text:
How can an individual stop the university's standards and quality from deteriorating?
The business school I am currently at faces a very difficult situation. After a scandal involving fraud around the president a few years ago, in combination probably with fallout from the financial crisis and all, our public image is ruined. We have barely enough students applying to the open undergraduate seats, meaning that almost no selection process can take place. As a consequence, students are walking the campus that barely made it through high school and are, by any standards, not fit for academic career, not even undergrad studies.
As a research assistant, I assisted my chair during the previous and current year with a first-year course, aiming to teach foundations of investments, Markovitz framework, CAPM and APT, and the like. Without going into too much detail here, I can say that this course is not a university level course. The exams are advertised to the students as consisting only of questions they know from tutorials with different numbers or asking for a different variable. No out-of-the-box thinking, no mathematical proof or derivation of one of the financial concepts.
This alone would lead to no necessary problems, and perhaps my own perspective is distorted, as I did my undergrad studies in natural science, but there are additional problems.
Every year, less and less students are coming to the professor's lectures. The tutorials from my colleague and me are visited by 2-7 students out of 35. During longer explanations or examples, they often interrupt without respect and ask "is this relevant for the exam?" Students still perform horribly on the exam, but we cater them by adding an offset, based on at most 15% of the students failing the exam (in reality, around 70% fail the first round). With another incredibly generous offset such that no more than 20% of those in the second exam round fail, there is virtually no selection any more, which is horrible, because we are a small private institution and once were one of few leading business schools in the region, which is no longer the case.
My explanation, which I have presented to my boss, is that the students hear from the previous year's students about the generous offset, and that the university does not want to throw out that many students. Based on this rumor, they study less, so that we are forced to give the offset they expect. Why are we forced? Because the professor admits that he will not be able to explain to the university management if they inquire as to why that many students fail. He claims that many colleagues are wondering where many of our students came from, because it certainly does not seem to be high school, and that only the management, which consists of business types, not academics, know the answer. Probably, we are dependent on the cash flow from the students' tuition fees, but this is a short-term solution at an invaluable long-term cost.
I would believe that a rigorous filtering process should be in place, and rather in the second semester than in the fourth or six semester. But compared to other chairs, we already have a rough reputation, and most of the undergrad program consists of electives in fields like marketing, where I have supervised some exams and had to observe that those exams consist almost entirely of reciting definitions and giving examples that were completely mentioned in the learning materials the students had access to. This is absolutely not worthy of a university, but a degree mill instead.
We are now treating students more and more like customers; many of our best colleagues in the examination office have left us during the past year; officially for personal reasons, but I believe that students claiming "I pay a lot of money, I can demand a good grade" might also be a factor.
Nobody wants to fail the students, but instead hopes that other courses will do this uncomfortable job; and my boss and me are often giving grades in the range 3.5-4 for Bachelor Theses, because "even if they pass, they will not have a good career anyway". Another professor in the department replied to this with: "Well, I would not worry, because the employers will realize quickly the quality of these graduates, and put them into some fixed-income positions or similar where they cannot do any damage." However, I already heard first-hand from professionals that there are complete firms out there that do not even invite our students for interviews any more. Since I am not only doing my PhD here, but also have a Master's degree from this place, you can imagine this gives me a funny feeling.
The off-campus behavior and image of our student body in the local community is disastrous. One and a half weeks ago, a student drove drunk and crashed into a fence in the neighboring village (the fact that we are not in a large city does not help). Everyone in the village knows that it was a student (the car is a quite "unique" one), and there was a newspaper article indicating the BAC of the driver. But since there is no official affiliation between the accident and the university, and the newspaper did not mention that the driver was a student, there is nothing that can be done, as my boss, who is also in the judicial board, says. My boss also says that he is involved more and more often in heavier and heavier cases of students that break rules of common sense, morals and even criminal law worldwide during their exchange semesters.
Last week, I had an internship report on my desk, which is really not a piece of work a student should fail. But it should have; the text was full of language mistakes, typos, even spelling (not typing) the place in his address wrong, formatting was bad, and when describing the $\beta$ in CAPM as "the relative volatility of the asset compared to the market", the paper screamed at me "I don't care about this and have no respect for higher education" at such a volume that I gave a failing grade. (This was the second try; the first one was failed deliberately in summer, as the student claimed not to have enough time to work on it anyway.)
Then, after the student calling me frantically and the examination office and the program director contacting me, I gave a passing grade, because I had to admit that some parts of the work were presented, in their unprecedented shallowness, "plausibly", hence ticking off the "plausible presentation" checkbox on the examination sheet and finding good sub-grades for a work that, in its entirety, was not worthy of a sixth semester students. During this process, I was kindly reminded from my boss to "keep in mind that you are ruining his entire career, as he will be ex-matriculated and barred from studying business studies again" - a little too much to not be influenced, I would say in hindsight.
I ended by inviting the student into my office, rubbing every single error in the file into his face, demanding an explanation for the horrendous work, and telling him that only the static examination sheet saved him, while any employer would have fired him on the spot.
The reaction was not understanding at all, and as my colleague pointed out,  did not even once say thanks for me taking the extra time to go through the work again, after the failing grade was practically set.
And now, having let the work pass, I think I have become part of the problem. What should I do? How can I prevent myself (and others) from doing what I did, and falling into this abyss?

A long question with a short answer: run, run away!

That doesn't sound good. However, there is a general trend now to "be more inclusive" (which translates into being less selective), so, what you describe in drastic words, can be seen in possibly more mild form at other locations, too. Once your department lost reputation rapidly, it is very difficult to rebuild, though not impossible. It takes time, convincing your superiors and slowly raising of the standards by concerted action. If you are sufficiently compensated for your efforts by freedom of research/career, then it may be an option to stay, else leave fast, before it drags you down.

According to your other question, you are not a faculty member but a PhD student.  In this case that seems like very good news: soon enough you will finish your degree and move on.  Trying to reverse the trajectory of a university as a student seems wholly quixotic: this is really not your problem to solve.

If you have only recently started your PhD, you could consider applying for positions at other institutions. Jumping ship might cost you a year or two, but if you're willing to make that sacrifice to get a better degree at a "healthy" institution, it's worth a shot...

Oh dear, what a sad story. To address your question, the rot in large institutions usually starts at the top, and it's only the people at the top who have the power to stop it, if anyone does. The key word is leadership, and it sounds like your school has a very poor excuse for one at the moment -- a sad irony, since it's precisely business school types whom you'd expect to have a firm understanding of the principles of leadership and sound management.
As for what you can do, I'm afraid I agree with the other comments and answers: you as a graduate student are simply not in a position to effect change. Your school is poorly run and seems to be stuck in a negative feedback loop of worsening outcomes. If this were a Hollywood movie, you'd use your personal charm and talents to convince a rich patron to buy the school, oust the entire management team and let you run the place yourself, gradually restoring sanity. Sadly, life is not a Hollywood movie. My advice to you is therefore either to "run away," as Massimo Ortolano says, and transfer to a better school if this is at all possible; or to suck it up and hope that you can make it out of there with your degree before things get much worse than they already are. Good luck!

I think the business school types running the university have a very firm understanding of sound management here.  They have probably rightly decided that the university has no long term future as a reputable institution, and the best way to continue to succeed and survive in the short term is as a diploma mill.  Many diploma mills, as long as they maintain the right to offer legally recognized degrees, are financially quite successful even if they provide almost no education.  To business school types, financial success is often the most important kind.  Sorry to be cynical about this.

@AlexanderWoo I suppose you can look at it that way, but personally I do not consider running your organization to the ground, even if you make money for a few years while doing so, to be an example of sound management. On the other hand, sacrificing some short term profits for the long-term goal of restoring your school's reputation so that you can continue to thrive (and make money) sustainably for the indefinite future - that's what I would call sound management.

Keep in mind that the University of Phoenix is almost the only profitable university in the US, and this is still true with only a slightly looser notion of 'almost' if various non-for-profit universities legally could and did do their accounting more honestly.

@DanRomik This is true, if you have the owner support and financial backing to be able to do this. If you don't have the funds to sacrifice in the short term for long-term goals, doing a sort of controlled exit is sadly a rational strategy.

