text:
Is it a good practice for teaching assistants to sit in the lectures?
Has anyone tried this technique and how has it worked out for you?
Essentially, there are several problems with doing teaching assistant work (TA),

You might not even be from the institution where you are doing the TA, you are unfamiliar with the course structure and the textbook, but you have learned some equivalent courses before.
Courses can have several lecturers, each going at a slightly different pace. You don't know what your students know and get blank stares from them during tutorial hours.
You want to enhance your teaching material by identifying spots where students might be more easily confused, where in the lecture might question for exams be drawn from, the emphasis of the lecture versus textbook, and so on.

I think an easy way to overcome these problems is by sitting in the lectures with the students. I have never done this because it sounds too time-consuming, also it might look "strange" to the professor AND to the students.
Has anyone tried doing this and how has it worked out for you?
For lecturers/professors: do you think it is a good idea for your TA to sit in your lectures?

Student's perspective: It is not weird at all to see your TA at the lecture. The immediate thought is that he is doing exactly what you are trying to do: Understand how material is taught and what to expect from students (or maybe help the professor).

And for the option of “it was explained like this xxx xxx xx” but consider this explanation “yyy yyy yy”...

It is a good idea to attend the lectures when you are new to the course or the teaching methods.  But most TAs will not have to time to continue attending the lectures when they do the same course again and again.

Variant on point 1): you don't actually know the material, you learn it at the same time as the students (but faster). I've been in a place that required me (the TA) to attend the lecture, and I was paid for it. (I am not answering if this is good practice)

Do you mean "sit in on" (definition 23) or do you mean "sit" as in "be in a seated position"?

counter-question: is it a bad practice if they don't attend? i can imagine myself as a TA and asking this in class: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3944284/prove-that-explain-how-for-independent-random-variables-x-i-we-have-f-ix-i

I have been a TA myself, and I can highly recommend doing that. I had been facing the same problem as you (In my case, I attended the same course before joining it as a TA, but it was restructured in the meantime) and it really helped me to understand the lecturer’s concept and the connections between single course elements.
While this may vary from discipline to discipline and country to country, at my university in Germany it is good practice to attend the course you assist with and not regarded as strange, neither by the professor nor by the students. In my department, it is just common to see the teaching assistant(s) among the students in the lecture hall and viewed as totally normal, from both the professor’s and student’s view. If you’re unsure however whether this applies to your department as well, I guess it is totally fine to ask the lecturer.
In addition, I can relate do Buffy, there is never a reason not to attend. It helped me to gain a deeper understanding of the course content and besides, I learned quite a lot from the professor.

I am in the US. When I was a PhD student/TA, we were generally expected to be in the classroom and the students regarded this as normal and were not phased. In addition, the professor generally appreciated us chiming in to keep the discussion going when the actual students were not really participating (early morning class). We were able to count in-class time as part of our hours.

@Dawn I actually once had a TA annotate a small audit (basically) assignment that was turned in at the beginning of lecture so students could better ask questions at the end.

@Dawn yep, I can totally confirm all of that. Was also appreciated by the professor and it counted as part of my hours.

counter-question: is it a bad practice if they don't attend? i can imagine myself as a TA and asking this in class: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3944284/prove-that-explain-how-for-independent-random-variables-x-i-we-have-f-ix-i

I have seen TAs do this, but generally don't ask my own TAs to do it. As you say, it's a (very) time-consuming way to solve the coordination problem. I personally prefer to just sit with the TAs for a few minutes (< 30 minutes) every so often to coordinate, which in my experience has been completely adequate. Of course this means that I have to invest a little of my own time, but I find it completely appropriate to invest a few minutes of my own time every so often to save my TAs quite a lot of time - but of course your milage may vary with other professors. I certainly wouldn't find it strange if a TA sat in the lecture, I just don't find it necessary.
However, I do strongly suggest that the TAs take some time to go over the teaching material, so that they get a sense for what I am covering in the lecture, and how far I have gotten by the time their tutorial or supervision session rolls around.
Finally, we have also used a joint Slack channel where TAs can ask questions and expect a fairly immediate response. This has been useful for me to communicate if I, for instance, needed to skip a section due to time reasons, or if I felt through in-class exercises (or blank stares) that a certain topic needs deeper exploration in the supervision sessions.

It is good but not usually essential that you attend lectures, but it can depend on the field. If your only task is grading the course, it probably isn't very useful, but if your task is to actually interact with students it can be worthwhile if you have the time for it. You may not need to pay the same attention while there that the students do, of course, if you are already familiar with the material.
One reason that it is good if you intend a career in academia is that you get to see some other professors and how they work with the material and the students. This can help form your own teaching style.
However, outside mathematics and the sciences it may be more important to attend lectures, at least occasionally. In a Literature course, for example, you may need some way to know what the professor is saying about a book or genre for you to be able to be effective.
But there is, IMO, never a reason not to attend, if you have the time. You might even learn something or deepen your knowledge of things learned long ago. That opportunity to "think back" on things can be valuable even if you have already formed an understanding of them.

I am pointing out the obvious, but there is a reason not to attend: it may be time that could be better spent doing something else.

@FedericoPoloni, if you find it a burden, don't do it. Simple.

One consideration: At some institutions the TAs are unionized, and the union will be very concerned that TAs are paid for the number of hours they work (or equivalently work only the number of hours they're paid). Spending this kind of (highly visible) time outside of what you're paid to do may draw their attention. This could lead to you being told to spend only paid hours on TA-related tasks, or to the union taking it as an example of how TAs aren't given enough hours to do their jobs.
Likewise, if your academic supervisor ever decides your project work isn't proceeding as fast as it should, these hours you spend in class "needlessly" may become an issue.
I think one variable is the relative level of the material in question. If you're a PhD student TA'ing first year mechanics, you probably shouldn't need to audit the class. If you're TA'ing a 300- or 400-level class being taught by your own academic supervisor, things may be different.

If the professor wants you to attend lectures, she should explain her reasoning. Otherwise, you could be spending that time working on your research.

It is perfectly fine to sit at lectures, if it suits you, as long as you are having fun. If you're not, you might as well go do something that stimulates your curiosity. Either way, don't stop learning.


text:
In a thesis, is it appropriate to allude to results obtained later on?
I am writing a math thesis.
I want to provide a result in chapter 2, but formally prove this result in chapter 8. This is because I am introducing a bunch of definitions in between these chapters and they cannot be moved in front of or within chapter 2.
Can I say something like, "as we will see in chapter 8, this result in chapter 2 is true"? In other words, can you allude to the proof of a result that will be given only later in the thesis?
I don't feel like it is good practice because it sorts of destroys the "surprise factor", and it also makes the reader jump 100 pages to see the result. How should I handle this?

Yes.  It's bad if you don't do that. Your thesis should minimize the "surprise factor" for maximum clarity.  You should also use dynamic cross-referencing so you can put in something like (see p. 135) and have that page number automatically update as pagination changes.

Is it appropriate to allude to results obtained later on?

Yes, please not only "allude" to later results, but make it absolutely clear at any point of your thesis what all the components of your argument are. You can, and sometimes should, defer the explanation of those components to a later part of your thesis. Just don't make your reader think "Huh? Something is missing here".
If you feel it is too much to ask your readers to accept a statement until it is explained in more detail, you can provide a very short and abstract version earlier. But this "preview" should only serve the purpose of making the reader aware of a part of the argument that will be explained later on; it should not be a duplicate explanation. (This could be just one or two sentences if possible, but two or three paragraphs at most and only if necessary.)
A thesis is not a suspense story. A crime novel aims for surprising plot twist; a thesis aims for a natural flow of the argument. If your readers are surprised at any point, your writing is not consistent enough.
This is also why in the standard format of research papers in most disciplines, the last part of the introduction is an outline of the entire argument.

This reminds me of a great linguistics prof I had whose partner is an English lit prof. "Our essays are very different," she told us one day. "With his essays, you slowly figure out what he's getting at and start to understand what he's saying when he finally reveals it at the end. In linguistics, you just put what you mean at the beginning and spend the rest of the time explaining how you got there." I think the second, more scientific approach, is more suitable for math.

Seconded. It doesn't even have to be complicated - a simple statement of "A formal proof of this [theorem/assumption/brain fart] can be found in Chapter 6" essentially says it all.

There's a good shorthand for this that I was taught to bear in mind whenever writing (or making presentations): "Tell them [the reader/audience] what you're going to tell them. Then tell them. Then tell them what you've told them."

Can I say something like, "as we will see in chapter 8, this result in chapter 2 is true"?

How about: "Thesis outline: In Chapter 1 we will etc. In chapter 2 we will present the first main result of this research, the Foo theorem. In Chapter 3 we will develop some machinery for etc. etc. etc. Having done (whatever), in Chapter 8 we will utilize (something) to prove the Foo theorem described in chapter 2."
Refer. Or refer not. There is no "allude".

