nearly two weeks ago. It was really casual and he seemed very interested. He suggested an area that I could do a project in. We exchanged a few emails after the phone call where we discussed what I could potentially research. He sent me a link that I checked out. He said that he had some students gathering data in the area that I said I was interested in; so we could use some of that data. I responded with “that sounds compelling, I would be interested in doing research in that area”.
That was the end of our email exchanges. I am not really sure where to go from here. He never confirmed that I will be a graduate student, but also seems like he is very interested. Should I expect him to make the next contact or should I contact him? I am not really sure what I would say since I threw the ball over to him in my last email. I have to apply for a scholarship by the end of January though (which includes a research proposal) and he knows this...

Did you ask him what you need to do to actually apply?

@ElizabethHenning No because I apply through the school and all the information is on the school’s website. I need a statement of intent indicating my research interests (which I discussed a BIT with my potential supervisor) and career goals. But before sending my application I need to apply for a scholarship. In that application, I need a detailed description of a research proposal which we didn’t discuss at all.

I'm a little confused about what the problem is. Why not just tell him you'd like to apply and ask him about a research proposal?

@ElizabethHenning He already knows I’d like to apply. Basically, I don’t know where I am with him yet. I don’t know if he agreed to be my advisor. He seemed very enthusiastic about it when I spoke with him, but he never told me one way or the other “yes, I will be your advisor. Go ahead with the application”. We’ve talked briefly about some project ideas, but for the scholarship application I need to write down an actual project proposal. So I’m just wondering what I should say to him when I email him?


text:
Is it acceptable to give out information about an unpublished paper in an application?
I worked on a research project earlier this year. It has recently been submitted for publication and is currently under review. I am working on my resume and cover letter at the moment as well as applying to graduate schools. This is one of the biggest projects I have worked on in my undergrad and thus I will definitely be including it in my applications.
We were told not to circulate this paper, but I was allowed to present a very small part of the data at a conference. There are many diseases/conditions being studied in the project and I presented two of them at a conference.
Although I know that it is definitely not acceptable to circulate an unpublished paper, I am wondering if it would be okay to state a brief synopsis of what the project was about? For example:

This project was a meta-analysis that looked to see if there was a relationship between X and Y.

In addition, would it be acceptable to mention the journal that it was submitted to?

"Although I know that it is definitely not acceptable to circulate an unpublished paper" In many fields, circulating unpublished papers is not only acceptable, but fairly standard, in the form of sharing a preprint on arXiv or the like. In other fields, circulating it would be acceptable under certain conditions (e.g. all authors have agreed to the circulation, the paper is not under review in a double-blinded venue, and/or it's only shared non-publicly).

Based on your edit ("We were told not to circulate this paper."), I think your situation is fairly special in the sense that at least one involved author is highly concerned about confidentiality. You will have to ask that author how much sharing would be acceptable for them.

Does your field use double-blind reviewing? In that case an additional concern is that you might accidently reveal the identity of the authors to one of the reviewers.

Whoever told you not to circulate the paper is the person to ask. If you were specifically asked not to do so, the author could consider it a breach of trust to  mention the ideas/results without clarifying the extent to which you can make claims about the project. Maybe they do not mind a general overview, only the paper, but this is something you need to find out from them.
"I will definitely be including it in my applications" is a problematic sentence under these auspices. It is not a good idea to mention the journal, either. Say, it's a top-tier journal. Anyone can submit a paper, but at this stage it is not accepted yet.
In addition, you probably should get more detailed advice from a trusted mentor on how to develop your application.

+1 talk to the person who asked the paper not be circulated. It could just be someone being obsessively controlling, but there may be variety of reasons that a junior member of a collaboration may not have considered. If there are, it is educational to have that discussion. Also - usually if there are specific reasons outlined, then it is more clear what can be put in a CV. (However, unless you are desperate to show that current activity exists, putting down a submitted but not accepted paper doesn't really add much value to a CV)

@Carol In some disciplines, putting down a submitted but not accepted paper is still quite valued. In some disciplines the process can take months/years.

You can certainly give information about an unpublished paper in your CV, including a synopsis. Do mention, however, that the paper is currently under review (that will also explain why a reader of your CV cannot find it on the webpage of the journal yet).
It is best to mention to which journal it was submitted. This will frame the field and your ambitions for the reader of your CV.