@AlexanderWoo if your point is that some businesses (in the education sector and elsewhere) manage to sell crappy products and still somehow survive and make money - okay, I concede. It's still not what I'd call sound management. I believe the best financial results are achieved by organizations that actually manage to deliver good value to their customers and make a large positive societal impact. I'm not a business expert, but I would even guess that there are empirical studies supporting this claim.

@xLeitix you may be right, but I think you're being very charitable in your assumptions. For every manager rationally navigating his company to a "controlled exit" you will find hundreds who are behaving in the same way not because it's the rational way to behave but because they're just incompetent. I'm willing to bet that's the case here as well.

@DanRomik No - my point is that the ONLY way in most sectors (most definitely including education) to survive and make money (without large subsidies) is to do a very good sales/marketing job on crappy products.  There are for all practical purposes ZERO reputable educational institutions that survive without significant aid from either the government or private donors.

@AlexanderWoo let's agree to disagree. I think we must be talking about slightly different things but lack the passion to get to the bottom of whatever is the cause of our disagreement, and besides this is going off-topic.

Sad to say, as an individual (moreover a low-level position one, like a graduate student) is very unlikely to make a difference in any reasonable time. Only a concerted effort by faculty and students can make a difference here. And it looks like administration/faculty have all but given up, by what you tell.
An Arab proverb says that reputation grows like a tree, and falls like a fruit.
It is much more likely that your continued stay there ruins your reputation than you making any noticeable difference in the reputation of the school (how many schools are you aware of whose reputation rests on some student?).

Things seem bad and you may have to leave but why not try do something first .The changes needed are obvious to someone outside academia but you must try to get some changes through despite your modest position .You must convince your more senior peers that if nothing is done the whole show will go down the toilet and it will be an academic exercise blaming each other when virtually everybody that worked there are now working twice as long for half the money in the service industry. My father who is a retired known bussiness consultant would say . Do you have a problem ?  we know that the answer is yes . Then he would say .If you do nothing will it go away  ? We know the answer to this is no .Then he would say .Do you want to put up with it for the next 40 years ?Well the answer to this is  NO! .Right you can hopefully call some of your peers to action .Now you with thier co operation can do what has to be done which you already know but I will leave some tips .Dont treat repeats any differently if you dont want your college to be a joke .Make A grades real hard to get while still letting lots of C grades through .This will make employers still have interest .Make your exams 60% parrot and 40% out of the square so plodders will still get a C and clever lazy people will also get a C but to get an A you would have to be clever and dedicated.Put some really easy parts in your exam questions making it really difficult to get an E but also put some real hard parts in so its almost impossible to get an A+ .Now format your entrance exams more like IQ tests so there wont be any really stupid people in the later years .This means that people with degrees from your college will have a minimum IQ even if they get Cs and even if they repeat .I would really like to help you more but my fathers background would be more suitable .

Can you please try to clean this text up some?  Right now it's a difficult-to-read wall with many errors in it.

I will try to improve the post and this site will give me practice at trying to write better just like EE stack gave me a way to learn to type .My screen name has more than an element of truth in it .When I went to University I didnot tell Anyone because why should the lecturers make allowances for me or anyone else .


text:
Selling/Buying software in academia
I have written multiple opensource programs as part of my PhD, and some of these programs require a dedicated server somewhere on the internet to work. Mainly it is online databases, but also things like project homepages, version update checks, usage-metric logging, etc.
I currently host all these website/databases for free from my own stipend, but as the services have grown, I'm now paying about 10-20% of my monthly stipend on hosting bills. It's not much, only about €100 a month, but you certainly feel it when you're main source of nutrition is unguarded coffee and biscuits.
So my question is how best to monetize software to academics if you're a one-man-band. I could set up a paypal account, or something similar - but never in a million years could I see my PI setting up a lab PayPal account. Donations for server costs would then most likely come from generous students/post-docs, and I don't really see that as a fair or acceptable system. I want people to pay from their grant money, as it should be. What is the best way to do this?

EDIT:
In light of the answers, I feel that "pay for it with your own grant money" is somewhat of a non-starter. Here's two reasons why:

The software developed was not a requirement or goal of the PhD. It was created as a side-reaction of the PhD as the software I wanted to use to analyze my data was difficult to use, expensive, non-existant, etc. Based on no real data, just my observations from working in the Open Source community, 99% of OS software is written to solve the author's current problem, which then gets generalized to solve other people'e problems too, so I don't see my situation as being unusual. Still, I cannot reasonably ask my PI for money on something that was never originally part of the PhD plan. One would even have a hard time justifying that the software was required for the PhD, if the original plan did not foresee using it. For example, one program gives highly-detailed Quality Control reports. Our data passes all of these strict/new QC tests. Therefore, was it even a requirement?
Following on from point 1, but really this is a separate issue, what my PI would be paying for would be for other people to use the software. To handle just the needs of my project, I don't need any online servers - I could make do with just local services and disk space. In fact i've already applied all this software to the project, so now it could just be deleted. No need to register domain names, no AWS hosting costs, no evenings spent making sure the community around my software is happy and productive, etc. In short, if my PI was generous enough to see my software as an integral part of the PhD and worthy of funding (part 1), he would also have to come to the conclusion that it's worth spending his grant money on other people's projects, which I am confident he not only would do out of principle, he might not even be allowed to.

So - I really only see two possible options going forward:

I apply for a new grant, totally separate from my PhD project, to cover the costs of hosting.
The community using the software/services pay directly, using some mechanism that I currently do not know about. Some way a PhD student can buy software online and charge it directly to their grant, rather than with personal funds.

First, I agree with Scott S. that you should not cover these expenses yourself if these are for research. Second, if you want to monetize anything you should be clear about ownership and licenses. Many (most ) of the time you just don't own the code what you write as part of a research project. And when some part of your code is open-source.. Third, if your work you may want to connect a software company if they want to be a distributor for you. They have sales channels, marketing, they can do billing,  etc what many academic need to do properly if they want to purchase anything from you.

Related: Is offering to use personal funds for research a good idea?

Generally speaking, academic software which is provided as a service is funded by its own grant, rather than by the grants of its users. If you are providing an useful service, your PI ought to be applying for a grant to fund its hosting, or funding it from one of their other grants.

Be careful, in many universities the software you wrote isn't actually yours, whether it's open source or not. Before you think about how to monetize your software (which seems entirely fair), make sure you are allowed to.

Yes, this is a very good point Marc. I suppose all I want to do is cover the hosting and associated costs, not turn a profit or make a living from it at all. However, I doubt there is a legal difference between covering your costs and making a profit off the Universities Intellectual Property.

Who is your current host? €100 seems somewhat excessive, unless your software is used by thousands of people every day.

I have an AWS t2.small and a t2.medium which cost $0.026 + $0.052 per hour. So in a month thats €58.032. Then I have 100Gb of DynamoDB, which varies based on usage, but its around €20-30 a month. When I have to debug an instance, or if I want to test out new software, I spin up new instances for a day or so.

I used to have an AWS support contract too, hahaha - wow, what a con that was. Highly un-recommended.

Universities regularly provide web servers for other people to use their tools. The advantage for them is that your work (and hence, the institution), gets publicity, and your published work used more (and more cited). I think it is perfectly acceptable to at least ask your PI to pay for this.

@J.J It looks like you can pretty much replace that with a couple of older computers that your lab has discarded, and then the cost would be the power bill, that the university would just pay.

OK, I will investigate this possibility today for my own software :) Hopefully it will all work out just fine. The bounty and the unanswered part of the OP however, is in regard to the general problem of students buying software through a grant.

@J.J Alternatively, I would recommend either buying a fixed-resource VPS service, e.g. DigitalOcean or Linode (around $10 per month), or scale down on your AWS size. You are providing a complementary service, and so your users should expect fair use or donate money/run their own servers.