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How much knowledge is expected of an MPhil applicant as compared to a PhD student, a postdoc or a research assistant?
A related question asks about differences in required background knowledge between PhD students, postdocs and RAs. This question asks about differences in the required background knowledge between MPhil students and the former.
My understanding is that postdocs, research assistants, MPhil students and PhD students are mostly paid positions. Regardless, MPhil students and PhD students, like postdocs and research assistants, are expected to assist with the specific research that the professor is doing.
But, considering that both a MPhil studentship and a PhD studentship is the pursuit of a degree rather than the application of acquired knowledge from a degree, I would like to know how much background knowledge is expected of MPhil and PhD students at the time of applying.
How much is expected of background knowledge for an MPhil applicant?

I edited to hopefully be clearer. I think readers will have to refer to the other question, although I think I risk close or downvotes for doing that.

I don't quite understand what the purpose of the second paragraph is in this question. Having said that, I don't think that there is a more precise answer to your question than 'PhD applicants are, by and large, expected to have more advanced knowledge than MPhil applicants' and 'it depends on the country and the institution'.

@henning That is helpful, but I think I did not make it clear how your statement would be helpful. Thank you!

How much is expected of background knowledge for an MPhil applicant?

This depends a lot on the domain and the institution, and MPhil doesn't exist in every country. So it's impossible to answer this question precisely, but I think one can broadly define the differences in terms of how operational the person is expected to be at producing research:

A postdoc is a professional researcher hired on a temporary basis. For all intents and purposes they must be able to carry out their research work on their own (i.e. produce research), under the direction of a PI.
A PhD student is training to become a researcher, and this training includes producing research. They are not expected to be autonomous in the production of research, their PhD advisor is here to train them. However they are supposed to have acquired the background knowledge and to be able to complete their knowledge in their specialized field on their own.
An MPhil student is at the initial stage of research training. They are expected to require more supervision and are not necessarily required to publish papers.
A research assistant is simply somebody hired to assist in research. They are not expected to produce research by themselves and might have a very limited knowledge of the research questions. For instance a software developer can be hired as research assistant in a physics project where they provide a service according to their skills. In general this is not a training position.

That is helpful, but I think I did not make it clear how your statement would be helpful. Thank you!

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


text:
Can I bring a spouse along for a conference?
Is it possible to bring my spouse along for overseas academic conference? (My spouse will not be attending the conference. Airfare and accommodation for my spouse will be paid by us.)
The intention is for my spouse to visit the country and for us to do some sightseeing together during weekends/ off days.
Are there any things to look out for? Has anyone tried this before?
Thanks for any feedback.

I saw it happening many many times without any problem. I do not see why not.

The answers you're getting about the possibility that the spouse might feel ignored are true.  I always found it preferable to have my wife meet me at the tail end of the conference, and then spend a few extra days on our own.

It often happens. many conferences even organize program for accompanying family members.

Really, why not? What's the problem with you bringing her?

Yes, it is perfectly normal and accepted, at least in all fields I have heard about. Many conferences also allow one to purchase extra tickets for the social program (conference dinner, excursions) for spouses and accompanying persons.
The only possible source of trouble is how to split the hotel bill, since you will (most likely) be sharing a room. Make sure to inquire in advance with the institution that pays for your trip, or at least ask a colleague what the norm is.

Typical setup, to the best of my knowledge, is that the institution pays for your accommodation, and you pay the difference out of your pocket.

If OP's institution will pay for him/her to have his own room, then bringing his/her spouse wouldn't incur any additional cost.

@ASimmons Hotels often charge more for a room if there are going to be two people in it.

@DavidRicherby Only some hotels charge more for a room if the number of occupants changes from one to two. And those who do charge more, charge so nominally in my experience. The only time I have seen a significant difference is when you get a bigger room or stay for the additional days/weekend. It is not at all uncommon to just get the hotel to split the bill and you can pay using two different credit cards or something at checkout. The institution pays/reimburses for one and you pay the difference.

AFAIK, charging more for a room with two occupants is more common in Europe than in the US, so be aware that this may vary depending on location. Also, if S is the price of a single room and D is the price of a double room, it is unclear to me whether the institution should reimburse S or D/2 in this case. There are arguments for both.

Charging more for two persons than one is probably common anywhere meals (breakfast or more) are included.

Also may vary depending on whether the OP is a student or not. When I was in grad school, we typically stayed 2 students to a room while attending conferences. That said, I had friends (in other groups) that brought their spouse along, but I'm not sure how they split the costs.

@FedericoPoloni I've seen it go both ways... at the same company, for the same employee. The situation was a number of employees traveling together were asked to share rooms. Once was bringing a spouse, and so couldn't share. The company covered half the room. But later, it was a less-attended event, and rooms were not shared. The hotel did charge for the extra occupant, and the employer covered everything but the difference.

One thing to note is that unscheduled time during conferences (meal times, evenings, weekends, days off, etc) is commonly used by participants for networking, social events, informal scientific discussions, one-on-one collaboration, and so on.  If you are planning to spend this time with your spouse instead, you may miss out on those opportunities.

Right, but I'd put the other way round: tell your spouse that you will not be able to spend much time with her/him because, after all, you're "on duty".

Anecdotal: last time I went to the party, my wife spent more time networking with my colleagues than me.

Good point. I will tell my wife she may have to be on her own on certain days.

I have done this both as the researcher with the spouse, and as the spouse. I have never encountered any problem with it, nor has it been particularly rare (one conference I went to, by virtue of being in Disney World, I suspect featured more people with their family than without).
The one caveat is to make sure your spouse is prepared to be somewhat ignored during the days of the actual conference, as in my experience it's a bad idea to let the desire to go on vacation interfere with the actual purpose of the conference. So, for example, they may be on their own for dinner for a night or two.
When I was the spouse, I usually used this to go to museums and the like I knew my partner would be less interested in.

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


text:
Confusing article status for journals of American Mathematical Society: "reviewing" AND "being handled by an editor"
The web page of my article in the AMS editorial system for some three months says "Article status: Reviewing" and in the next line "Your paper is being handled by an editor". I find this confusing as the "reviewing" status appears to suggest that the article is with the referee(s) rather than with the editor but this in turn seems to contradict the line "Your paper is being handled by an editor".

Could someone with enough experience with AMS journals please explain how should one interpret the combination of "Article status: Reviewing" and the line "Your paper is being handled by an editor" at the article page?
More broadly, which are the possible article statuses in the AMS editorial system?

Many thanks in advance.

I don't see the contradiction. An editor is looking over it, and is presumably waiting to hear back from referees.

@vonbrand: Thanks. However, in my experience so far I have never seen a similar behavior in other editorial systems: they tend to indicate explicitly that the paper is "with referee(s)" or "under review" rather than "being handled by an editor", that's why I asked this question in the first place.
Did you also experience this particular combination ("Article status: Reviewing" and "Your paper is being handled by an editor") with this particular editorial system?

Did you ask them? Often there is administrative staff associated with the journal which can be asked without bothering the editor.

Sounds like you are not through the AMS wait time of 4-8 months ,according to AMS

You should note that the word "editor" is used in many ways for quite different things. Most people understand it to mean "someone who makes changes/edits to the text". But that isn't how it is necessarily used. While the publishing industry does, in fact, employ people who do that, working with an author to improve the text, it usually means someone with some management responsibility.
In the case of your paper, I suspect that a "managing editor" (a manager) has assigned your paper to a lower level "subject editor" (or some similar term) whose main responsibility is to track the progress of the paper through the system. He or she will find reviewers, track their progress, and collect reviews. When all reviews are in, that "editor" will make a recommendation to some higher level "editor" about whether to accept or not. If the overall decision is to accept, then your subject editor may assign someone to work with the author on improving the text - a traditional editor.
I used the term "subject editor", not because it is a term of use, but because it describes someone who actually knows a bit about the subject of the paper and which reviewers would be good for getting advice. This is most likely the "editor" that the system is referring to. It means, roughly, "we are handling it and progress is being made".
See the Scholarly Books... section of this wikipedia article for the typical usages. "Project editor" = "subject editor".

An associate editor is handling your paper.  Part of how the editor handles it is to solicit reports from referees.  While the referees review the paper, it is still considered as being handled by the editor.  Indeed, the editor handles it until either it is rejected or it is accepted and handed over to the staff who handle final proofing and typesetting.

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


text:
Is it a good thing as a teacher to declare things like "Good! Things are becoming clearer already."
Is it fine for a teacher who makes a topic look easy by saying things like:

"Good!"

or

"Easy!"

or

"Everything becomes perfectly clear now!"

Things I can think of in favor of doing this is that it might reduce students' concerns and will create an environment where nothing is too complicated.
On the other hand, I'm afraid it can also create an environment that if for some students the topic is not clear, they will feel worse now as the teacher said that "it's supposed to be easy" and they might even be afraid to ask to not show that they couldn't understand something that supposed to be "easy".

I find your question very interesting and relevant, but please note that asking for opinions is not a valid use of this website (see the help center). I recommend that you edit your question so that you ask for scientific evidence, instead of opinions.