Although I know that it is definitely not acceptable to circulate an unpublished paper...

Have a look at the copyright transfer (you can find that on the webpage of the journal or the publisher). It should clearly indicate what is possible, and what is not. Typically, you will be able to distribute a version of your paper that does not contain any editing by the journal. Sometimes you also can distribute a version that contains copy-editing and markup of the journal. Sometimes you need to add some text, e.g. referring to the journal.
If the copyright transfer text is unclear, and you still would want to distribute the article, contact the editor.
Also make sure that your co-authors are aware and agree on any of the above actions.

"It is best to mention to which journal it was submitted." I'd dispute this. A terrible paper can be submitted to Nature, and until acceptance the journal means next to nothing. And there is a very real chance of rejection, in which case there's a record that it wasn't published in the author's journal of choice; depending on the disparity between the two journals, this may be mildly embarrassing.

I think the copyright transfer is a bit of a red herring here - the restrictions you refer to, eg on distributing the non-edited accepted MS, usually refer to public distribution, like posting on a website, rather than private circulation.

@dendodge Actually, the specification of submission journal is quite discipline specific. In my discipline, established researchers don't submit to super-reach journals because even getting a desk reject can take months. Knowing where something is submitted does frame the field/general evaluation of the work.


text:
Contacting my undergraduate supervisor after an extended period of time to ask for help?
I worked with a graduate professor at my undergraduate university (which I just graduated from this year) on a couple of projects in my final year. On one of the projects, I worked with him as a paid research assistant. I used the other project as my 4th year research project for course credit (so did not get paid) and that project is being submitted for publication. Although, I was just one member of a team of about 10 people on that project. My supervisor was very nice and helped me out a lot. Actually, on my first contact with him he offered to discuss my future plans with me and offer some advice (which he did and was very helpful).
I had my last contact with him in May via email, just after we finished the second project, when I thanked him for the opportunities he provided me. We exchanged a couple of brief emails back-and-forth, and that was the last time I spoke with him. I have spent the past 6 months trying to figure out what I would like to study in graduate school (I was stuck deciding between 2 programs). Now I believe I know where I want to go and what I want to study.
Earlier this year, my supervisor mentioned that he knows some people at the school I would like to apply to (for this program, I need to contact potential advisors ahead of time). He briefly mentioned some names that I had since forgotten.
I would like to get in contact with my supervisor again and ask:

for the names of the researchers he mentioned; and
to use him as a reference in my applications.

However, since it has been so many months since we've spoken, I am worried that this would be considered "rude" as I am only contacting him to get something from him.
How should I go about contacting him and how should I frame my email as to not sound greedy or selfish?

Just a comment on your perspective: I want to be clear that you are not greedy or selfish. This is part of the supervisor's job, and something he has expressed interest in discussing with you. If you worked with a professor outside of class, I would not be hesitant to contact him several years after the work ended. Several months is nothing!

I just received and responded to a recommendation request from a student whom I last taught eleven years ago.  It's OK.

Just send email.  Ask him to "remind" you of the names of faculty he knows at your proposed institution and ask whether he would be able to write a "strong recommendation."  It'll be OK.


text:
Can one professor hold more than one endowed chair?
Are there examples of one person holding more than one endowed chair at the same university?

At the same university or at different universities simultaneously?

My answered assumed at the same university, otherwise this would be a duplicate of: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1999/how-does-a-faculty-member-get-to-work-at-two-universities-or-more?rq=1

I've edited it to clarify at the same university. Feel free to revert if you disagree.

I had personally never heard of anyone occupying two endowed chairs at the same time at the same university. Even if a person had two appointments in separate departments at the same university (for example, History of Science and Psychology), they were usually listed as the:

Dunning-Kruger Professor of Psychology and History of Science

or alternately, if the endowed line (the DK-Professorship) had been bequeathed specifically to Psychology for example:

Dunning-Kruger Professor of Psychology, Professor of History of Science

So the short answer is: no.