@J.J for comparison, one of my computer clusters costs 0.008 US dollar cent per core hour, that is a third of your t2.small. Reference

for EC2 in particular, a nicely worded e-mail explaining what they are being used for and the benefits they provide may yield an "academic credit" to help pay for the costs of the servers

I understand the point you're trying to make (document that you think your question was not answered), but I encourage you to reconsider your mechanism. First, from my experience, ASE is much less reputation-hunger driven than any other SE site I've used; so you're likely to award it to some 101 reputation user who stopped by from Stackoverflow or math SE, say, just to grab the money. And second, the people behind the 4 answers at least took some time thinking about your issue. You can just as well edit in "bounty was awarded by a fair, unsupervised throw of a 4-sided dice," or so.

OK, lets do it that way :) (at the end of the 24 hours, when i have 1 day to choose from an existing answer)

You should let your PI know what resources you need to carry out your work, and discuss how such resources can be provided.  You should not be footing the bill in the first place, so there  should be no need to monetize to recover.

110% agreed. You should not be footing the bill, certainly not for €100/month! If the PI can't provide funding, the PI or university should work with you to take over hosting.

There is an easy solution.  Turn off the services.  If your services are important (to someone else), then that someone else will figure a way to finance them.
This is not your problem.

This. If it's not needed for the PhD, pull the plug.

I agree with the other answers that it is unreasonable to expect you to pay it from your own budget. However, since you stated your software is open source, it might be possible to use existing solutions such as github to distribute your code and host a homepage for the project with instructions.
There is stil the issue that your software apparently uses other resources such as online databases. It depends on the details of your software, but perhaps you could provide the necessary information for other groups to setup their own infrastructure (e.g., minimal database dumps, or other server code). If server names are not hardcoded in your code, it should be fairly easy to make this configurable. This gives other groups the possibility the use your software, while at the same time releasing you from hosting the infrastructure.
For your own usage I agree with Scott Seidman: ask your PI if your institute can provide the necessary services.
Alternatively you could try asking money for the services, but in my opinion this will likely lead to a bigger hassle than is worth it. Aside from legal issues, if people pay for something they expect something in return. Are you willing to provide support? Fix your server if it crashes at 3am while your users are trying to make a deadline?

You have three options, choose the following based on your budget, time, and expertise:

University: You could kindly ask the university's system administrator to host your files on a permanent address. This is very possible, and seen this before many times. In this case the users could either download them without permission (university credentials) or with permission.
From Home: Other solution would be to get your own server, and host your files from home. Here is the catch: you don't need the usual 19" servers, all you need is an old computer that lays around or get a cheap one and put your host over there. You will need to pay for a domain name (~10$/year), and figure out the DNS either by figuring out yourself or pay another 50$/year for easy to configure solutions. Other software (OS, HTTP, FTTP, DB like MySQL) are all free; all you need is to choose a Linux distribution and go from there.
Free and Public Online Repositories: You can look into websites like Github and put your code with the instructions on how to execute them and its documentation.

I really think this is a bad answer. PhD students should not be expected to bear the burden of hosting academic software under any circumstance. And any request for the student's institution to host this service should go via the student's PI.

An option here is to go down the route of virtual private servers. There are a number of sites to host these. Digital ocean, Rackspace,Amazon Web Services (AWS) a few others. Monetization can be done in a number of ways and it is worth researching how exactly to do this. Advertising for example (e.g. Adsense or affiliate marketing), if you want to get paid for software however Payapl is an option because it is simple. Another option is something like Stripe Atlas which allows incorporation.

This was the only answer that spoke to how to sell/buy software to/as an Academic - indirectly via Adverts :(
It really wasn't the answer I was looking for, but I suppose its something.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Statement about previous doctorate applications
One German university asked me to write an oath about my previous doctorate applications. They are going to take me as a PhD student.
What should I write in here? Should I tell them I was rejected because they found someone better. Would this university think me not good enough?
I do not want to lie. However it is better to write that I have never applied to any university.
Please give me some advice.

This seems strange. What does the question actually ask?
I don't think it would affect you in any way. Maybe it's just for their reference in general, so they can see how many applications the people in their program made elsewhere.

Don't lie. But make sure you understand what exactly they are asking.
Most likely, they are concerned that you might already have submitted a thesis elsewhere that was rejected. Of course, universities don't want you to go "university shopping", submitting your thesis over and over until it gets accepted somewhere, so you will need to sign a declaration when you submit your thesis that it has not been submitted elsewhere. (This may be helpful.) I very much recommend that you don't lie here. If you do double-submit a thesis and this becomes known, you will lose your Ph.D. at the very least.
However, they most likely don't care whether you have applied and been rejected from other doctoral programs.
So: make sure you understand what exactly they are asking. If you are unsure (and German official documents can be confusing and intimidating), ask them.

Agreed. German universities expect you to declare whether you have tried submitting a thesis somewhere else, this may be intended here. However, if they were to ask whether you applied to be taken as a doctoral student somewhere else, it may be that in Germany you are not required to respond to that, you need to check the local laws; there are certain inadmissible questions on application interviews (I believe questions about pregnancy plans etc.) where it may be legal to not respond truthfully. I am not a lawyer, so tread carefully and make sure you answer exactly the question asked.

I have a doubt. If the university can ask me how many universities you have applied for.?    For the sake of fairness, Can I ask the university, how many students applied for this position? how many people came for interview. why you reject these guys?

I think this is kind of privacy.  Before they give me final acceptance, I am free to apply any university.

• A statement under oath about previous doctorate applications.
► If you already applied for a doctorate at another faculty or university, you have to give date, university, topic and reason for hindrance
--------------------------above is the Original words from the document.

"Applied for a doctorate" is ambiguous. Does this mean handing in a thesis (as I write in my answer)? It does read this way to me. However, it could also be a bad translation of "applying to be admitted to a doctoral program". I would strongly recommend you contact them and clarify.

I don't see a legal reason why they should not be allowed to ask you how many programs you have applied to previously. However, I don't see how they would be interested in this question (which is why I assume they care about having a previously submitted thesis rejected). Everyone will assume that you have been talking to and applying at multiple programs, and this will not be held against you, just as a company will understand that you are also applying at other places. After all, you cannot be guaranteed acceptance.

I got the Email from them. Here is the original text.
they want to know if you have already failed in a closely topic-related doctoral graduation process an an other university.
Possibly not.

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


text:
Publishing at a venue without ACM/IEEE brand?
My PhD Supervisor asked me to submit one of my work at an upcoming International Conference. He is amongst the program committee members. I was having a look at its committee members, the Advisory committee etc. It boasts of researchers from reputed Universities- with some of them quite well established (I know some of them personally). Further, the conference is happening for the 6th time.
However I found it quite strange that they are organizing the conference without any branding of IEEE/ACM etc. behind them. The proceedings of the conference will be compiled on a CD-ROM. This obviously means that if my paper gets accepted there, it is not going to be archived with IEEE-xplore or ACM digital library. Google may index it because they may put the PDFs on the conference's website, but that PDF exists only as long as the website for the conference exists.
The question in my mind: Is such a publication bad for a PhD student? If I put this work on my CV, nobody can find it on the Internet (except on my personal website or archived on arXiv). Then where is the credibility that work was actually peer-reviewed and published at an International Conference?
And what about copyright issues? The website says nothing of it. These are a group of researchers from different parts of the world coming together to organize a conference. There is no organization like ACM or IEEE behind them. So I am assuming that the issue of copyright transfers may never arise. Does that mean I can submit this work to other venues as well (since exclusive copyright are never transferred)?
Truly speaking, the only reasons I am going for it is because (1) my Supervisor wants me to, and (2) selected high-quality papers will get the opportunity to submit extended versions to special issue of a SCI journal (which is great for me!).
p.s.: In case it matters: until the past year, it was being organized as a 'workshop'. This is the first time they are calling it a conference and have a Journal extension.
p.p.s: My field is Computer Science.

Does that mean I can submit this work to other venues as well? If the work has been published, and the other venue requires original submissions that have not previously been published, then no; copyright is irrelevant.

So, I'll just leave this here.

This question makes me sad. :(

@Raphael Care to elaborate?