Your question also lacks context. In some cases it might be the case that e.g. a mathematical result suddenly makes clear what was really going on in a series of seemingly unrelated cases. Then the professor should emphasize the clarity that the result brings. On the other hand, comments like what you report often evince that the professor has a bad case of the curse of knowledge

Note that the remark in your title is quite different from the remarks in your question. The phrasing of "Things are becoming clear already" emphasizes the fact that learning is a continuous process and that clarity is not simply "I totally get it" or "I'm lost" (a fixed mindset), and encouraging that growth mindset in students is hugely beneficial. Your main concern seems to be harmfully reinforcing a fixed mindset in your students, and the remarks in the question might have more potential to do so than the remark in the title.

@GregMartin: Note that the growth-vs-fixed mindset theory has failed most large replication attempts (in a long legacy of easy-fix education theories).

@DanielR.Collins "Easy-fix" isn't really an accurate descriptor, but I would be sincerely interested if you could point me to such replication efforts or meta-analyses.

Please don't my like my calculus teacher, skipping tons of explanation and dubbing as "self evident".

@GregMartin: http://psychbrief.com/growth-mindset-fails/, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/debate-arises-over-teaching-growth-mindsets-to-motivate-students/, https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/tsdwy

Not at all relevant but this reminds me of the old story: A college mathematics professor was lecturing to a class, said "And now it  is obvious that", stepped back and said "Now why is that obvious?"  He sat down at the teacher's desk and wrote furiously for 10 minutes, then jumpd up and said "Yes, it is obvious!"

I am very surprised that such a severely lacking question (no context whatsoever, the actual question left up to interpretation) was not closed.

Another problem with the question is that the answer isn't independent of the instructor's personality. Is "everything is perfectly clear now" said with a touch of humor and tempered by occasional reminders that clear knowledge is not always clear at first, or is it said in a belittling way which alienates half the class?

May I ask what is the purpose of  making a topic look easy rather than just teaching it well so that it actually is easy? Experts can make anything look easy (musical instruments, for example) and it does no students any good when they try it for themselves and quickly find out it is not.

I had a professor who used the phrase "Thus it is intuitively obvious to the casual observer that..." to skip 10 minutes of some complex derivation. ;-)

Personally, I like it when math explainers point out which steps they think are easy, because I want to know what they think is easy. If I don't think it's easy yet (often the case), this does not offend me. The fact that they think it's easy gives me some valuable perspective / guidance. And I like to see them express their enjoyment of the ideas, and the enjoyment often centers on the ideas that they find to be delightfully clear.

Like the others have said, this needs more context. What field? what level of teaching? etc.

If a teacher is speaking to one student and has evidence that the student now grasps something, then is fine. Otherwise, I'd worry about such things.
Every student is different and some will fail to grasp an important point for various reasons. Sometimes it is something that the teacher said that the student misinterpreted and was misled.
Those of us who teach sometimes fall into the trap that what we say is said in the most perfect way possible. But we have a long history that leads us to speak in a certain way about our subject and the students don't share that history. The human languages we use aren't perfect and often don't map words and phrases one-to-one with the ideas we try to convey. Language is seldom exactly precise, especially for complex things.
Saying "All is clear now" to a group is, therefore, probably not true. Those for whom it is not clear will be frustrated and feel frustrated and even angry.
Asking "Is it clear now?" is a better approach. And if you then get questions, don't use exactly the same words over again to try to make it clear. Those words may be the problem.
Many things need to be explained in several ways before a group of people will reach a common understanding. Even some mathematical proofs are suspect because they leave out "obvious" or "trivial" steps that a reader doesn't grasp without a lot of work.

To some degree it also comes down to style - if you have that "let's crack on, it shouldn't be too hard"- personality it would be quite natural to have a few of these in the mix. If you don't have that personality it could rub off as very synthetic to engineer them in.

Not only is the question a better approach, but it should be followed by: "If it isn't, feel free to ask a question or write to me individually and we can try to figure it out."

I would even recommend avoiding questions like "is it clear now?" or "are there any questions?" if possible, as these are somewhat vague and potentially intimidating -- students might be hesitant to voice their uncertainties, especially if they think others understand and they're the only one who doesn't. Instead, you can ask more pointed questions about what you've been covering to gauge understanding, like "now, why did we do step X here?" or "what about this problem suggested that we use Y approach?" or "how do we get from Z to W here?"

I started my academic career as a high school teacher.  As part of earning the credential to teach high school, I had to go through a semester-long "internship" as a student teacher---I taught in a classroom under the close supervision of a veteran instructor.  One of the first bits of feedback I got was that I had a tendency to say that a problem was "easy" or "clear".  In my own head, it was in the context of a universe of possible problems, e.g. "This problem is easy as compared to this other problem on a similar topic," or "Let's start with an easy example before moving onto harder examples." My supervisor encouraged me to avoid this kind of language, because

no problem is easy and nothing is clear, and
telling a student that a problem is easy destroys morale when they can't figure it out.

No problem is easy
There is a great Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic which describes a view of how ideas come about in mathematics, and how we disseminate those ideas.  Essentially, modern mathematics is the distillation of several thousand years of thought.  The ideas and results were hard-won, yet we somehow expect students to master them in very little time.
I imagine that this observation is true across disciplines.  For example, I can't imagine trying to give a one-hour lecture summarizing Lewis Henry Morgan and the modern study of kinship, nor can I imagine how clear the ideas would be to students after such a lecture.
Ultimately, I think that this is a form of the curse of knowledge: as instructors, we might think that the ideas are easy because we are so familiar with them, or perhaps because we never had difficulty with them ourselves, but that doesn't mean that they are actually easy.  We have to figure out how to put ourselves back into the shoes of a novice, and remember how difficult the ideas were in the first place.
The impact on morale
Because mathematics is so often stigmatized[1], I think that mathematicians are (or, at least, should be) particularly sensitive to things which are likely to further drive people away or cause them to shut down.  However, I think that all instructors across all fields should be aware of how their style impacts morale, so this isn't really a math-specific observation.
If you tell a student that something is "easy" or "clear" and that student is still confused, you are implicitly suggesting that the student has failed to grasp an obvious concept.  This tells the student that if they admit to their confusion, they are admitting to being inferior, and that they might become an object of ridicule.  The student understands the failure to be theirs, and theirs alone, rather than a failure on the part of the instructor, or a blameless failure in the process of communication.  Such a student is not going to ask a question, is not going to seek clarification, and is likely to withdraw from the topic.
As such, I think that it is imperative that we avoid saying things that trivialize the work that we and our students have to do.  It is bad form to tell a student that a concept is clear, or that a problem is easy.
What might we do?
In the question, it is suggested that an instructor who makes a topic look easy might note how easy things have become.  I think that the reality is quite different:  the teachers who make things look easy are those who are most sensitive to how difficult things really are.  They lean into that difficulty, and explain clearly to students where the problems lie.  It is then up to students to come out the other end and say to themselves "Wow!  I thought that idea was hard, but the professor really made it easy to understand!"
I don't think that there is a one-size-fits-all solution to this, but there are a few things that I do in my own practice which, I think, help:

Ask Questions:  I don't assert that ideas are clear; I ask if they are clear:  "Is this clear now?", "Do you all understand?", "Do any of you have any clarifying questions you'd like to ask?", "Can we move on, or would you like to work through another example?", and so on.  Indeed, I often ask "Is this clear?" in a situation when I know that it should still be quite unclear to students.  Done often and early enough, this gives students permission to admit that things are confusing.

Provide Context:  To the extent possible, I like to give students some historical context for the development of ideas.  For example, we might spend as little as a week defining the derivative of a function.  This short period of time belies the enormous intellectual achievement it represents:  the ancient Greeks were the first to spot a problem (Zeno's paradoxes), Newton and Leibniz (both of whom "stood on the shoulders of giants") first put the ideas together, Euler (and Fourier and Cauchy) introduced the modern notion of "function", and late 19th/early 20th century mathematicians (Hilbert, among others) nailed down the formalism.  If the derivative looks easy, it is only because it took such a long time to refine and distill the ideas.  It is actually a remarkably hard concept.

Employ Appropriate Comparatives:  It is, I think, entirely reasonable to assert that one example is less difficult than another.  Logically, this is the same as asserting that one example is easier than another.  However, when one says that a problem is "less difficult" it could still be hard, whereas if one asserts that a problem is "easier" then a student might only hear the "easy".  I don't start with "easy" or "simple" examples; I start with "less difficult" or "illuminating" examples.

[1]  Speaking from the perspective of an American, it seems that no one has a problem with a person saying "I'm just not any good at math!" or "I'm not a math person!"  Fear and loathing of mathematics is considered appropriate, and mathematicians are seen either as god-like geniuses, or asocial nerds (or both, I suppose).  It is considered okay for a "normal" person to be mathematically illiterate.  A seemingly equivalent admission of illiteracy ("I'm just not any good at reading!") would be shocking.