But that being said, there are always exceptions. A little digging around at universities that have separate sub-units revealed that, at Harvard there is a person in History who holds two endowed chairs and one regular position:

Annette Gordon-Reed

Charles Warren Professor of American Legal History at Harvard Law School
Carol K. Pforzheimer Professor at the Radcliffe Institute
[Harvard U. FAS] Professor of History

I personally think that this exception proves the rule since the three professorships are at nominally separate entities (HLS, Radcliffe I, and Harvard U FAS) that are under the singular Harvard conglomerate umbrella.


text:
About eligibility for the Cambridge International Scholarship Scheme
On the website of the University of Cambridge, they state the eligibility criteria for the Cambridge international scholarship scheme (CISS). One of them is:
"Have a high upper-second-class undergraduate honours degree from a UK Higher Education Institution, or an equivalent from an Overseas Institution".
I don't understand it. Can someone explain to me what is precisely meant by that?

I had a similar question regarding equivalent Indian degree. (Still has no answers): http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/45115/difference-between-uk-honors-and-pass-degree-from-indian-degrees

You can find a relevant answer here: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/10227/what-does-first-class-or-2-1-honours-degree-mean/10231#10231

Given that that's the same as the requirement for applying to Cambridge, have a look at the international qualifications page to see how degrees in your country map to Cambridge degrees.

I believe that the "University Minimum Requirement" in that will correspond to the "upper-second-class undergraduate honours degree" in the CISS requirements.


text:
Can you abbreviate the title of the Proceeedings of the IEEE?
I found this on Page 34 of IEEE EDITORIAL STYLE MANUAL, it's about how to edit the reference. I don't understand the following sentence:

NOTE: The only exception to this rule is PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, which never carried an acronym on the masthead

Does it mean when cite a paper from PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, do not cite it in an abbreviation form. If it is, why the following example ( Page 35 of IEEE EDITORIAL STYLE MANUAL) gave an abbreviation form:

I would consider it an example of quality of IEEE outputs. You can be funny enough and ask them what does it mean. I'd really like to see their answer :D If you don't care enough to ask them, just choose one or the other. They don't actually expect people read the manual and they'll likely be happy either way.

I do not understand your comment, is my question so funny? or is my expression unclear?

Not every abbreviation is an acronym.

@CodesInChaos Sorry, I thought they are the same thing, here is the definition of acronym: acronym: An abbreviation formed by (usually initial) letters taken from a word or series of words. Then, what is the difference between them? I am not a native.

The part you quote does not refer to the name of the Journal but to the vol. ##, no. ## section of the citation and is applicable to those earlier than 1988.
So the 1981 citation would be

IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. AC-26, no.1, pp. 1–34, Jan. 1981.

while a citation from the same journal past 1988 would be

IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 40, no.1, pp. 1–34, Jan. 1995.

The exception to the Proc. of IEEE applies here, as it never had an abbreviation in the volume and it has always been:

Proc. IEEE, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1-11, Jan. 1978.

The example they provide is correct.

Does it mean when cite a paper from PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, do not cite it in an abbreviation form.

No.
It means that, prior to 1988 (see the style guide you linked to in your question), the volume number for IEEE Journals and Transactions included an acronym for the particular journal, and this must be included when you cite sources falling into this category. The Proceedings of the IEEE has never had volume numbers listed with an acronym for the publication, so the above volume number citation rule does not apply.
When citing a source published in the Proceedings of the IEEE, you would still list it in your IEEE manuscript bibliography as Proc. IEEE.


text:
Is there any value in self-publishing a book as an academic?
Recently, I contacted a publisher about the draft of a book that I wrote about a year ago. I found their advertisement over the net. This is a scientific book that I have worked on for about two or three years and have revised it more than four times.
The publisher proposed that if I pay a certain amount of money that they can publish my book in a month or two.
Does this kind of pay-to-publish or self-publishing of books confer any reputation in academia? What are the advantages and disadvantages to doing so?

Don't do it.  The reputation gain will be negative, and your book probably won't even be all that well distributed (eg university libraries generally don't purchase books from vanity presses).

Echoing @AndyPutman's comment and the other answers: don't do it. You will spend money, and the situation will not help distribution, and will most likely harm your reputation, if it has any effect at all. It's far worse than the pay-to-publish journals, some of which are apparently legitimate.

The key phrase in Andy Putman's comment being "vanity presses". There is a vast difference between self-publishing (which carries a somewhat negative influence, but which you may feel compelled to do either for licensing/copyright reasons or because you think it fills a hole that publishers in that market don't think needs filling) and "this book is so bad/wrong that its author had to pay to have it seem like it was published". Self-publishing says caveat lector; vanity presses say "run away!!!"