@pnp The fact that (in some fields) publishers resp. publisher-like entities have created monopolies that make you question if there's even an alternative -- that's sad. Especially so with IEEE who treat libraries badly -- ever tried to access an old IEEE paper? I have no ill feelings towards ACM specifically, as far as I can tell they are on the "good" side.

@Raphael True words... I really did not know that respectable alternatives existed. I thought any venue not having a branding was shady.

@JeffE Reading that linked article of yours, how I wish I could upvote your comment a hundred times...

Not being affiliated with an organization such as the IEEE or ACM is not, on its own, a bad sign. For example, what is currently the IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity has decided to end its affiliation with the IEEE and go solo; the Symposium on Computational Geometry likewise just left ACM. STACS is also unaffiliated.
It's not great if the proceedings are only distributed on CD. On the other hand, if you're already going to be preparing a journal version (and you should!), that will completely supersede any conference version, anyway. I would never read a conference version ("extended abstract") of a paper if a full version was available: in my area (theoretical CS), the conference version generally has the proofs missing and the peer review isn't very rigorous.
STACS publishes proceedings through Dagstuhl, which is basically a computer science conference centre in Germany and has close links to DBLP. In this case, copyright is retained by the authors. Note that, regardless of who owns the copyright, most CS conferences won't accept papers which have either appeared at another conference with published proceedings or have been submitted to such a conference. You don't get to double-dip your papers.

Also the Symposium on Computational Geometry.  I'm not aware of any theoretical computer science conference regularly held outside the US that is affiliated with either ACM or IEEE — Consider ICALP, ESA, WADS, SWAT, STACS, FSTTCS, COCOON, ISAAC, ISSAC, Eurocrypt, ...

@JeffE LICS is both IEEE and ACM and alternates between the US and not-US (usually Europe but LICS 2015 is in Kyoto). PODS is ACM and is typically outside the US every 3-4 years. We should probably say "North America", too, since IEEE/ACM conferences are quite often held in Canada and occasionally in Mexico.

@JeffE Also, at least some of the conferences you list are affiliated with other organizations. (E.g., ICALP is with EATCS.) ISSAC used to be an ACM conference and was usually outside North America during that time.

Wow, that's embarrassing. I really should have known about LICS, PODS, and ISSAC.

I think that is very field-dependent. In my field there are two conferences that are not affiliated with IEEE. They are both small, highly-specialized, and very prestigious to get your papers in. One of them does publish the proceedings in a book with a highly-reputable publisher, the other one publishes the papers online only. Still, they are well-known and well-regarded in the field.
The bottom line is that you need to know your field. It certainly might be a red-flag, but not necessarily. The conference is as strong as its PC and its acceptance criteria.

It is important that the PC members actually know they're on the PC. I have seen dubious conferences that list famous people, but they actually have no connection to the conference.


text:
Strategy for submission of articles to highly ranked journals
I am working on a research project that all total will probably end up lasting about two years.  As the research progresses, I am writing articles about each new discovery/study, with each article becoming more relevant to current interesting trends (for lack of a better description).
What I mean by this is that in the plan for publications my group has, the first article discusses just the structure, dynamics, etc. of some new interesting carbon/silicon/etc. system.  The second article will elaborate on this for an even more novel, more developed structure than the first.  Then the last article will (hopefully) provide a deep new insight into how this structure can be used for energy storage/transport/etc.
As I'm sure you can tell, each article gets more interesting, and thus I think each article has a better chance than the previous one of making it into a more highly ranked journal.  Our current strategy is to submit the article to a succession of less prestigious journals (each getting rejected) until it eventually gets into one.  This way, it ends up getting into the journal it probably deserves to be in, and not something lower,  and there's always the chance it is accepted into a highly ranked journal as well.
However, I am curious if this is a bad idea in the long run.  Will editors remember "Oh, they already submitted articles to us twice and got rejected; what are they doing it for again?"  Will they be quicker to dismiss the next article they receive even though it is higher-quality/deeper research than the previous one?
Or do the editors give each new submission a fair chance for acceptance, with no memory of previous submissions?
I know some of you all are journal editors, so any insight you can reveal to me about your thought process would be quite appreciated.

I am not an editor so I don't think I can definitely say how editors treat this, but I suspect that if you keep sending manuscripts that are not appropriate to the journal, it won't be helpful in promoting your next submission and won't gain you respect. Consider the fact that you have to convince the editor why your manuscript is important in the cover letter - you don't want to keep sending a paper every week saying it is the most important paper of the decade. Even as a reviewer I can tell you it is annoying to review a paper that is clearly not suited for the journal (although maybe it is the editor's fault that it passed to review in the first place).
If you think your manuscript fits a high-impact journal, it is fine to try a few journals to increase your chances. But try to be sincere with yourself - many papers belong to specialized journals, and that is fine.
Another fact you might want to consider is that high-impact journals tend to get recognized experts in the field as reviewers. You probably don't want to gain a bad reputation in those circles. Second, the pool of experts can be pretty small which could mean that when you resubmit to a different high-impact journal, you will get the same reviewer or someone who already heard about the paper and is biased (yes, sometimes reviewers mention papers they review to colleagues).
So the bottom line is: it is ok to resubmit a few times, but be careful not to overdo it.

Thanks for the reply.  I will clarify that we definitely submit to journals that are very much on topic with what our research is, and we wouldn't submit it if we didn't think it had some chance (maybe 30-50% ?) of being accepted.  It is mainly just the case that if it's rejected, it's because they've received enough submissions from others that are simply more interesting/exciting to their target audience.

My general answer is to try to go for a higher ranked journal first and then successively go to less prestigeous journals IF you get rejected. I think such a strategy is sound. The problem lies in identifying what would be your highest ranked journal where the specific manuscript (MS) would be appropriate.
Then, as an editor; I do not think editors remember if you get several MS rejected unless they somehow are sub-par. Remember that rejections come in different flavours ranging from MS being unsuitable for the journal (non-critical) to the science (or description thereof) being really poor (critical). In the latter case, the editor will certany remember.
So (and I just state this to make the answer more complete) make sure your paper is in really good shape, follow instructions for authors (IFA) to the point and has a clear conclusion that fits the journal scope. This relatively sinple step is missed by many! In your case, you need to try to assess why your MS get rejected and try to improve whtaever aspect might be at fault. A well written paper with a well-conceived idea and properly defined conclusion, should be publishable in my opinion. If you get a rejction on av unclear basis where the reason is not clear, ask the editor for clarifications so that you can improve the paper.
Also, (and this is more difficult) assess what journals may be appropriate and if you have the time, send it to a higher ranked journal, understanding the risk of getting a rejection might be higher. Do not forget to check out journals that is farther from you home base (Europeans look at US-based journals and vice versa); there is a tendency to stick to "home"-journals in some fields. In th eend the journal should be indexed to give you the official credit you may want/need.

I personally think it's a bad idea to just keep throwing papers at the door of a good journal just because it is a good journal.  You seem to have a publication plan:

What I mean by this is that in the plan for publications my group has, the first article
  discusses just the structure, dynamics, etc. of some new interesting carbon/silicon/etc.
  system. The second article will elaborate on this for an even more novel, more developed
  structure than the first. Then the last article will (hopefully) provide a deep new insight
  into how this structure can be used for energy storage/transport/etc.

If your new work is too similar to your earlier work previously rejected, many venues (especially top journals) may ding you because it is not different enough for them to consider it a completely different paper.  No journal wants to re-review one they've outright rejected (even if half of it is new).
So then, look at the journals that you are targeting and check out the last 2 years or articles they have published.  Be honest with yourself in thinking: "Which of my articles would look entirely in-place among these other examples?"  This is not just about the importance or quality of your research, but also the scope.  If they want certain data or tests, make sure you have that data.  If they want formulas, better include them.  If everyone cites Dr. X, better make sure he's in your lit review.  Etc.  Ignore the junk the journal says about its' "official" scope.  Look at what they actually accept as a regular (not special issue) paper.  Find the one of yours that is the best match for a particular good journal.  Submit that one.


text:
What is the advantage of doing an integrated Masters course over a Bachelors and then Masters? (UK.)
I am on an integrated Masters in Physics course, otherwise knows as MPhys. This means that after my third year I will not be awarded with a BSc, but will graduate after 4 years with an MPhys. At my university (and I assume others as well), doing a 4th year after graduating with a BSc then gives you an MSc instead of an MPhys.
I am coming to wonder if there is any advantage to this. It complicates things massively if I want to change university to complete my Masters. Surely it would be advantageous to do a BSc, and then if you want to change university to complete an MSc there will be no complications.
There are only 2 possible advantages I can think of:

An MPhys is harder than a BSc+MSc and is therefore more highly regarded by employers and
There is no longer the need to apply for a 4th year at university.