Nice answer, although that Saturday Morning Breakfast cartoon seems to be taking Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions and applying it to the history of math in ways that don't seem clearly applicable. I can't think of many examples of where actual proofs have been rejected just because their conclusions contradict established theories. There are cases of rejecting proofs because they are e.g. non-constructive, but in such cases there are foundational issues which are still a topic of debate.

@JohnColeman Indeed, it is not even obvious that Kuhn's description is apt in any context (it has been a while since I was actively working in anthropology;  I don't really  know what the current consensus on Kuhn is).  I guess that I read the comic more broadly:  ideas which took time and work to develop are taught in classes as though they were trivial.  We might try to shy away from  that implied triviality. :)

One of my mentors often remarked that there are only two types of problems: Trivial ones which you already know how to solve, and impossible ones which you don't. There are no grades of "easiness" or "hardness" in between the extremes!

@alephzero true, although obviously one can easily (;P) come p with some "hardness" metric to approximate the difficulty of the problem (even if it's only something like "the length of the proof").

@alephzero - I really like that!  I've used a variation before, but I don't know how good it is: "Things in math are usually easy - when you know how. Getting to 'when you know how' is the hard part! A lot of this stuff took hundreds of years to figure out for the first time, so don't feel bad if it takes you more than an afternoon!"

I've often rated the topic at the start of class: "a lot of people think this next thing is hard. I'm going to go over the problem it solves, then hopefully the rules will make sense. There are only 2, but they're weird". In that context when I say something is easy I'm saying that compared to the class so far, it won't be as bad as you were expecting.
But that thing about "...who makes a topic look easy by saying "Good!" / "Easy!" / "Everything becomes perfectly clear now!" seems like a nervous habit. Maybe that's their way of saying "and that's the end of explanation" -- "and now everything is clear!". That seems fine. I used to say things like "So...was that a minute longer than it needed to be? Let's do some problems". If someone is sincerely taking extra time to say "my explanation is so good that you understand it perfectly now", that's just weird.

This. "*seems like a nervous habit" It just adds nothing. It comes off as someone laughing at their own jokes.

@DKNguyen Sure, but plenty of excellent instructors also have a few ticks, if that's all it is. One of my favorite instructors giggled quite a bit.

I do think this is a poor piece of rhetoric.
It shares shades of writing that includes a lot of "obviously", "of course", "trivial to see", etc. This tends to signal a place where the writer has a weak explanation and is trying to get over that hump by using a proof by intimidation.
As an example, when I reviewed Sebastian Thrun's Udacity Statistics 101 course, this is one of the criticisms I made (see section 9, "Hucksterism"). In those presentations he had an immense number of, e.g., "You now know a lot about scatter plots!"”. "Isn't this a lot of fun?", "You are a very capable statistician at this point!", "smile and say you took Sebastian's Stats 101 and you understand!" -- which was pretty thin paper over lectures he was clearly ad-libbing with no prep or editing, late at night after his day job.
It's not the biggest issue in the world. But I do think it's a clear mistake -- and usually symptom of other weaknesses in the presentation.


text:
Is there a difference between "Technology Management" and "Management of Technology"?
Is there a difference between "Technology Management" and "Management of Technology"?
In academia, we come across degrees like MSc in Technology Management, MSc in Management of Technology, MBA in Technology Management etc. Have they given the names Technology Management/Management of Technology because of some difference, or are both the same, similar to how "Department of Chemistry" and "Chemistry Department" both mean the same?

For this you probably need to look at the individual curriculum to see what is emphasized and what is assumed. Such a program might be considered a STEM program focused on the technology or a management program focused largely on people. They could be quite different or the same, depending.
Further exploration is needed.

Okay, thanks @Buffy then that means the program designer can design as they need and give either the name, according to their requirement I guess


text:
Why do faculty use two different email addresses?
Why faculty usually have two official email addresses, the university and the department address?

Name@university.edu
Name@department.university.edu

Do they use the second more to communicate with students and the first for other tasks? They could use one and add emails to folders or labels.

At my university, these are aliases for the same email account.  I think this is fairly common.

I once had a problem with this. I had to deliver a project with some other students to professor X Y. Being used to that scheme of emails we sent a mail to Y@uni-domain. But, turns out, there was a retired professor Z Y which still owned that mail and we should have used the Y@department.uni-domain (or X.Y@uni-domain).

In some federal universities such as Oxford the staff (and students) will also get an email address from each college of which they are a member! Sometimes it is a matter of a subgroup asserting its identity over the whole, with its own IT infrastructure and its own mail system.

As a sudent I started with about 4, one from my username, one from my student number, another from my student number at mailserver hostname, and one from the CS department, that all went to the same account.
6 years later, as a postgrad I am down to one from my student number, my studentnumber at gmail (whom the uni outsourced mail serving to), my name at research, and then a staff email of myname at institution.
Email Aliases are common and prevelent in large organistions.  I created a graph of the aliases used in our student computer club: http://oxinabox.ucc.asn.au/images/aliases.svg

@Oxinabox They outsourced mail servicing to gmail? Seriously? How mean is that!

@BenediktBauer They have contract with google, valued at more than I can imagine, no doubt. And why not? Google as proven its capacity to provide mail services, with extremely high uptime, and capacity.

@Oxinabox Yes they have, but they also confess publicly that they are scanning all mail they process for profiling reasons (since its early days google evolved to world's largest ad network with attached search engine and mail) and since Snowden we know that NSA can get to know everything that google knows either by law or by wiretapping. I don't think it's a smart decision to hand over mail that may contain personal data as well as unpublished research data to such a provider. With hosting done at the campus one could at least assume that mail sent within the university stays private.

@BenediktBauer, According to them, they stopped doing that. http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/30/google-no-longer-mining-student-gmail-accounts-for-targeted-ads/

As Andy Putman points out in his comment, the two addresses often go to the same place.  Even if there are two different accounts, it's common to forward e-mail from one to the other (or to a third account).  Nobody uses both accounts independently unless they have some idiosyncratic reason to do so.
The existence of two addresses is not nearly as universal as you suggest.  You don't usually see english.university.edu or art-history.university.edu in e-mail addresses, for example.  The departments that do have special addresses (such as CS or math) often ran their own mail servers long before university-wide servers were common.  Some still do, because they don't like the way the university servers are run or don't trust them to be reliable, while others simply provide aliases for the university servers.  Either way, getting rid of the departmental addresses would be disruptive, so they are likely to exist for the foreseeable future.

To give an example: one reason I keep my department and university accounts separate is to keep the constant stream of university emails from cluttering my inbox and distracting me from work.

@Kimball So you use the department account for all students and tasks, while the university for other tasks? Can you please elaborate more?

@ThomasLee I started to write an elaboration in a comment, but it was getting long so I added it as a new answer.

"because they don't like the way the university servers are run or don't trust them to be reliable" - I think a more likely explanation would be, they don't want to lose emails from colleagues who only have their old email address.

I am not sure what is more likely, but I I did run into people where the "because they don't like the way the university servers are run or don't trust them to be reliable" was true.  Which might no longer hold today now that exchange has matured. But in ye old days the unix server with sendmail where a lot more reliable (or better maintained?) than our exchange setup.

While it is possible that some departments are running separate mail servers and faculty members are not linking the accounts, in the cases I am aware of this dates back to times when email and computer logins where managed at the department level and there was no concept of a university email account. Some departments I have been in are actively phasing out the departmental alias such that new staff members do not get a departmental alias while others are continuing to give out departmental aliases. In all cases I am aware of, both addresses link to a single email account.
As to why a faculty member may give out one address over another, that comes down to personal preference.

In addition to the given reasons, I know of two other common reasons why you may often see multiple addresses:

Some institutions have both a "fixed" and a "personalized" form of email address.  Members of the institution generally have no choice in the fixed form, which is often set directly from their official legal name and sometimes even before they join the institution.  Sometimes these are pretty horrible (I've seem email of the form [initials][3-digit-number]@university), and sometimes one's legal name is not one's preferred form of address (e.g., my own name), so most institutions also allow people to set up one or more preferred aliases.
Email is generally not actually routed through a server for the toplevel address (e.g., "ivyleague.edu") but rather through some arbitrary sub-element within that system (e.g., "mailmangler.ivyleague.edu"), and sometimes the electronic bones of this system are visible in multiple different equivalent email addresses.

Why faculty usually have 2 official emails, the university email and the department?

Sometimes, the answer is simply "because they can". At various universities I am acquainted with, any employee gets several (more than 2) e-mail aliases for their one university e-mail inbox.

One of the distinctions is indeed usually a generic university-wide server part and one specific to the department. For departments that are subdivided into several groups, employees even get another e-mail address with the server part indicating the group name. And thinking about it, there is no real reason to discontinue this policy - the group or department-specific address has more "personality" in terms of representing one's group or department, while the generic one is easier to remember.
Furthermore, there are usually several alternative name parts available. For instance, everyone gets aliases for each of the aforementioned server parts with their unique account name, and aliases with a human-readable name (usually in "firstname.lastname" form). Sometimes, there is yet another set of aliases just with the "lastname" as the name part. Again, the difference is how easily the addresses can be recalled and read.