@BenCrowell: I think the difference today may be in perception and transparency.  Self-publishing makes it clear to everyone that the author is choosing to opt out of the commercial publishing model.  Vanity presses seem to be attempting to deceive the reader into thinking that a commercial publisher has decided, based on the book's merits, that it is worth the investment of publishing it (for a vanity press the investment is not the publisher's but the author's).

While I understand the general negative feeling about vanity presses, I have seen a few legitimate self-published / print-on-demand scientific books. Eg. a very useful third-party written manual of a scientific software I use is published that way, and I don't see anything wrong with it. Also, I see many bad (really bad), money grabbing books from so-called scientific publishers. Be aware of the prejudice about doing it, but in principle, I don't think it is wrong.

I would recommend that you ask yourself a question: why do I want this book "officially" published?  You could, after all, just make the material free online via arXiv or as a webpage or an archival technical report of various types depending on its contents and your situation.

Prestige of having a published book?  A pay-to-publish press will generally give you negative credibility, since there are so many publishers that will publish your book without making you pay (including lots of dodgy low-quality ones that will publish pretty much anything).  Pay-to-publish smells like desperation or resume-padding.
Money from sales/royalties?  If they thought it was going to make money, they would be paying you, not the other way around.
Higher visibility?  A pay-to-publish press will generally not be any good at promoting your work.  They're not going to invest any real money in promotion if they aren't expecting to make significant money from sales.

Serious and reputable academic publishing houses are always looking for good books to publish.  The right ones for your field will generally have booths at the major conferences in the field, with representatives that you can talk to.

If you self-publish it as open-access (as with the free, open-source Open Monograph Press software), you don't have to "pay-to-publish" to self-publish.

The value of a pay-to-publish book is approximately the same as any other pay-to-publish material.
As described in this answer, the only way for someone to judge a non-peer-reviewed publications is to

Read them, see what they're worth.

So, if this book attracts a large number of readers in your academic community and they are impressed, it will enhance your reputation. This is not likely, unless you are already well-known in your field.
If people read the book and think it's bad, it will detract from your reputation.
If very few people bother to read it (which is the most likely case), it will confer (at best) zero benefit to you and will be a waste of money.
It may also confer negative reputation benefit. People who don't read the book may assume that the book is bad, and that if it was really good, you wouldn't have had to pay-to-publish.
For further reading, there's a relevant article over at InsideHigherEd.

Virtually none.
The main difference between academic/university presses and trade presses (including vanity presses and self-publishing) are that academic presses engage in a process of peer review before selecting which material to publish.
That is, academic presses will send your ms out to peer academics who then provide reader reports that will be used by the academic presses' board of directors/editors (usually academics themselves) to make the decision to publish the book or not -- usually after revisions indicated by said external readers.
This puts a book from an academic press in the category of peer-reviewed publications.
Note that there are some second and lower tier colleges don't care where a scholar's book comes from. If you suspect you are in one of these colleges -- ask your mentors and senior colleagues what you should do.
p.s. Once you have a certain degree of fame, you can publish with trade presses. Stephen Hawking really doesn't need the CV boost that might have happened if A Brief History had been published by U-Cambridge Press rather than Bantam Books. And if you are in fields that view books with disdain (say... physics) then it wouldn't really matter where or even if you published a book.

A big difference between a vanity press and a press like Bantam, is that Bantam likely reviewed the proposal in regards to sales and likely paid Hawkings for the publishing rights.

Do not deal with publishers who ask money from you upfront.
Never, ever.
If you are an established academic you will be approached by reputable publishers who will pay you (albeit not much).
Your reputation is unlikely to be affected, as the book is likely to sink into oblivion unnoticed. (This remark is not a negative reflection on the book you wrote; it happens to almost all textbooks, including very good ones.) However, as far as your CV is concerned, Oxford (Princeton, etc) University Press will look more impressive than the name of some fly by night vanity press.

Publisher that asks for money upfront: https://www.nature.com/ncomms/about/article-processing-charges

Hi Harry and thank you for your post. Reputable publishers who publish open access may ask money from author upfront. I believe it is not matter of money itself. It is more about the reputation of the publisher, the reviewers and editor of them, and the popularity of the publisher among researchers.