The second is an obvious one, but is the first true? Are there any other advantages? I am thinking of transferring to the BSc in case I decide I want to go to a better university to complete my Masters.

In which country? In the US, a Bachelors is typically 4 years with another year beyond that for the MS, and there is no guarantee that the same school will readmit you for the MS.

Sorry, I should have specified - I am in the UK.

An integrated masters such as an MPhys is an enhanced undergraduate degree where the final year will include level 7 courses and a substantial project. It will typically be accredited and meet the academic requirements for registration for chartered status (CPhys in this case).
An MSc is a postgraduate degree also with a substantial project and level 7 courses. It will often be more specialised in nature than an undergraduate degree and may or may not be accredited such that it will add the necessary academic requirements for chartered status if the student also has completed an accredited BSc.
In the UK there will typically be a difference in fees between the two cases and there is currently (although this may change or may even have changed already - you should check) a difference in funding available. Government backed student loans have only been available for undergraduate degrees.
For engineers in industry I do think that generally the integrated Masters is looked at more highly but of course it  depends on the institution. If you goal is to get chartered status then I would advise the integrated Masters rather than a separate MSc provided you are staying in the UK. If you go abroad the separate postgraduate MSc is understood better and so probably easier to have accepted.

It would seem that, in general in the UK, the MPhys would be more highly regarded in the physics community, but I want to go into finance so maybe not so much. Also, looking at the 3rd year of the MPhys it looks harder/more demanding than the final year of BSc.

The main reason for doing a four year course is that (at least when I was a student) was that you would only get a government loan for your first degree. Therefore you did not have to worry about finding extra funding to do a masters. However, apparently from 2016-17 this will be changing so you can get a loan for a master's in a similar way to undergrad degrees. I don't no what effect this will have on the popularity of four year courses.
Another advantage, as you said is that you do not need to apply separately for an MSc course. In my opinion this is a minor issue and it should be noted that most places in my experience will make you move to the BSc course if you are not on target to do well (2:1) in the 4 year course by the end of the 2nd year.
I would say that your first point is not correct. If any thing the opposite is true and a separate BSc + MSc is viewed more highly. This is not an issue if you are looking to work in the UK but in the rest of Europe combined courses such as an MPhys are not well understood and may put you at a disadvantage.
However, other than that there are very few disadvantages to doing an integrated course. Most places run a parallel BSc course with the first two years having similar/identical content. If this is the case it should be easy to switch down to the BSc up till the end of your second year if you want to do a MSc elsewhere/not at all.

This is what I was going to say. The other advantage of an MPhys is that the final year is only 120 credits, rather than 180, and so you finish in June rather than September (this is why MPhys could be less respected than an MSc). This can actually be very important when trying to go on to something else (eg doing an MSc could prevent you starting teacher training the following academic year, as you often need to start at the beginning of Sep, and cannot be a student on another course at the time).

Sorry, just spotted that this is an old question that got bumped.

I took a similar course but in computer science. As far as I could tell, the course was not any more difficult, but the aside from the fees issue noted by other answerers, the advantage is that you may graduate at the beginning of summer, rather than the end. Typically, in an MSc, September until May or June is spent on taught coursework, and the summer is spent on a dissertation, leading to an autumn or winter graduation. In my integrated course, the dissertation was completed by May or June for a summer graduation, and to allow for this, the work was split over the two final years of the degree, and the number of credits of taught courses I was required to take in the final year was less than it would have been for the MSc. I don't know if this is the case for all integrated courses, but it was an advantage for me, as I got some time off between completing my masters and starting my PhD.
As you noted, you won't be able to change university for your masters. But many integrated courses allow you to transfer back to a BSc if you change your mind. You should obviously check how early you need to do this (ie, it might be that you need to decide before final year, not during).


text:
Part-Time PhD in the UK? How does this work?
I'm from the US but I work as an engineer in the UK.  In the US, part-time engineering PhD students at high-profile universities are possible, but rare and usually limited to special cases.

In the UK, it seems nearly every school has a part-time PhD option.  How does a part-time engineering PhD at elite schools [Oxford, Imperial, Cambridge, UCL] work?
Is it possible to work full-time and obtain and obtain a part-time PhD at these elite schools?
What are your chances of being admitted to these top programs as a part-time PhD student (I'd assume there would be a bias against part time students)?

Perhaps you could consider an EngD rather than a PhD, where the research takes place in the workplace not a uni lab, and the output is seen as more of an applied research nature rather than pure research? (Full disclosure: I have no first hand knowledge, but that's the way I understand what I have read.)

Full-time PhD student here (my office mate is part-time).
As you say, many universities will have a part-time program. It probably is possible to work full-time and do research part time, but it will be even more challenging than usual. PhDs tend to work best if you immerse yourself fully and spend your energy exclusively on research (especially if you want to have some spare time).  My friend finds it difficult to balance a 20 hour workweek and a part-time research position. I've never met anyone who has a full-time job on top of the PhD.
Re funding: AFAIK grants are typically used for full-time studentships. In my group, we have often broken down a full-time position into two part-time ones, but only for postdoctoral researchers. I guess the assumption is at a postdoc level people will be better at juggling all their commitments. My supervisor won't admit to it, but I reckon he would prefer one full-time student as opposed to two part-time ones, as the former is more likely to complete.
EDIT: I spoke to my supervisor. If your day job is related to the research and is likely to help you (as opposed to holding you back), he said he would consider it a plus.

My father did his PhD over seven or eight (?) years at a UK university while holding down a full-time job - it was effectively an extension of the engineering work he was already doing, so presumably fitted into the situation your supervisor mentions. (It's worth noting that he was in his fifties by this point; it wasn't an alternative to doing it full-time aged 23)

Two big differences between US and UK PhD programs are that full time UK programs are designed to be 3 years (with a pretty hard limit at 4 years) and many students, even in engineering and science, are not funded.
Admissions to UK PhD programs, even the top programs, is significantly easier than in the US. Ignoring funding for a moment, admissions in the UK is almost entirely dependent on finding a willing supervisor, while in the US having a supervisor is not generally enough to gain admissions. So if you can find a supervisor who is willing to take you on as a part time PhD student, your chances of getting in are pretty good.
Funding is a whole different story. Externally funded studentships in the UK are generally for full time students and departments generally do not like to commit themselves to 6 years. That said, tuition and fees in the UK can be much cheaper and self funding a UK PhD is much more common.
In terms of finishing, I think a part time student in the UK has advantages that part time students in the US do not. Full time students in the UK lose their funding after 3 years and must be finished by 4 years while part time students have at least 6 years to finish. As some aspects of the PhD cannot be rushed, there are times were working less for longer is a definite advantage.

I am a part-time masters(but will be switching to PhD part-time) in Ireland, where conditions are broadly similar to the UK.
I found no bias against me as a part-time student as my application process was exactly the same as if I was a full-time student.
Part-time PhDs will normally have the same criteria as the full-time one but you will in general get double the time to finish it. One thing to watch out for is that a potential supervisor is fully aware of the lengthier time-frame to possible completion.
Just from my own experience, on working full-time and doing post-graduate study. It can be done but it is hard. I have a nine to five job. I'm lucky in that my work place is a 10 minute walk from my university where I have a desk in a post-graduate research centre. I would generally start about 6 and finish around ten or eleven. There are also full days done at the weekend. I think even with everything going perfectly you are a least committing to 4-5 years. I'm in the Humanities so holidays/vacations are now trips to archives for research!
In relation to funding, as noted in the other answers, it is near impossible to get tuition fees funded. You may also be able to apply for some internal grants within the university you study in. I have been able to receive some funding from within my university from a travel bursary to help fund my research trips.