To summarize:

It is fairly easy to configure e-mail servers in a way to provide multiple aliases based on various naming conventions to each user.
There is no reason to reduce the number of aliases per user.
Different aliases have different advantages and disadvantages, so different aliases can be picked depending on the purpose (displaying an e-mail address, memorizing an e-mail address, saying an e-mail address in verbal conversation, writing an e-mail address at the board, ...).

This is in response to the OP's request in a comment to elaborate on my personal situation.  This is not to explain why I have two email addresses, but just how I use them differently.
In my department (math), we have separate department and university servers both with email, and I keep my email accounts separate, though many people in our department forward from one to the other (usually from department to university, I think) and only check one.
Basically I use the department email for anything involving research or teaching or quasi-personal, as well as administrative stuff at the department level.  Various factions within the university send out loads emails to us (often requiring no response and rarely urgent) which typically go to our university email addresses.
Therefore I made the conscious decision to not forward from one account to the other because almost all of these are unwanted emails, and I probably only open about 5-10% of them.  So they would just clutter up my department inbox and distract me with email notifications throughout the day if I forwarded them to my department email, which I check often.  I know I could filter the forwarded emails into a separate folder, but I don't want to know when I get a new university email, and having this extra login barrier helps reduce distraction.
So whenever I give my email address to someone, I give them my department email which I check throughout the day, whereas I usually check the university address about once every day or two.  I honestly don't even know what my university email address is.  Any email I send of my own accord will come from my department address.  The only emails I send from my university account are replies to emails to that account.

I would think there is probably multiple departments trying to provide this internal mail service for the university.
The typical case is like there is a department-level IT infrastructure with its own mail addresses and its own policy, while there is also a central IT mail service provided by the university.
The second can be needed, for example if the department has needs which are contradicting the policy of he university (for example, if the Uni wants to give mail addresses only internal employee, while the department want to give mailboxes even for guest researchers, too).
Or the department-level mail address (and password) could be also used for authentication, f.e. to use the department-level computing infrastructure.


text:
Is it okay for professors to completely copy another professors' notes, assignments, and exam questions word for word from another university?
I have a professor who used the same lecture notes, same assignments, and same exam questions word for word from from another professor at a different university (who posts his notes, assignments, and exams online). She mentions she "makes her own exams", however the questions are identical to the online past exam and assignment questions.
It's a masters level class and the exam questions are quite specific. We are given an abstract to read and then asked to perform calculations/analyze the abstract.
Is this common or "allowed"?

How do you know she didn't create these materials herself, and share them with the other professor?

Also see Is it acceptable for paid online course to use quizzes and materials from elsewhere on the internet?

Also see How widespread is sharing of slides/assignments among educators?

That's a valid question. Since she is a new associate professor in the field, I made the assumption since the other professor had labelled their content "past midterms and exams 2005, 2006, 2007" - years before she was hired to teach.

Maybe she was that professor's TA and actually wrote the exams in 2005-2007 :) or maybe they are friends, and developed the materials collaboratively. Personally, I've been in situations where I developed materials for a new course, and they were used by another professor (who I shared them with) before I even taught the course for the first time.

Anyways, if you want to know if it's wrong for the instructor to use non-original materials without citation, that's already well covered by the duplicates. If you want to know whether the instructor has the right to use these materials at all, that's not something we can answer since we don't know about any license or agreement that may exist between the author and your instructor.

You're right in that professors who have good teaching material should be able to share it with others in the field. Thanks for taking the time to answer my question! :)

I think this question has interesting aspects that the linked-to-question does not, so I have voted to reopen.  In particular the question here is not just whether the instructor has the right to reuse someone else's course materials, but whether it is problematic to give no indication of the wholesale copying (and even claim the contrary).  In my opinion, dishonesty done in one's academic job should be considered some form of academic dishonesty, even though it may not be plagiarism.  This is not a victimless crime: if I were the copied professor, I would feel victimized by this.

Moreover it is (in my opinion) also problematic to give exams which are (even largely) the same as extant exams available on the internet.  Taking more than one exam from the same source is highly inappropriate and risks compromising the academic integrity and fairness of grading of the entire course.

If 1st professor published his/her notes and question with a license which allows that, it's almost ok.  If 1st professor published questions without anything which looks like a license, the 2nd professor should ask permission.
The main pros of using notes and questions made by somebody  - optimization of work. Why should anybody invent a bicycle if we can get already invented bicycle and use it?

Funny how plagiarism is considered "optimizing" and "not reinventing the wheel" for professors, yet for students it's grounds for failure.


text:
Is the professor's reputation taken into consideration by the admissions committee when they read her/his recommendation letter
I worked as an RA and a TA with a professor, therefore I am  hoping for a solid recommendation letter. However, I am concerned if the admissions committee would run a background check on the professor who wrote the recommendation letter, mainly:
1) Would they be looking at the students opinion of that professor? Examples of student's opinions can be found at websites like ratemyprofessor.
Or
2) Will the admissions committee just check his research history and research related accomplishments?
And if they found something like bad student ratings, or a gap in the professor's research history, how would that affect the recommendation letter he wrote on my behalf?

Most people I know in academia considers sites like ratemyprofessor to be a joke at best and an abomination at worst.  They certainly wouldn't use them to decide how to interpret a letter of recommendation.

@NateEldredge "most", really? I'd say all! We are generally loath to judge an academic's reputation without having read a few of his / her papers and heard them speak at a conference.

@NateEldredge -- you must not have a good "hotrating" ;)

ratemyprofessor seems to be only targeted on US. This makes it useless as a reference here, as this site is targeted to a world audience.

When I read admission application letters of recommendation, I certainly do care who the letter writers are. I do not look at student-oriented, commercialized, ad-click sites like "rate my professors". If I do not already know the letter writers by reputation, I might look at the math genealogy project to see where the letter writers went to school, who their advisors were, and what PhD students they've had if they're at a PhD-granting institution.
Yes, some particular small liberal-arts colleges manage to establish a reputation for producing students with a certain outlook. Some such outlooks are better in grad school than others...
In contrast to some other answers/comments, no, I do not think that everyone with a not-so-new PhD is able to assess future potential. And I do not think that the percentage demands in grad-school forms are sensible... considering that maybe it's not all linearizable, totally order-able? Srsly?
I absolutely do not assume that all letter writers are capable assessors... I don't necessarily assume that they're incompetent, either, ...
What a student would want to maximize might be a "product" of (1) familiarity of faculty person with your work/ability/interests, and (2) the visibility/credibility of the person in the research community.
This "visibility/credibility" is not at all easily determinable, not by beginners, certainly not by the commodified "impact factor" and other silly things. It's by something more like "lifetime achievement" and prior mentoring of PhD students (if any).

Amen to "I do not think that the percentage demands in grad-school forms are sensible".  Worse yet are demands for overall rankings among all graduating seniors, like "7th in a graduating class of 84".  I have the impression that some schools (outside the U.S.?) actually compute such relative ranks in each graduating class, but mine doesn't, and so I've never known what to do with such questions.

I would add a third factor: (3) past experience with strong undergraduates applying for graduate school. A letter that says "This student is really good!" is not as strong as "This student shows the same signs of future success as my previous students XXX, currently a PhD student at YYY, and ZZZ, who just received tenure at QQQ."

In addition to the recommender's reputation for research and teaching, his reputation for letter-writing may be taken into consideration if the readers of the letter know about it.  If every letter from Professor X says that the student is in the top 5%, then people who know that won't be so impressed when he says that you're in the top 5%.

A recommendation letter is a specific type of expert knowledge. The recommender is asked to evaluate you because one or (preferably) both of:

He is an expert in the subject of "you", having first hand knowledge there.
He is an expert in the subject of teaching/research/whatever his expertise is especially pertaining your interactions.

If you are asking the person to write your reference letter and he has agreed, presumably the first condition is satisfied. They impact the letter will have on the admissions committee comes mostly from the second.

If you are thinking about a teaching letter, a letter from someone who is demonstrably a good teacher is treated more favorably then someone who is 'merely' a top tier researcher. (How do you demonstrate good teaching? Someone who is active in modern pedagogy, who has won teaching awards, or simply someone who is, by word of mouth, a good teach. [Word of mouth meaning conversations with other academic professionals, not ratemyprofessor or any of those websites.])
To help ameliorate this process, it helps if your recommender has access to documentation that can factually and objectively demonstrate you are a good teacher. (If the recommender explains that you have won such and such award and this award is prestigious because so-and-so, that's a lot easier to accept than just 'because I say so', especially in the case where the recommender is not well-known to the committee.)

Similarly, if you are thinking about a research letter, then a letter from a research star who happens to be familiar with your work is usually better than a letter from a research superstar who only knows the surface of what you do.

People tend to take opinions of people that they personally know and have a good opinion of more seriously, compared to people whose name that they have heard of, compared to complete strangers. So part of the selection of recommenders that you are doing should be trying to maximize impact by optimizing between "the people reading the letter will have heard of the recommender and respect his/her opinion" and "the recommender can say something insightful about the aspects of you that he or she is commenting about."


text:
Acknowledging a single funding source: do I say "partially supported"?
I wrote my first academic paper recently (it is in math). I need to put a footnote crediting the NSF for funding. I have noticed that papers almost always say "Partially supported by [grant]". I got all of my funding from one grant. Should I still say partially supported? If so, what is the reason for this?

I've always assumed that the `partially supported' meant that you were also supported by your department in some way.

I am an undergrad so I don't get paid by the department. Although I guess I get other resources from them.

Did you use the department's wireless network? Printers? Electricity? Tables? Bathrooms?

Yes good point.

The NSF requires the following text (or its equivalent) in publications from work funded by their grants:

"This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. (grantee must enter NSF grant number)."

No need to quantify the level of support.

Exactly this. Most granting agencies will tell you precisely the grammar to use.

Even, unfortunately, if that grammar is wrong (looking at you, National Research Foundation of South Africa).

Some grants come with more strict requirements than others. I am aware of at least one funding body, that requests to specifically explain which part of the work was supported by this grant (and you can not just say "a part"). Others are satisfied if you just mention them. Read the funding agreement and follow their guidelines.


text:
How can I justify having only two publications when applying for postdoc jobs in physics/chemistry?
I have only 2 publications from my PhD, and I am applying for a post-doc position.
My fields are: Theoretical physical chemistry; condensed matter physics;
computational chemistry; cluster science.
I am already a postdoc and I am finishing 2 publications, and my collaborators are going to write other 2. The problems are: I have no idea when those 2 papers, that I am going to be co-author, will be published; the only proof I have publications is those 2 from my PhD, which are not really connected with the position I am applying for.
How to justify the lack of publications in my application form?
I always had this feeling that putting "manuscript in preparation" in my publication list sounds weird, even if it is true.

Important missing pieces of information: what is your field? how long have you been a postdoc? For example, f you were a pure mathematician with 2 publications from your PhD, and recently graduated, you might well not need to justify anything.

Did I get the math right? You had 2 from the PhD, you're now writing 2, and your collaborator is writing 2. How come you will end up with 2 but not at least 4? (2 PhD and 2 post-doc written by you.) Also, why are you applying a post-doc and you're also already a post-doc?

@Penguin_Knight In some fields, it is quite normal to do multiple postdocs.

Good answers to this question are impossible without information about your field, because publication expectations vary radically from field to field.  Accordingly, I have voted to put this question on hold as unclear.

@Penguin_Knight, I said, I'm finishing 2 publications. They are not yet published.
And yes, as jakebeal said, in my field, we do postdocs ad infinitum... even if I have 6 months of contract in my current postdoc, I am already applying for the next one.

@ArtiePrendergast-Smith and jakebeal, I will edit the question...

I do not understand why you find "weird" putting manuscripts in preparation in your CV. In my field, it is perfectly normal and accepted, and I guess in all academia.
This is the best way to explain what you did in the last years. It won't be strange at all, especially if you have talks on those results already, as you imply in a comment. These things happen; sometimes papers take a long time to prepare, and a selection committee should be aware of this fact.
It would look much weirder, in my view, if you don't list them and write a long statement in the cover letter about the lack of publications. As they said in ancient Rome, "he who excuses himself unsolicited, accuses himself".

I guess "feeling weird" comes from the fact that someone can add articles in preparation without any further proof or without having much prepared on them, so people might use that to artificially inflate their numbers during an application.

I've never had the sense that it is normal and accepted in my field (particle physics).

@o4tlulz, that's exactly the point.

Federico, I've followed your advices. Finally, I listed the publications in preparation and wrote an explanation about each one them. In addition, I  highlighted the fact that results of these works have already be presented in oral communications. I also explained that more papers are coming, and I preferred to do not list them, as I am not going to be the first author and I am not in charge to handle the first drafts.

@ziulfer Best of luck for your application!

If you are nearly finished with your papers you are preparing, you can always send them to show that things are in the pipeline. Just make sure to put a note saying "in preparation: DO NOT DISTRIBUTE" or something similar in your manuscripts.
Depending on your area 2 papers is not bad, especially if they are really good papers.

Knowing my co-authors, they won't be OK with that. But you gave me an idea. I will review some old presentations I have related with the publications and put some of the news results that are going to be published.
It is not the same, but at least they are going to see the results.

@ziulfer I would ask your co-authors. I once had a co-worker who had great fear for being scooped, but in this case it shouldn't be bad. Do you personally know the person you are applying for? If you are applying for a postdoc position, then you can trust that person to keep your manuscript to themself.

The issue is not "how many" publications you have, but how good (and relevant) they are.
If you have two publications that "hit the mark" in your field, you're fine. The rest can be explained by the fact that you were doing a lot of coursework, or maybe teaching.
If someone has a bunch of second-rate publications in "general science," that's not going to get them very far in physics or chemistry research.


text:
Applying for undergraduate research - include transcript with bad 1st year GPA?
I'm a 2nd year student writing a request to volunteer as a research assistant to a professor. From what I've read, attaching a transcript to the introductory email is a good idea. [1][2]
I'm considering not including it as my 1st year marks were pretty terrible. My 2nd year went well, but I suspect my 1st year might give a bad impression and disqualify me for many professors.
In such a case, which (if any) are a good idea:

Include the transcript, don't mention anything in the email
Include the transcript, explain reason for bad marks in the email.
Don't include the transcript. Mention good GPA received this semester.
Don't mention the transcript.

Maybe its different at your school, but I just walked up to the professors and asked them what kind of undergraduate projects were open. If you can do it in person, it makes it harder for them to say no and also shows how serious you are.

I would just like to point out this question is not exclusively applicable to undergrads.

@Neo Sorry for the late response. That's the plan this fall semester. I'm trying for what remains of the summer as well, where the professors don't seem to ever be in their offices.

There are two reasons I want to see a transcript when I take on research assistants:

I want to know what relevant classes they have taken, and how they did in those classes. This (hopefully) tells me something about what kind of basic knowledge I can expect them to have in my subject area, which in turn helps me evaluate whether I have a project that is well-suited for them.
I don't want to hire a student that is struggling with their coursework, because a research position is very demanding in terms of time and attention. A student who is currently barely passing classes should be focusing on that, not taking on a new major responsibilities. (My university has a minimum GPA requirement for student research assistants for this reason.)

Definitely include your transcript with your email. Don't explain the reason for the bad grades straight off - why draw attention to the negative? But ideally, you should be able to say something like "I took 'Highly Relevant Course' this spring and it made me really interested in pursuing research in this area", where 'Highly Relevant Course' is something you've done well in, that is directly related to the professor's research. The idea is to show that you have basic knowledge in the relevant area, and you're also not currently struggling to pass your courses.

I'd say a mixture of points 2 and 3. It's always good to be honest with your colleagues and especially a potential supervisor. We've all messed up some grades along the line.
If you include the transcript, mention your relatively good GPA this semester and outline very briefly the reasons how you've improved dramatically compared to last semester I think you'll sound professional as well as eager. Professor's love students who surprise them with their performance and growth, so play up your adaptability, resourcefulness and hunger for results.
Also as a previous commenter said, send the email and then seek them out in person, put a face to the name and start a good impression from the outset.

Definitely a good idea to do both. Will try. Thank you.


text:
How do I convince my professor to let me retake an exam?
I have missed my makeup exam this semester. We are given 3 chances at my university to pass a course, 1 regular, a retake and a third exam for those who failed the previous 2 ones. I missed the third exam because of work, and because I almost never able to keep up any schedule.
I wrote an email to my professor to let me retake it, but because I wrote my email at the same time as the exam was, my professor deems it unfair to give me another chance in this.
If I was not a problem student I would agree with his decision, but I spent half a year in a psychiatric ward because I was unable to visit any kind of community, and in this very semester with the help of tranquilizers I almost attended all of my lectures.

So by makeup exam, you missed the exam that you were supposed to take because you missed an exam? You haven't stated why you missed the exam, which is rather crucial.  Do you have (or can you get) a medical certificate? That will be your best (and IMO only) chance.

@Ben Graduate students also miss exams

Which country is this in? Are there any regulations for cases of hardship? It's likely not even the professor's decision; you'll have to go the bureaucratic route. (Keep in mind that the way you explain it here, "I was working at the time of the exam", is not a particular strong case at first sight.)

From what I can gather from the question and comments is that you missed the first exam, the resit, and the resit-resit due to some serious psychological issues and you have asked the Professor for a 4th shot and he said no. At this point there is no reason for you to try and convince the Professor to change his mind. Your university likely has a clear policy on missed exams (especially when you miss all three standard opportunities). You will either qualify for a 4th shot or not under the policy. You "student services" office will be able to help you file the proper paperwork.

You should ask Disabled Students Services at your university for help. They can help with even recalcitrant faculty.

This is a lot easier if the student had already been to DSS to talk about his or her situation. And easier still if they have already talked with the professor about it.