Hi I work full time and PhD student for several years now. I think there are two answers here.
It is possible. Don't do it.
Job tends to be chaotic, changeable and normally not designed to be long.
Research is slow, a lot of planning a lot of reading.
As result job tends to take over and in my experience what happens is that your life becomes a complete work stream. You will try to review during work and will get interrupted. Then you will plan to research in the evening but as you are probably in front of the computer you carry on working for longer. Etc.
It is very challenging and your life will disappear.
Saying that, if you manage your life and start with a methodology and stick to it. Is painful but doable.
My advice. Make sure you have an office not in your place of work. Either at home or where you are doing research.
Review access to labs and negotiate access after hours and on weekends (I waited a long time to do this and it has been painful).
.with part time you have a higher probability of find your research has been done or gets done while you are invested in your research. So commit to it but have alternative routes always.
Finally it sounds small but it works for me. Wear different clothes whe doing research or when at work. That way you are.literelly wearing a different hat. Your life is easier for you but also for those around you.
Good.luck

I worked full time and launched (and later sold) a company while working on a PhD.
It is possible, but you need to be really clear on what your reasons are for wanting a PhD and proceed accordingly. Because your priorities will be in constant conflict during this very (very) long process.
Here are two common scenarios I've seen:
Moving from industry to academia:
If you want to transition from industry to academia, I strongly advise making your PhD your main focus and either quitting your full time job, or working part time instead.
Advancing within industry:
If instead you are interested in a PhD because it will help you with your industry career, then working full time while doing a part time PhD is probably the path I would take, especially if I could convince my employer to pay for some or all of it.
Finally, whichever category you're in, make sure that your family/spouse/significant other is fully on board with the amount of time this will take you, both in terms of calendar time and number of hours per week.

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


text:
What is the admissions process for top UK graduate programs? What is a considered competitve resume/application?
I'm considering applying to a few top UK universities for a PhD in Engineering, for the 2016 year.  I would really like to attend a strong program, namely, Imperial, Cambridge, or Oxford.

Admissions to undergraduate courses at these universities are extraordinarily competitive.  How does the graduate admissions process compare?  Is it just as competitive, or is it more relaxed?
What credentials would an American applicant need to have (grades, research experience, job experience, etc) to be competitive?
Do you need to have both an American BS and MS degree to apply to a UK PhD program?  Or is merely a BS sufficient?

Imperial College EE Ph.D entry requirements page says you need a master's (or equivalent). Besides splitting this up into multiple questions, I think you could do some easy research and answer at least (3) yourself.

One thing to worry about is that, unlike most US PhD programs, UK graduate programs do not seem to be fully funded (especially for foreign applicants). I urge you to investigate the funding situation early so there are no nasty surprises.

UK PhD programs pretty much universally require a MSc or equivalent so I would expect a MS to be required. For some lower ranking universities you may be able to make a case based on the differences between US and UK bachelors, but I think even this is doubtful.
Thinking about it this is not entirely true. There are some doctoral training centers which offer combined masters and PhD courses for which you don't require a Masters, but outside these a masters is required.
Academically, I expect top UK institutions have similar requirements to top US institutions. Specially, they will require a 2:1 or equivalent, with some top universities requiring a 1st. There is no simple conversion to GPA or other systems. But, roughly speaking at 2:1/1st corresponds to 3.2/4.0 in GPA.
However, academics are mainly just a minimum requirement. The main determining factors are the enthusiasm you can show for research, particularly related to the area you are applying for. Most UK applicants will have at least some research experience from experience from their course and the majority will have also done a summer research job or similar.
I would still expect applications for to places to be quite competitive. Less in terms of raw numbers compared to undergraduate, but more the quality of applicants. Some interesting numbers for Cambridge can be found here. About 1/3 of applicants get an offer and about 1/4 applicants start the PhD (the difference presumably fail to make their grades or take another offer). This is much higher than undergrad, where a low estimate would be 1/10 get an offer.


text:
Difference between UK honors and pass degree from Indian degrees
I am from India and we have two different degrees. One would be honors and other would be pass. I graduated with a Bsc(pass) degree. Now this degree included studying Physics, Mathematics and Computer Sciences at breadth. An honors degree would require me to complete a depth requirement in only one subject.
Now as I was looking for the eligibility for a masters' degree, I am finding it difficult to find the equivalent of my degree in UK.

Why was this question down voted? Please leave a comment when you down vote

All UK universities use a Government body to verify and calibrate overseas qualifications for the purposes of admissions and employment etc.
Their web site is www.naric.org.uk.
It is their rating of your qualifications against an equivalent UK degree that will be used by any admissions tutor of any Master's course you applied for.
I quote from NARIC:

UK NARIC can provide two officially-recognised documents. The first is a Statement of Comparability, which will include information about the standards of your awards in comparison to UK qualifications.  It confirms the status of overseas qualifications and their comparable level in the UK, irrespective of it being an academic, vocational or professional award. It is used by universities, colleges, employers and Government departments and agencies, forming part of their decision-making process.

I think this is going to vary from university to university and course to course. A good starting place might be the international qualifications required for Cambridge and the University of Warwick.


text:
How should I approach a situation where my head of department doesn't want me there?
I'm in my first year of a PhD programme in the UK. In this year of the programme we do a few short projects with different supervisors and then choose a supervisor and project for the next 3 years.
My current supervisor is fantastic - I work really well with him and he also thinks highly of me. I am making great progress with my work, everything is going well. Of the ~4 supervisors I've worked with in the past, this experience is by far the best I've had. My supervisor is very keen to have me continue with him for my main project, and I am too.
The problem lies with the head of my supervisor's department, who also happened to have been the head of my master's programme that I took last year (before becoming head of dept this year).
He taught me for a total of three weeks during that master's. I made a bad first impression in the first week when he called on me in class with a question that I didn't know the answer to and I replied with something silly. The second week I was seriously ill and had permission to be absent, but when I came back in the third week he was angry with me for having missed a week. At the end of that short course he gave me a failing grade. I appealed the grade unsuccessfully.
My supervisor has told me that before I started working with him the head of department "warned" him about me and said "I don't want a person like that in my department".
Now my supervisor, having worked with me for a few months, disagrees completely and doesn't understand why the head said that. But, perhaps unsurprisingly, my supervisor doesn't have a very good relationship with the head of department either. I worry that the head will not take his opinion with much weight.
I'm worried that I won't be allowed to continue in this department with my supervisor, and that even if I am there will be trouble down the line. What can I do?

How does your PhD programme work exactly. Presumably your head of department doesn't have a unilateral veto? Since you are already admitted, they would need an extremely good reason to kick you out of the programme.

I'm not worried about being kicked off the programme (which the head of dept has little/no authority on) but being disallowed from working with this supervisor in this department. I don't know how much formal power the head of dept has to make that happen but he at least has a lot of informal power over things.

If you want to work with this supervisor, and they want to work with you, that's about as sure as you can get that you can stay on. The head of department has superiors as well, and if this escalated to them, it would be hard to justify such vindictive behaviour. I don't think this question is answerable except by someone with specific knowledge of your department, but since you get on with your supervisor so well, you should discuss it with them.

I'd say those people generally have other things to care of that a PhD student that is under supervision of another person in the dpt. He is wary about you, fine. If you are really doing well, he will change his mind in a few months. Just be patient and focused.

You shouldn't worry so much about political issues in the department. What is important to you right now is to focus hard on the research and publish in significant journals with your supervisor or collaborators. Hence, in this way you can justify that are a serious student in the department, and you can established connections for you career after graduation the PhD program.

The key message here is: your work ethic and productivity will be the determinants of your success.
If anything, use this "bad start" to motivate yourself to prove him wrong. I'd be very surprised if the Head of Department thinks too much about his initial assessment, and likely will be pleased to see you succeed.
However, you clearly are concerned that he will act to evict you from the department at some point. I think this rather unlikely, but the only academic trigger would be a failure to demonstrate sufficient progress at a progression board (which may be titled differently at your institution). This will be determined on your output, not his views, and in any case there will be appeal mechanisms within the university and at the OAI which protect you.
-> Don't worry and work hard!


text:
Can I start writing my PhD thesis from the second year?
I'm going to enter my second year in my PhD after two months from now. I start to think that I can write some chapters from now instead of waiting until the fourth year. This would help me to finish my study early is that possible or at least avoid the stress of writing in my fourth year.
However, most of my friends who are in the third and fourth year suggest not to do that because it is going to waste my time and instead I need to focus more on the literature review and prepare for the field work.
Need advice about this from students who go through this.

Maybe add your field to your question.

As user2768 said, the field is important.  In engineering, we tend to go paper by paper; or one contribution at time.  Each paper or contribution forms a chapter.  Basically, students write their chapters as they progress through their degree.

If you've got something that's finished and ready to write, then write it. If it isn't finished, and is likely to change significantly, then it may waste time to write something that you end up rewriting. If you haven't finished your literature review or collected data yet, you may fall into the second category (but don't take my word for this)

It is probably a good idea to keep a running outline of your work as you go. Also, sometimes you get stuck for some period of time - say waiting for experiments to mature. In those periods if you can't otherwise make progress it might be a good idea to write up (and to revise) what you already know.
I wouldn't do this to "shorten" the time, however, but rather to keep myself on track and to keep an overview of the work in mind.
One advantage of this, if you have the discipline to do it, is that the thesis gets revised many times this way before you finish, rather than only once or twice.
In short, it could be time wasted or time well spent, depending on when you do it and how you approach it.

I think it really depends on individuals. I personally like doing multiple projects at the same time, for two reasons: 1) It helps me build connections; 2) It improves my research skills (e.g., study design and data analysis). However, I do feel very burned out sometimes when there were just too much for me. I also realized that I was not able to focus on my main line of research when I was also devoting my time to other projects. I think it depends on what you want, if you want to find a job in academia, then you definitely need publications, so more projects; but if you just want to work in the industry, then probably focus more on finding practical opportunities and build connections with people in the industry. The bottom line is don't burn out yourself, after all, doing too much side work simultaneously would distract you from your focus, which is counterproductive :)

A thesis is based upon research conducted during a PhD. That research should be in publishable form and, ideally, some of it should already be published. Thus, a thesis is based upon publishable/published research.
I recommend that you focus on publishing or, at least, preparing publishable manuscripts, rather than starting to write chapters of your thesis.

While in most cases a thesis is not written until the end, there is nothing preventing you from beginning earlier. Having said that, there is possibly little that you could write now as you say there is still work to be done on the literature review. Without the literature review it may prove difficult to write the introductory chapters.

Writing the introductory chapters may actually serve to guide the literature review.

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


text:
What's the difference between 'research topic' and 'research area'?
I am writing an essay to apply for a summer research project and is supposed to write about 'general research topic that interests me' and 'area I would like to focus'. I'm kind of confused about these two terms. What's the difference?
For example, if I'm interested in computer science, where should I write it?
p.s. I have asked this question in English Language & Usage site but didn't get answer. So I suppose that these two words may only have difference in academic field?

A research area is what a research topic is placed into, but is much broader than the scope of the topic. For example a research area can be human physiology, computer science (as you mentioned) or even relate to a specific field within these broader terms such as cardiac electrophysiology or machine learning respectively.
A research topic would be a specific question, hypothesis or problem you wish to investigate and answer which is under the scope of your research area. That is to say, my research area is in neuroscience/neurophysiology and my research topic is investigating the mechanisms of neuronal communication, as an example.
You would want to say topics that interest you which relate to a certain problem that you may be aware of, whereas in the research area you would want to outline your inclinations towards a particular field of academia.

While a topic is narrower than an area (for example, your area may be "solid state physics" and your topic "semiconductor tuning based on dopage"), it's probably true that for most people there is little difference between the two terms as far as colloquial usage is concerned.
In other words, don't obsess about the difference -- though, if you want, consider the "area" a broader term.


text:
How should a non-native English presenter respond to a question they did not understand?
I'm not an English native speaker, and my question is, probably, only relevant for non-native speakers.
Sometimes, native speakers just don't care how easily the presenter can understand the question. Such a carelessness usually embarrasses the presenter enormously and makes him appear incompetent.
What is the proper way to behave for the non-native speaking presenter? Is it OK to ask for a repetition?
NOTE: I know, being a part of academic world requests some proper English knowledge. But you can hardly become as good as native speakers. And some native speakers have unusual dialects and use difficult expressions (sometimes, I bet, on purpose). I remember one speaker from Wales at a British conference. My God, that was Greek to me.

I've seen a lot of speakers who will mention that English is not their first language when asking someone to repeat themselves.  Many (most?) native English speakers only know English, pointing out that English is your 2nd (or 3rd, or 4th...) language gives people with genuine questions an opportunity to rephrase using more common words.  And if someone is using difficult expressions 'on purpose' it'll remind them that you're language skills are likely to be superior to their own.

"I'm not an English native speaker, and my question is, probably, only relevant for non-native speakers." - while it happens less commonly, there are of course also occasional academic presentations given in languages other than English by non-native speakers of those languages other than English.

I'm a native speaker and I frequently ask people to repeat what they've said, even if they speak in my exact dialect. Sometimes it's because they don't enunciate properly; sometimes I wonder if it's because there's something wrong with my hearing. It's perfectly fine to ask people to repeat themselves, including in the context you mention. It's not an issue.

I'm protecting this question because it's on the "Hot network questions" list and seems to be attracting answers that don't add anything over existing answers.

This can also be applied to cases where the asker has a foreign accent or quirky grammar. I have been to a PhD defence where the opponent had the thickest Russian accent I have ever heard, and made his questions very difficult to understand (in his favour I will add that he would rephrase each question in three or four different wordings before letting the candidate answer, but others are not so nice or aware of their skills).

I've removed a lot of the comments discussing word choice regarding dialects, since the current version seems to satisfy all the different viewpoints. If someone wants the conversation restored please post here or in [meta].

@RobP. And by pointing out that English is not your native language you cue the speaker to be careful about the use of idioms as those are more likely to cause confusion to non-native speakers.

Yes, it is appropriate to ask the questioner to repeat the question, prefaced by:

"I'm sorry but I didn't understand the question.  Can you repeat it or rephrase it?"

If you still don't understand it, you might ask someone else in the audience to restate it or rephrase it.

Some people at academic conferences are not good at asking clear, direct questions, even when they are native English speakers with normal dialect.  I have asked people to repeat or rephrase questions for this reason, and I am a native English speaker.

A good session chair can often help in extracting the real question from  a long-winded and badly worded question.  They might after all need to repeat the question for the benefit of the audience depending on the acoustics.  A glance at the chair as you ask the questioner to repeat/clarify may help you.

As with the other answers, I will echo that it's OK to not understand and to ask for somebody to repeat themselves.  Even as a native speaker I often have a hard time understanding a question.
Sometimes, though, it's not because the question's hard to hear, but because the reasoning behind it is odd or because the question is just not coherent to begin with.  As such, I want to add one other strategy: if I still don't understand the question after one repetition, I will simply make my best guess at a reasonable question I think they might be asking, saying something like this:

If I understand you correctly, your question is about why llamas prefer melons over grapefruit.  The answer to this question is that ...

This way, I'm giving a good answer to some interesting question, and it might even be theirs.  If they're satisfied, great; if not, they can try to clarify their question.  Moreover, because I repeat the presumed question back, it's hopefully clear to the rest of the audience that if something's wrong it's with my ears (which are not scientifically important) and not my thinking (which is the important bit).

I think repeating the presumed question is important here. It bothers me a lot when someone asks a question and the speaker appears to answer a different question.

@Vectornaut In addition, it's very frustrating as an audience member to hear the speaker answer a question known only to the speaker and the inquisitor.  Most people asking questions aren't asking in a way that everyone in the room can hear it;  the speaker repeating the question also makes sure everyone knows what's being discussed.

I have never come across somebody who seemed to be using difficult expressions just to confuse a non-native speaker. When people talk to you in complicated English, it's because they haven't realised you might not understand, and that is quite likely because your own English is good enough that they forget you don't speak the language perfectly. Just say something like, "I'm sorry but I didn't understand all of your question. Could you repeat it, please?"

Is it OK to ask for a repetition?

Yes, not only it is okay but also it is necessary. You are the presenter. You are responsible for answering the questions from the audience. If you don't understand the question, how do you answer it?

What is the proper way to behave for the non-native speaking presenter?

This depends on the situation. In my personal experience (I am a non-native English speaker), I would first say

I beg your pardon, would you please repeat your question? (An old fashion way).

After the asker repeats the question, if I still don't quite understand the question but I have some clues about what the question is (after all, the audience are in the same or close fields), I would say

It seems that you are asking blah blah ..., is my interpretation correct?.

If the asker agrees, then I answer the question if I can.
If the asker disagrees, if I am lucky, hopefully he would rephrase the question or some audience would volunteer to help to explain the question. If I get it, I would answer it. If I still don't get it, I would say

Can we talk about this offline?.

After the presentation, I would go to the asker and ask him to clarify the question and then answer the question if I can.
The above probably won't solve all the cases if you are not lucky. One of my worst personal experience is that an asker who is also a non-native English speaker asked a question that nobody in the room including myself could understand what he was talking about after several repetitions. I had to give up and I could not find him after the presentation.

If I don't understand the question, I ask politely for a repeat. If I still don't understand (either language or content wise) I usually suggest that we can discuss the matter after the talk and I go on with my talk or dealing with other questions.
The only time this not worked well was once where the person was pointing a typo in my slide, and I couldn't make out what was wrong, and more and more people started getting involved in telling me what it was (which is usually confusing...)

This solution is a nice one. The only problem is, some type of questions don't imply a broad discussion afterwards. If you are unlucky to offer this for a really simple question, that would sound strange and incompetent.

True, but with almost no exception everybody in the audience has been on the other side so there is a decent amount of leeway. Actually, my experience is that when a questioner is not forgiving most in the audience get annoyed with the questioner. The only exceptions I've seen is in a couple cases where the presenter was seriously incompetent, but even then it is not worth pushing with a question.

I will add one more option that I don't see mentioned before. It need not work for everybody but it works for me in cases when acoustics is a part of the problem.
Sometimes (often) it happens that the room sounds muggy, microphone is missing or working badly etc. In that case, you can simply make the couple steps towards the person, ask him to repeat/clarify the question, then come back to the stage, repeat the question and answer it.
Of course, you can't do this if you overshot the talk by 4 minutes and ate all the discussion time. But if you keep your talk in time, you should have 5 minutes left for discussion, which is plenty of time for this little manoeuvre.

There is nothing wrong with politely asking for a repeat of the question.  Your particular reason (learning the language) is an excellent reason for asking,  but that's actually irrelevant, because politeness does not require you to explain why you are asking for a repeat (although if you asked them more than once, it might!)  In fact, your asking them to repeat something may have unintended beneficial consequences, for instance, someone else may not have heard what was said and may also be wishing it would be repeated but was too shy to ask for themselves: this has happened to me, and I was truly grateful to the person who asked for the repetition :)

It is however helpful when the person asking the question knows whether the problem is language or something else, because that will hopefully shape the way in which they rephrase it.

It is OK to acknowledge you don't always hear or understand what is being asked. I often request a question be repeated or even rephrased.

@rpax: Why? This is clearly an attempt to answer the question. You may complain about it being not very elaborate or similar or even downvote it, but it clearly belongs in the answer domain.

@Wrzlprmft Just a personal opinion. I didn't downvote it, neither flagged, but it seems to me more like a comment than an answer. Just an opinion. Maybe I am more used to SO, and the rules here are different. Ok. You are right. I will delete my comment for avoiding the attraction of close votes.

@rpax: On Stack Overflow, unelaborate and short answers shall also be posted as answers. Deciding between answers and comments can be decided by a simple objective criterion: Does the post try to answer the question?


text:
Why do others have these highly specialised research topics and I don't?
I have some time now to think about what I want to write for my dissertation, but I just don’t know how to find an appropriate topic. I like what I do and I could do a lot.
Some people seem to have really interesting and specialized interests and topics for their dissertations. And although I am really into what I study, I just always feel like I haven’t got this amazing topic that hasn't been researched yet or that I could contribute something to. And I feel like I don't want to specialize just yet. I want to know more. But I already have a Masters. What went wrong there?
I basically feel like I have to make something up as it were, or even choose something at random (from within my general interests, of course). This being said, I will probably like it and do well. But is this just me? Does anyone ever feel like this? What would you do if you had all the time in the world (I do at the moment) to find a good research topic?

I think it's time to talk to the professors in your department to find out if there is something you are interested but you don't know yet.

thanks for the reply! I am very interested in many things and would love to do all of them (in an ideal world). I also 'dislike' many things, so I know what I don't want. But it still feels there's too much that I like for serious specialisation!

This sentiment basically dictated my life arc in not getting a PhD.

Writers keep a special notebook where they jot down ideas for future projects.  You can do this too.  Not only will this help you get your PhD research into focus, it will also be helpful in the future.  You'll be able to pull out your notebook for inspiration later on.
If you don't yet have an advisor to work closely with on sifting through the things on your list, then finding an advisor will be your Step 1.
A primary role of the advisor is to help the student define a research topic.

I think this will vary considerably by field, which you haven't specified. In some subjects it is expected that you start with a specific question already settled. In maths, my subject, most people have very little idea when they start about what the final question will be. You start learning about an area, and your supervisor suggests a question, and after thinking about it for a year or so you find out exactly what it is you're going to write your thesis on (and change the title to something super-specific accordingly).
So in general I would say not wanting to specialise at the start of your PhD is probably fine. What you do need to keep in mind is that you should not be in the same position when you get closer to finishing. A PhD thesis does need to be specialised. It's probably the point in your career when your question is most specialised. Once you've got the job of writing your thesis done, and start a post-doc position, you then broaden back out to the questions you would have liked to explore more during your PhD but didn't have time for.

Some people just pick a topic that sounds really good (but then probably get a bit bored with it). (25%)
Some people pick a topic that sounds important and then say they are really excited about their topic, and that everyone else is really excited about their topic, so that people think they are amazing, and this kind of has a snowball effect. (10%)
Some get quite obsessive about their topic to the exclusion of a lot else in their life. (10%)
And yet another bunch of people actually are quite brilliant, and pick amazing topics. (5%)
And then there are a whole bunch of other people who have pretty ordinary topics. (50%)
The choice of topic is crucial however. Don't pick something for no reason, and don't be afraid to change. Look for something that connects with lots of other areas - think of a network diagram - you want to be working on something that is on or connected to a hub node, not ending up as some kind of add-on to an add-on (this is the problem with being too specific). Do (and this is the tradeoff) make your topic tractable - you have to have a good plan about how to get the job finished in the time you have - remember you just need one good paper, where you really nail a single study, to show (and learn) you are capable of really high-quality research. Pick something you find fascinating, or highly important to the world, or that you think is worth the pain, and it will make it easier to finish when you have to go through the pain.
In contrast to the other answer - I'm not sure professors will help you too much. They will mainly try and recruit you to work on a topic they find interesting, but then you will want to refocus your efforts, and your professor will disengage from the project. There's a bit of a power struggle which can be a problem. Instead - present a really clear plan of what areas you want to work in - with all the uncertainties laid out.
Feel free to ignore any and or all of the above as well.

present a really clear plan of what areas you want to work in The OP's problem is he does not know what areas he wants to work in.

I'm not sure - the way I read it they have said they wish not to over specialise - not that they don't know what they want to do - note that I said to include all the uncertainties. My feeling is that the awareness of the uncertainties in a project area is a highly developed skill in a prospective graduate student.

The percents mentioned are arbitrary. Also, there are disciplines like mine (CS) that the "you just need one good paper" is not true and you need a handful of good papers to get a PhD.