@dmckee ...where by "talked with the professor about it", you mean "inform the professor that DSS has approved their request to retake the exam."  It's really none of the professor's business what disability the student might have.

If you missed the first 2 opportunities entirely, due to circumstances deemed valid by the DSS, rather than just failing them, you may have a case for retaking it. If you just didn't understand the material then retaking it again hoping to pass may not be in your best interests anyways (i.e. any future classes building on the material will be much more difficult). Either way, you (or an advocate of some sort) should have already communicated with DSS before classes even started so that they could be available to help.


text:
Can I withdraw from a fully funded PhD offer from US just before joining date as I got a Job in industry and don't feel like doing a PhD anymore?
I am an international student currently working in my home country - India. I got admitted for a fully-funded PhD program in the US. Although I was very confident about doing a PhD when I applied for it, my interest has decreased over time by staying in an industry job, and now I no longer feel like doing a PhD. Can I tell the university a week before the joining date that I am no longer interested in doing PhD and won't be joining as I wish to stay in the industry and PhD doesn't interest me anymore? What will be the consequences for me as an International Student?
I know this sounds very unprofessional, but I am a perplexed individual who is not sure about his future, who once thought doing a PhD would be good but now thinks he is not a good candidate for it.

Where is the job located? US or India?  Where are you currently located (i.e. right this minute), in India or US?

@DanielK The job was in India. I have joined my PhD program in January this year.

In almost all cases the answer would be yes. You will cause a bit of disruption, perhaps, but for most programs it would be minor. If there are any contractual obligations you have to ask to be released, but that would be unusual unless you have already been given some benefits.
If the program is a large one, as many are, the disruption to the program would be minimal unless you were slotted in to some vital position in a lab for which a replacement needs to be found. This is also pretty unlikely.
Send a polite letter.

I cannot speak to potential immigration issues but yes, absolutely you should do this. As long as you clearly communicate your intentions, and perhaps your reasoning, to your would-be department, there is no issue and they will probably be grateful. If you are not interested in doing a PhD then, trust me, both they and you will be much better off if you go your separate ways. Dealing with burned out students who no longer wish to be there is one of the hardest issues any department with a PhD program has to confront.

Just an alternative answer here. You may be able to defer your acceptance which basically means that you let the department know that you have been employed and would like to delay your entrance to the program. This changes from university to university so make sure to ask. I think this choice lets you have enough flexibility since you may be able to enter the program in a year if you choose to.

True, defer, if you can. They may not want to, but it'd not be out of malice to you, just about their own planning. No point in cutting off that possibility, though, I think, at this point in your life. You may yet change your mind, etc. This choice is a much bigger point for your own life than for the dept that you have the PhD offer from. Be polite.

This is probably unlikely though, as good candidates for deferrals are unavoidable life situations. They don't want to hold you a spot if you're just going to in a year say "nah I like my job fine." If it's a short-term job, explain that.

@AzorAhai-him-... though, when I myself am looking at grad school applications, people who've already been through "second thoughts" and consideration of alternatives ... if/when they do decide to go the grad school route... have much clearer heads about many aspects of the thing. When people ask me for deferrals, I actually do not inquire too much about their reasons... which may be self-deceptions, anyway! 22-year-olds. :)

FYI all...I finally joined the PhD program in January. Don't regret it as of now, the research group I am in is great too.

Yes. They may not be happy with your decision and it's possible you may regret it later, but yes, you can decline at the last minute here in the US.  They can't force you to do the PhD if you've decided you don't want to do it.


text:
How to ask the superviser to not mangle the manuscript?
I gave a LaTeX manuscript file to the supervisor for revision.  The paper is fairly long and complex, with lots of cross-referencing and citations.  I use BibTeX for managing the otherwise unmanageable task of generating the correct list of references, which is recommended by the journal.  Most of the BibTeX entries were generated by querying the ADS database so there wasn't even much manual typing.  The journal provides a high-quality .bst file that correctly sorts and formats the BibTeX database entries.
Before I gave it to the supervisor, I told him that he's free to come to me if there should be any technical difficulties such as BibTeX.  He didn't, so I assumed that everything would be OK.
It was agreed that I'd have the final control of the master copy, and I assumed that meant that he would try to "patch" the manuscript in a way similar to updating and merging a codebase, i.e. you follow the convention of the mainline source code, transforming the project by incremental updates, and only introduce drastic changes in the face of absolute necessity.
It turned out that he's mangled the manuscript file in a combination of creative ways:

He seems to have manually converted the BibTeX-generated reference list to his manually typed (based on his own understanding of the style), embedded \bibitem entries, which contain errors.
The ADS bibcode keys, as unique identifiers for reference items in the BibTeX file and citation keys in the manuscript (using natbib's \citep and \citet mechanism) were converted to his own mnemonic keys based on no apparent rules.
He also added his own references, again as manually typed text, that are incomplete and not necessarily correctly-formatted.
He has mangled the \ref and \label mechanism by stripping quite a lot of the labels arbitrarily, so that much the cross-referencing no longer makes sense.

I have to write several text-transformation scripts, at one point interfacing a simple search AI of the ADS web API, attempting to revert the damage he has done to the manuscript source files, but this task is not fully automate-able.  It is also rather likely to introduce additional human errors in this process.  All these take time.
The point is that, it shouldn't have been necessary had he not mangled my manuscript file -- which was arguably written with maintainability and automate-ability in mind -- in the first place.
Now I have a second manuscript given to him, and I want to ask him for a favor, namely considering not mangling the source file in his way this time.
However, it is complicated by the following considerations:

Training him on the use of BibTeX etc is definitely a waste of his time and resources (as well as mine).
Imposing source-level conventions and tool-compatibility is a kind of power over others, and I shouldn't be in that power, even if I'm the ultimate controller of the manuscript.
It may incur the wrath of The Powers That Be.

So what can I do to reach a compromise?
Do you think it's a good idea to say/write to him like the following?

Hi XXX, thank you for your time revising the manuscript.  I am really really grateful for the improvements in the quality of content.
However, for the second manuscript, may I suggest trying BibTeX this time?  It saves us the time of manually typing, checking and correcting the bib list.  The journal we're targeting already provides high-quality bibliography style file that does the magic.  In addition, if we're to change the target journal, it would be simply a matter of changing the .bst file.
You don't even have to type anything to fill the entry fields in the .bib file.  There's the ADS service, and each entry is a few clicks away, with some minimal copying/pasting.  If you like I can show you this in a 2-minute demo.
If we don't have many references to add, this is a non-issue anyway.  If we do, I'm willing to help with the technicalities any time.  Of course, you can even forget about BibTeX and directly add your additional references this way, and I'll take care of the merger.  It saves your time of manually re-formatting the references that are already in the BibTeX database, and you can better focus on the important science rather than the style.
Thanks!

Are you using any version control system? Might be easier to let him do his stuff and undo it cleverly... I'd feel a little guilty that he would be wasting his time, but wel...

@FábioDias So do I, so I'd want to try persuasion, for the benefit of him rather than for myself.

Training him on the use of BibTeX etc is definitely a waste of his time -- [citation needed] -- and I shouldn't be in that power -- [citation needed]!!!

Possibility:  only provide pdf/paper, ask him to use a red pen.  Your real problem seems to be faculty micromanagement.

Why did you give him the latex code? What sort of thing are you writing... your thesis? a paper with him as first author? a textbook?

@JessicaB Just research papers. The source is also shared with a remote collaborator, but it turned out the remote collaborator simply resorted to writing email comments anyway.

Any chance you could switch to a more straightforward text editor until you both agree on the content and then use whichever hipster typesetting language you like only for the final formatting?

"Use Latex they said, it's going to be easier they said..."

If your advisor isn't fluent in LaTeX, send a printed copy (or a PDF), to scribble over, and incorporate changes yourself.
Use a version control system (I like git, you might want to try mercurial (hg)), and keep a branch for your work. Create a branch for "external" inputs, and use e.g. git's tools to break up the differences into patches you will apply and stuff you just omit.
With my students the policy is that the work is theirs, I'll write into a branch of the shared repository with suggested changes, which they cherry-pick. Only in rare circumstances will I override their writing.

My PhD supervisor got to the point where he could edit LaTeX files just fine after several gentle reminders not to mess with the backslashified stuff. He'd just work on the large text blocks and drop any equation edits by the lab handwritten on paper. I'd suggest giving your supervisor the both PDF and the source file you want them to look at so that they can either make notes on the PDF or small edits to the .tex files (and hopefully not both). If they happen to find you working diligently to undo their edits to the LaTeX and understand that you shouldn't be wasting time on that, hopefully they get the point.

I myself have very heavily automated systems which I know, but nobody else does. Therefore, all I suggest is to edit the plain LaTeX with simple annotations for citations or other modifications (which I later polish) or annotating the pdf are both viable options.


text:
Recommendation letter by significant other if you worked with them professionally?
My significant other (SO) and I are in five years of relationship. We met working in a lab and she already earned her PhD at that time. I was a graduate student. She was the main person I went after my adviser if I had logical questions about my project and helped me the process throughout. We now have two publications together. We worked professionally together for almost three years. She knows my potential both personally and professionally.
I am wondering if it is okay to use a letter of recommendation from her to apply for a PhD program.
Updated: I edited the word "supervisor" as suggested by a commenter. She wasn't an official supervisor but, provided tremendous help with analytical issues. We also stay collaborating on other research projects until today even after we both were out of the lab.

Surely there are better alternatives?

Related, if not duplicate: Should I get a letter of recommendation from my mother, who is a famous researcher in my field?

Better alternative? That's why I am considering her. Because of the nature of my project, I did not have very much contact with my committee members. My main adviser was also pretty dictating so, the others didn't feel like the need to advise me.  I will have one letter from my adviser and one from my current boss. I am also applying to the top programs in my field. So, I am in need of someone who knows about me well and can write a strong letter for me. Let me know if you guys have any advise on finding alternative as well. I am very open about all the options.

No. If she discloses your relationship in the letter, the reviewer will likely disregard the letter completely, and may question your judgment for having asked her for a letter. If she does not disclose your relationship in the letter, that is a serious enough omission that it could have consequences for you later on (I can't quite tell where you are in your career, but the more senior you are, the more severe these consequences could be).

I agree. It is a risk for both of our career future and it might not be fair for other applicants. Thanks for bringing up that point!

There are countless couples out there in academia. Often you see Jones and Jones, etc. and I know of couples who write letters for each other and disclose the nature of their relationship. I'm not sure a flat out NO is the answer here. I wouldn't do it if other options were available, but if my main colleague is my wife, I suspect reviewers might want to hear her take on my research.

I'm gonna stick by my "NO." I don't disagree that such a letter might contain useful information, esp. when one's primary collaborator is one's spouse (and for sure there is no ethical issue if the relationship is disclosed). But I think that's outweighed by the perceived or actual conflict of interest, and the perception of poor judgment in even including a letter from one's SO. But I think your perspective is valuable -- I was going to suggest you post a separate answer, but I see you've already done that.

One could argue that if a colleague enjoyed the experience working with you enough to want to marry you, one couldn't possibly dig up a better objective recommendation than that...

This is sad. The person who knows you the most (like your spouse who are doing the research together with you) is 'not allowed' to recommend you. And yes, because the person is so good in research, that's why a fellow researcher wants to marry him/her..

I'm going to come in with a no. (See edit remark at the end).
I originally said cautious yes. You can use a letter from your SO, with some caveats, as follows:

It should be an extra letter. Like, if they asked for at least 3, your SO should write the 4th.
If your SO is a postdoc at this time, the letter is already not worth that much, so after discounting for SO conflict of interest it might not be worth it.
The answer from cag51 is correct that your SO must disclose that you are in a relationship.
Given the nature of your relationship, your SO should make a huge effort to write a balanced letter, including your weaknesses / where you have room for improvement. If I read a letter from an SO that seemed honest, I might weight it even higher than another because the SO knows the applicant better than other letter writers.

So, after taking all that into account, should you still use your SO as a reference? Probably not. But as someone involved in admissions into PhD programs, I understand that in lab relationships happen, and I would be interested to hear what an SO had to say.
edit: It seems I'm more open minded about these things than other people in academia. There is a risk that having your SO send a letter will offend someone on the admissions committee, or be taken as a sign of bad judgement on your part. So the safe thing to do is to avoid using an SO (or any immediate relative) as a letter writer.

Thank you so much for the thoughtful response. Top programs I would like to apply might not even allow 4th recommender because that would be a waste of their time reading an extra. It seems like it is pretty clear I should not use her letter or it won't even be worth it.

Look at things from another perspective:
Suppose, you use the letter with full disclosure of your relationship.
Suppose, you get admitted to the program. Suppose, somebody who didn’t get admitted finds out that you got admitted based on a recommendation letter from your SO¹.
Suppose that somebody causes a ruckus about this, be it legally, internally, or publicly.
Now put yourself in the position of the decision maker who is handling your application and is aware of the possibility of the above scenario.
The decision maker knows that it might be easily their head that rolls if it comes to the above situation.
Even if they have not read the recommendation letter, they cannot provide evidence that they didn’t².
It’s far safer for the decision maker to just reject your application.
Using a recommendation letter from an SO gives them an easy argument for this.
In case there is no disclosure, this might be an career ender for you and your SO due to not disclosing a blatant conflict of interest.
I can even imagine that you may even face criminal charges (e.g., if there are rules that compels you to declare any conflicts of interest, etc.).

¹ For example because your relationship ends badly, and your SO wants to take revenge.
² In exceptional circumstances such as pre-vetted applications, they may, but that’s nothing you can predict.

Criminal charges, for applying to a PhD program with a LoR from your adviser who also happens to be a romantic partner. That sounds completely ridiculous. Which crime in which legal system should that be? Also, a missing LoR from the adviser must be explained anyway, it is a huge red flag if it is missing.

@VladimirF: In many situations in academia, you are required to sign a statement that essentially says that you adhered to basic academic standards, be it committing no plagiarism, declaring all conflicts of interests, or whatever applies to the situation. One of the reasons for this is that if you fail to do this, the university has better legal options against such as charging you for fraud or similar.

@VladimirF: Also, a missing LoR from the adviser must be explained anyway, it is a huge red flag if it is missing. – Well, she is not the chief advisor, or whatever you want to call it (see the question); otherwise the situation would clearly be problematic without going to letters of recommendation.

It would be a situations that simply happens. I do know such a case and I have not heard of any big problems it should have caused. People simply do fall in love, they are people.

@VladimirF: A romantic relationship between a (direct) supervisor and supervisee is a poses a serious problem due to conflicts of interest. In the vast majority of cases, the correct behaviour is to immediately end the supervisor–supervisee relationship if this happens.

@Wrzlprmft It's hard to imagine any such statement leading to more than civil liability. It would be very unusual for such a thing to rise to the level of criminal fraud.

I'm going to say yes, but, there is a conflict here. If no one else has worked with you this much, then perhaps it is not the worst choice. If this loved one writes a letter they must disclose their relationship to you, and stick to facts, such as how many papers you've written, grants you've gotten, your punctuality and relationship with peers etc. and how you would fit well into the position. They should avoid generally complimenting you as a person as this is too open to interpretation perhaps.
I know of two different couples who publish together constantly and write grants together etc. and are heavy hitting researchers, and write letters for each other all the time. These are ethical and good people and they seem to make it work. Clearly there are issues with doing this, but perhaps it is not an impossibility. I don't recommend it as a first option.

I know of two different couples who publish together constantly and write grants together etc. and are heavy hitting researchers, and write letters for each other all the time. These are ethical and good people and they seem to make it work. Clearly there are issues with doing this, but perhaps it is not an impossibility.

It would be more clear if you said "disclose their relationship with you." Your wording makes it sounds like the OP is the target of the disclosure, rather than the target of the relationship. :)

While it is clear this situation calls for some thought, it is of my understanding that your personal life should have little to do with your academic/professional life when it comes to making decisions such as these.
When your SO makes you a recommendation letter, they will be speaking as an objective and professional academic with reputation on the line who has had experience working with you and has published credible papers alongside your - also professional -  name. Not as as someone whom they've simply shared ice cream and would like to go to the Caribbean with.
The reason the relationship must be brought up in their writing is to recognize your personal and professional lives as two different things. If someone still goes at length about how it is a nepotism affair like other answers hypothesized, they'd be slandering your SO's and even your own reputation because it should not be the case.
If a reviewer who "notices" that you are together declines the letter "immediately" as other answers have suggested, then they have acted unprofessionally because you being in a relationship with them does not take away your credibility as a professional academic or your experience in any way.

tl;dr - Your SO is a reputable professional whose recommendation is as valid as any other. And like any other, it all really depends on how much real impact your SO's recommendation would have over someone else's.
If you don't have any meaningful recommendations in comparison, go with your SO's, and have no fear.

Your SO is a reputable professional Writing a letter of recommendation might damager her reputation

@user2768 Correct! And their reputation being on the line is precisely why them writing the letter holds meaning and has no justification to be disregarded. There aren't problems because of personal relationships per se, there are problems when recommendations happen because of the personal relationship - rather than facts - which isn't the case; The OP states they have professionally done work and publications together. It is preposterous to lampshade accomplishments and experience in professional life because of details in one's personal life.

Whether a letter of recommendation from a SO carries weight has been discussed in comments/answers. I'm highlighting that the letter might damage her reputation, by the same rationale. The OP might like to consider that

Writing any letter might damage her reputation, if it were to be originated solely from personal feelings or if it were to lead a very poor performance by the subject. In this case however the letter is based on theirs and the OP's professional experience together, whether they are acquaintances or friends or lovers is irrelevant. Based on this, their recommendation is as valid, and as risky, as any other.

I disagree. Using the reasons noted elsewhere, merely writing a letter for a SO may be considered as poor judgement on the SO's part.

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава