text:
How can I convince my instructor to allow me to self-study?
Last month, I took an extra Chemistry class and since then I had to attend the extra classes after my college ends. But However, I have already self-studied advanced chemistry by myself and For me, The Chemistry Class I am taking is a waste of time because it teaches the same things that I have already leant before. However, The Instructor of that Extra Chemistry class is the same person who is my Lecturer and grader of my College class. That means, if I leave the Extra Chemistry Class then It will affect my college grades. So, Is there any way, to convince my instructor that I want to leave that extra chemistry class and self study by myself without affecting my college grades ?

I don't understand why leaving the extra class is going to affect your grades in the college class? Is this instructor known to be vindictive?

Actually, the Instructor had advised me to attend his Extra Classes to improve my grades and It seems very odd to leave his extra class by disobeying his advice.

If you've studied the material in the class before, and this is an "extra" class, which I assume means its not part of core requirements, what are you gaining by taking the class at all?

You should go back over what you've written. In the first sentence only . . . (1) Classes typically last more than a month, so "Last month I took" doesn't make sense. Maybe the end of the class occurred sometime within the past month? (2) I had to attend the extra classes -- Do you mean "some extra classes? At this point there has been no mention of extra classes. (3) Are the extra classes in chemistry or just additional classes needed for some graduation requirement? (4) my college ends -- Do you mean the end of your degree program or the end of the college's most recent semester/quarter?

Just I want to clarify that, The Extra Classes are Intended to revise the core materials for my college chemistry classes. My College Lecturer advised me to take his Extra Chemistry classes to improve my grade in my College's core chemistry class. Hope you all understand.

So the extra classes are remedial/revision classes for the main course, rather than more advanced topics than the main course? And your instructor advised you to attend the extra classes because of your poor grades? Have you explained to the instructor that you have studied more advanced topics and feel the extra class is a waste of time? What did they say?

@astronat  Yes, I have already told him about this but he advised me to take the Extra for better revision so that I can do well in my upcoming exams. Now, How can I disobey him by leaving those extra classes ?

It may be that you just have to comply with the instructor's wishes and do what is asked. Words are probably not going to convince them.
But, if you really want to convince them that you know the material, ask them to give you an exam, perhaps an oral exam, on the required material. If you do well, then they may be convinced. But if not, then you have the information you need that you really aren't ready.
An oral exam need only take 10 or 15 minutes, actually. Either you struggle or you excel. It can become obvious quickly which "bin" you fall in to.


text:
Wondering whether I should be worried about getting a professor fired for disability harassment?
Should I be worried about getting a professor potentially fired? I reported someone for disability harassment (name-calling and very specific hate speech towards me a student with disabilities. (I'm in upper years of physics and economics).
I reported the complaints to the department head who, in turn, reported to two associate deans. I'm just a little bit scared about how all of this will go down. I don't want this professor fired or anything, which has kept me up at night. I also don't want him walking away scot-free, however. I reported the professor to a lawyer but have not sued my school, nor do I intend to. Instead, I had wanted to cover my butt. Sigh, I am horrified by the situation that caused me profound mental distress, yet I am also empathetic towards not wanting this professor to be penalized too harshly. I'm a human with a conscience. Tenured professors are never fireable, right? And disability harassment is not as bad as sexual harassment, right? (I got called a "useless broken kitten that no one would ever pick up from the animal shelter," amongst other things, so I suppose there is always sadly the possibility that that could be considered minor sexual harassment too.
It's too late to go back from my claims, as I have already reported them and I don't wish to harm my reputation by changing my mind or by saying that I invented things when I did not. However, I find myself empathizing with my former prof, and just wanted to ensure that consequences will most likely be minimal on his end. On mine, I've already been hurt.

The only time I've seen tenured professors fired is when they raped a student. They're safe. Please do not worry; they did what they did and need to account for it and, preferably, improve.

When I was in grads, the department head was taking a visiting speaker, a Nobel Prize winner, on a tour of the department. They walked in on one of the profs having sex with one of his undergrad students on one of the lab benches. He was not fired.

@Boba Fit: On the other hand, if they had walked in on a adjunct leaving the room of a just-finished lecture who did not erase the chalkboard . . .

@DaveLRenfro I knew an adjunct who was written up for not putting the chairs in place after the student left the classroom. The school felt that it was part of adjuncts' reaponsibilities.

Should I be worried about getting a professor potentially fired?

You should not be worried about this, because what happens to the professor is not your decision to make, and not really any of your business, despite the fact that you are the victim of a (quite egregious by the sound of it) episode of harassment.
You did absolutely the right thing to report the incident. It’s useful to keep in mind that the people who will be weighing what to do have a much broader perspective on the situation than you do. They will be considering the implications not just for you as the victim but for other students and coworkers of this professor, for the university’s reputation, for the university community at large, and even potentially for the rest of society. And, I hope and believe, they will also have a measure of empathy for the professor and the circumstances that led him to behave in such a way, and will be considering the implications for him personally.
I don’t know if the professor will be fired or not, that could depend on lots of specific details of the incident and on the culture at your institution and country. But if he is fired, then I would think it much more likely that that decision, reached after a thoughtful deliberative process by experienced professionals, is the correct decision, than for your opposing view driven by a personal sense of guilt and focused on your own involvement in the incident, to represent the correct way of looking at things.
Of course, mistakes do sometimes happen and there are occasions when people are punished too harshly for something they did. If the university makes a mistake by firing the professor when they shouldn’t have, the responsibility for making that mistake will be on them, not on you. As I said, you did the right thing to truthfully report what happened.
I’m sorry this happened to you. I can’t imagine what the guy could have been thinking to say such a horrible thing.

I am really envious of the environment you are in. Where I am (and it is a democratic country), when some misconduct happens (no matter whether in my university, in politics, in medicine, in industry), people in charge have only in mind to hide the topic and save PR, not really considering implications for "weaker" people.

Having made the complaint, the outcome of the matter is now largely out of your hands.  The institution will have its own position on what conduct it expects from its professors, how badly it regards departure from expected conduct, and the punishment it considers appropriate for breach of its rules (if this is found to have occurred).  Ideally, if the complaints system at the university is working properly, this professor will be provided with due process in the complaint, and if he is found to have breached the university rules then there will be some objective determination of an appropriate outcome, based on all relevant factors.
In any case, as the initial complainant, it is open to you to tell the university what you would like to see happen in the matter.  It sounds like your desired outcome is for there to be some punishment that is not as severe as termination.  If you want to, you could write a submission to the assessors who are reviewing your complaint and let them know the desired outcome you have in mind.  This will not be binding on the university (they might impose a more or less severe punishment), but they might consider it to be a relevant factor in making their own determination of a punishment (in the event that the professor is found to have breached the university rules).

Tenured professors are never fireable, right?

Wrong.

And disability harassment is not as bad as sexual harassment, right?

Generally right, but depends on specifics.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How do I ask for an extension on an offer when waiting to hear back about another position?
I have received an oral offer from University A, but a few days later I got the interview invitation from University B and I attended it.  I am still waiting for the interview result which could come up until next week or the week after next. Now University A asked me whether I will accept the offer, so they can start the administration application. I would like to request a longer decision time or defer this offer so that I can wait for the decision from University B. How do I write this email? Can I just tell University A the truth that I'm applying for an another position?
The position in University B suits my career plan much better than A, and pays much more. This is why I really want to do something for this position. Can you please advise me on how to write this email?
Edit: I am applying for funded PhD position in Europe. The first offer from University A came in 2nd May. I decided to accept this offer (and I thought a "yes" during the interview means an acceptation of the offer) and started to apply for a necessary certificate which is required to study in the specific country. The interview invitation of University B came in 11th May. I interviewed in 17th May and the interviewer told me they will inform me of the result 3 to 4 weeks after (which is around the first half of June). These days I confirmed some details with University A and keep in touch with University B. 31st May I received an email from University A, asking whether I will accept the offer.

What kind of position is this?

For a good answer, you should provide more details, minimally the nature of the position, how long you've been in the process with university a, and how long you've been holding an offer.

@ScottSeidman OK, I edited my post with specific timeline.

"Dear University A,
Thank you for the offer. I am very excited about this opportunity but I am waiting to hear back about another position. I will be able to let you know my final decision by [insert date here].
Thanks and best wishes,
xuehua an"
It's as simple as that. There is no need to lie or obscure the truth. This is a perfectly fine and acceptable thing to do. All universities know that applicants are applying to multiple places and potentially juggling many offers.
It's probably a good idea to contact University B as well and let them know you have another offer in hand which you need to reply to soon. This could speed up their decision making.

Depending, of course, on whether a written offer from A has ever shown up. If not, well, it isn't really an offer.

Thank you for your help! I thought I had to explain my current situation to University A, but now it seems unnecessary. However, would it jeopardies my offer (if I could get the offer) from University B if I write the email? Would it seems too rash and impatient?

@JonCuster University A only offered me an oral offer during the interview, I haven't sign anything or upload any documents. So this is not an offer, literally, and even I reject this offer, it won't affect my credibility, right? When I interviewed with University A, the interviewer said she would close the position post, and I thought this was our final decision. This really brought me heavy psychological pressure when I found that I want to choose the other position.

@xuehuaan Some universities are only able to make one offer per hiring cycle, and they completely understand that their offer may not be accepted. You are doing something very normal, and you won't be doing anything wrong if you end up going with University B.

@xuehuaan if the interviewer at A is at all competent, they will have a 2nd/3rd/4th etc choice who they will make an offer to if you say no. It's not your job to worry about what they will do if you decline; it's your job to accept whichever offer is best for you.

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


text:
In a research proposal for a computer science Ph.D. application, should I use the mathematical equations or just text to explain my ideas?
I am writing a research proposal for Ph.D. admission. I am confused as to whether the research proposal for the Ph.D. application should be written like a formal paper. In a formal paper that I submit to a conference, I know that the paper will be reviewed by peers in our field, so I always try to write formal mathematical language when the plain text could not fully explain my ideas.
However, I am aware that some professors in the selection committee may not be in my field so they may not understand the equations in my field and I should therefore write down my ideas in a simpler way.
Am I overly concerned? Or I could just write the research proposal like it is a normal paper?

It depends on the field and the country. In a math department in the US, such a "proposal" is actually rather unusual in the first place, but if asked for one, both equations and text explaining the equations would be warranted.

On the one hand, for something like this, whatever is more comfortable for you is probably fine; in general, it's good to state the ideas in formal mathematical language as well as prose .

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


text:
What does "Reviews Completed" mean one week post-submission?
I sent a paper to a Springer journal. After two days the editor was assigned and after 5 days the status changed to "Reviews Completed".
Is this bad news?

Probably.  Highly unlikely real reviews were done that quickly that would result in acceptance.  So either you've been rejected, or you're submitting someplace with the quality control of the place that accepted a paper with 10 pages of "take me off your f**king mailing list" repeated again and again.

@FredDouglis Or the editor is a clumsy little butterfingers and clicked "Reviews completed" by accident instead of "Reviewers Requested" or "Reviewers Assigned" and hasn't noticed.

It might be editorial review. Hope for a desk reject. It is not a scammy Journal?

Since Allure brought this back to the front page ... perhaps hamza can tell us what did happen?

Yes, it's a bad sign. If a review is completed that quickly the odds are the reviewer recommended a quick rejection. There's also a small chance the reviewer said something like "I can't understand this paper's English" in which case you might still receive a revise decision. However it's also possible that the editor invited multiple reviewers of which only the first has submitted, so it might be a while longer to a decision. If the other reviews are more positive, you might also get a revise decision.
Human error here is unlikely. The editorial management systems I've seen automatically update the status only when reviews are submitted. If the editor's making a decision without reviewers, the status never shows 'reviews complete'; it goes straight to 'decision in progress'.

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


text:
How can I list on my CV that I graduated from college in 3 years?
Without naming the university (to protect my privacy), I attended one of the top 20 universities in the US for my undergrad and graduated in 3 years with honors. While graduating from this school in 3 years isn't impossible, it's certainly rare. On top of that, I have a good GPA and finished a humanities-based CogNeuro major, a Writing minor, and all my pre-med coursework.
Now I'm applying to grad school for CogNeuro, and I'd like to highlight the fact that I graduated in 3 years on my CV, for 2 reasons. First, I genuinely think my accomplishments are made more impressive by that fact. And second, because it explains why I have less research experience than some of my peers. So I guess my question is twofold: Should I even bother mentioning that I graduated early, or am I just being arrogant in doing so? And if that's a good thing to mention, how can I do so without being heavy-handed?
Currently I have my high school name and graduation year listed under my "Education" section, not because my high school matters, but because it's the only way I can think of to show that I graduated from college early.

There are no magic words - you just say that thing you want to say.  The simplest way would be simply to specify the years you attended university, and then explicitly note the achievement you want to highlight.  One thing to note is that there is little point in mentioning this unless you have some statistical evidence that graduating within three years is actually a genuine achievement.  Try something like this:

Education
Bachelor of Doing Things (Oxbridge University) (2016-2018) Graduated with a GPA of 3.61 and won an award for being the top student in my third-course on doing good things.  I was in the cohort of 3% of student who successfully complete this degree program within three years.

+1 for the point about statistics. In the UK, virtually everyone graduates in three years.

2016-2018 would mean graduating in two years in many countries. I don't offhand know any where the academic year falls within a single calendar year.

@Peter: 'Straya.

Consider discussing it in your statement of purpose. Most grad school applications require/allow an essay; this would be a great place to discuss this decision.
You'll need to explain why this is a good thing. Offhand, compacting 4 years into 3 seems like sort of a questionable decision because it results in less research experience, and (presumably) fewer electives, etc. So, you'll need to concisely explain (a) why you made this decision, as well as (b) illustrate how impressive this was.
You can do the same thing on your CV, but it's a bit awkward. Just listing the years is correct, but may pass unnoticed. Under the school, you may have some bullet points describing your accomplishments. You can list this as a bullet -- but just graduating a year earlier isn't necessarily an accomplishment, so you'll have to add a note explaining why this is good, which may require too many words for a CV. For sure, don't list your high school information on your CV -- instead, list College (2015-2018) or (Fall 2015 - Spring 2018).


text:
How to immediately show group answers onscreen?
I teach at a university, and during lectures I would like to pose a question to all the students in which each student types their answer into their laptop, submits to me, and I can show all the answers on my screen at the front of the room. I will be able to see the names on my computer, but on the shared screen the students will not be able to. Is there any technology that does this?

Kahoot might have this functionality. And it's fun!

We have the Moodle online teaching tool, another is Blackboard.
On moodle one of the possible activities is "feedback" where you set the questions and make it anonymous as you wish... This may meet what you are looking for.
This does mean that all the students must get a moodle account etc.
I have seen other sites that do this interactive survey type activity but can't think of their names off-hand, but they still need the students to log-in...
A quick google search gave this article : https://www.educatorstechnology.com/2018/09/some-of-best-tools-for-creating-surveys.html
The first 4 of their list (as links can fail) Google-forms, Plickers, Kahoot and Socrative...
I use the quiz activity on moodle a lot!

I use http://www.arsnova.eu in my lectures. It won't show the names of individual students, but otherwise I find it a useful way to keep students engaged in a large lecture.
I don't miss that I don't see the individual names, as I use it to encourage students to actively interact with the material during the lecture. So students making mistakes is not a problem; as long as they try, then I am happy. The fact that students know that any mistake they make cannot have a consequence is actually helpful in overcoming any inhibition they may have. But this obviously depends on how you intend to use this tool.


text:
Mediocre/Poor letter of rec from well-known professor vs great letter from not as well-known professor?
I'm planning to apply to graduate school next year after working a year in industry (software engineering) but have received advice to get my letters of recommendation and other application parts sorted out asap.
I'm conflicted on who I should keep in contact with for letter-writing purposes-- a professor from a top-ranked school (I plan to apply to this school for  PhD) that I did a summer REU with after my sophomore year but that I didn't see very often and where I don't think I made any real contributions even though he said I was doing a good job (my impression was that he says that to everybody who does research for him). Part of the reason I don't think this would be a good letter was because I did a lot of the work from home (he recommended I do this since I was far and I had a medical condition that made it difficult to commute) so he didn't really get to see my day-to-day work. The work that I was doing was also largely grunt work like running simulations and writing programs to handle data.
On the other hand, I have close relationships with 3 professors at my institution (I attend a small non-research-focused institution):

1 of which is my advisor and I have taken 2 courses with
1 I did an independent study with and did really well in his class, which is largely related what I want to study in grad school
1 of which is new and I'll begin doing research with him soon but hence won't have much time to do research with since I'll be graduating soon (though I do plan to ask if I can continue to collaborate with him on research after I graduate)

I also did an REU (not a well-known school or professor) after my freshman year where my supervisor said that I would do "stunning work" in graduate school, so I could get a strong letter from him, but this was a long time ago so it probably doesn't carry much weight.
So my question is-- should I take a probably not great recommendation from a well-known professor, or strong recommendations from not very well-known professors who know me well and I've formed strong connections with more recently (junior/senior year versus summer after sophomore year). Will it raise flags if I don't seek out a letter from the well-known professor?

Always go for the recommendation from the professor who knows you better. A letter from Albert Einstein that goes "mayradio0508 was never late to class and has nice handwriting" will not carry any weight.
Having said that, it sounds like you underestimate what this professor will be able to say about you. Running simulations and writing programs to handle data is something you do in research! The professor has also said you did a good job, which is a good sign. Besides, of the other three options you mention, it sounds like none of them can comment on your research ability (the third one can, but you've not started doing research with him).
If you're concerned he won't be able to say something good about you, you could always ask him: "Prof so-and-so, will you be able to write me a strong recommendation letter?"

+1, though I would add, do not equate "non-top school" with "non-top professor"...as an undergraduate, OP is likely not in a position to judge their professors' reputations, but plenty of professors (esp. young ones) at the top of a (sub)-field are not at the most famous schools

This is a false "either/or".  You can keep in touch with both of them.

Take the bull by the horns and ask each how positive a review they would write.  I understand the culture is not to show you the letter (although some people will) but it is reasonable to ask them what sort of rec they can provide. If they still refuse to answer, don't use them for a letter.  [You may even be surprised and find the opposite, that they WANT to do the letter and ask you for help in making it as strong as possible...in which case, just draft a glowing letter with a strong structure full of facts and numbers.  Note, that this is also a good entree to have a conversation about areas of computer science that you are interested in.]

Just as a supplement to the other answers: It can also be useful to try different subsets when you have the luxury of a surplus of reference letters. You don't know how good the letters are and how influential they will be. But there is always the experimental method. If there are multiple positions you are applying for that you are all interested in roughly equally you could apply to them with a different subset of letters and see whether a certain combination works better. As long as there are enough positions the increase in variance probably works for you. If there are only one or two positions you are interested you probably want to go with what you really think is best. You can also bias the letter selection towards who you think will have sway for a specific position.

How about getting a great letter of recommendation from your well-known professor?
Consider this the first of many challenges your will face in graduate school. It is not easy, however it will show your ability to abandon your conform zone and your willingness to meet your goals. Be creative and never forget the reason you decided to pursue your PhD.
All the best in the application process!

This is a really bad answer. It doesn't answer the question at all, really.


text:
Does dismissal due to absence relate to academic or non-academic suspension/dismissal?
I'm working to prepare my master's degree admission.
So the admission team provided me with a declaration form and the first question is this:

Academic Disciplinary Action
Have you ever been placed on academic or non-academic suspension or dismissal from any educational
institution?

I've got dismissed from the first college I've been to for absence problem and nothing else.
Does the absence goes under either academic or non-academic term ?
So should I choose Yes or No ?

It asks if you've ever been dismissed from an educational institution, and you have. You should answer "yes". Dismissal due to absence would presumably count as "non-academic" dismissal, as you were not dismissed due to cheating or plagiarism, for example. If there is no place to explain it on the form, you could consider adding a line to your CV or personal statement to explain your reason for dismissal.

Thank you so much for the full answer.

OK, I have another point to ask about related to the same declaration form. Should I ask here ?

@R1S8K Separate questions should be posted separately. Thanks!

OK, thanks for the answer.

To me, "academic dismissal" would mainly refer to being dismissed for low grades, or otherwise not meeting academic standards.  Being absent would fall into that category, I would say.


text:
Changing PhD Programs? What to put in my application? (UK-based)
Background:
I started my PhD a few months ago. I haven't actually been trained to do anything because they say they don't have the time for it. I've been understanding but I'm becoming very frustrated. In addition, it looks like my project might not work out at all and some other P.I. advised my supervisor to change the direction of my PhD completely. I've come up with a few ideas I could do in the meanwhile but most of them have been rejected. I feel helpless. I have voiced my concerns to my supervisor but nothing has changed.
I am considering re-applying to other programs so I have other options if this situation remains the same. Ideally, I would like to submit my applications without my supervisor knowing. Is it possible, and more importantly is it a good idea? Furthermore, I know I have to disclose that I am currently doing a PhD but how much will this hurt my chances at applying to other places and how do I go about it? Do I just mention it in my CV or should I attach a letter explaining my situation, will anyone even read that? Do I still have a chance to get into another fully funded program?
Sorry for the million questions. I would really appreciate if someone who's been or knows anyone in this situation could help me out. Thank you!

Applying to a new programme without a letter of recommendation from your current supervisor is a bad idea. In fact, hiding anything at all, like the fact you are currently doing a PhD, is an extremely bad idea. Is it possible for you to stay where you are but change supervisor?

It looks like your question is a typical X-Y problem: you are frustrated with the uncertainty and lack of direction from your current supervisor (problem X), you want to solve this by applying to another PhD program, but you don't know how to present your current situation in the application (problem Y).
So let's take a step back: the best scenario for you is probably to solve problem X in your current institution.
Here is what you can do to solve the problem with your current supervisor:

If there is any experienced academic around you that you trust, talk to them about your best course of action. Advice from a local person who knows the ins and outs of the department is often very useful.
Ask for a meeting with the local ombudsman or your director of studies. At this stage you don't need to tell your supervisor about this meeting and you can ask to talk to this person in confidence. Explain your issue with the supervisor to them and see what they have to say; in this kind of case various options can be considered:

A meeting with the supervisor and this person, where different options for the direction of your PhD are discussed clearly and openly, and you get to express your opinion about them.
Adding a co-supervisor more compatible with the kind of research you want to do and/or more available: this can be a good compromise if your supervisor is not interested in the topic you want to work on.
A change of supervisor: if things really don't work out between you and this supervisor, it's usually possible to switch. This can be a bit more complicated, but it's still much better than quitting.

My advice is to think about re-applying somewhere else only if none of these solutions are satisfying or possible in your institution.


text:
Greetings to department's scientists
I have enrolled as a PhD student in one of the UK's universities. I have been received an email containing a list of different professors and secretaries in the department. I am a little worried since I don't know how to greet them and I don't know what to say. Could anyone please help me?

Be very nice to the secretaries - it will pay off over time.

@JonCuster,yes, moreover be nice to anyone who does the real work.

@Buffy - fair enough. Too many times, both in universities and companies, I've seen that some folks ignore the secretaries, assistants, janitors, etc. Not only are they actual people, but they are often quite interesting and have quite a good grasp of how things really happen. (Being friendly with a janitor got us informed that facilities intended to take over a large chunk of our lab to run new utilities up to the next floor. Getting the news 'early' meant we could fight it and reduce the grab to a minimum, preserving our equipment.)

Have a read of Interpersonal SE as well - https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/

I disagree slightly with SolarMike's answer. The academic hierarchy in the UK is very informal. It is fine to use first names for everyone, be they professor, admin staff or cleaner. A simple "Hi Bob" is fine in emails or in person.
I would argue that it would actually be a bit strange to address someone by their title and last name. If you did so, I expect they would quickly tell you it's fine to address them by first name.

Good morning Dr Jones or Good afternoon Professor Smith usually works fine.
And, based on comments, Mr/Mrs Smith or the first names as applicable (and that can be the faculty/professors as well). However, making the effort to talk to those who look after the infrastructure at any level does pay dividends...
Even when equipment is being got rid of by another department you can get to hear of it first and "appropriate" it... :)

Yes. K.I.S.S.  Keep it Simple, Student.

Admin staff is usually on a first name or Mr/Ms Smith


text:
What is the role of Personal Statement in phd application?
I have found that most top US CS PhD programs don't require a personal statement (PS). Only a few schools put the PS into their application checklist.
As for the requirement of PS, take an example from UC Berkely, the personal statement shall emphasize the obstacles for one's achievement. It means that unlike statement of purpose (SOP) which demonstrates one's research ability and potential, PS seems to care more about personal life challenges.
I am wondering about how much weight the PS has in a PhD application. If it is not that critical, then I tend to write later and spend less time.
I am really appreciated if someone could share their experience. Thanks!

I'll guess that the meaning is too variable to have a real definition. The UCB statement surprises me a bit, but too many people put that stuff in the SoP where it doesn't belong.

@Buffy Thanks for the reply! May I ask where the surprise comes from?

Surprised only that they factored that out specifically. I think it is a good idea, actually, so that it doesn't show up in SoP, pushing out more important things.

Let me answer your question in two parts.
First, weight:

I am wondering about how much weight the PS has in a PhD application. If it is not that critical, then I tend to write later and spend less time.

This is not a good way to think about a PhD application. A competitive program may have several hundred applications and perhaps ten spots. In such an environment each part of your application should be as strong as you can make it. While some of the folks competing for spots in the program might weight their effort like you suggest, there are enough good people that will produce thoroughly polished applications that one with an obvious deficiency will not make the cut.
Deadlines for most programs begin November 1st and end sometime in mid-December. You will be judged strongly if you cannot write a good personal statement and research proposal within the next three months (as of the time I write this answer). Start writing some drafts now, get plenty of feedback from good writers you trust, and you'll be fine.
Second, what is the personal statement for?
Zeroth, to demonstrate writing ability.
Academia is about continuously justifying and advocating for yourself, in writing. This happens in grant applications, fellowship applications, the papers you write, cover letters, emails to colleagues, Twitter posts, &c. If you cannot write in a compelling fashion, grad school will be harder.
But, primarily, to contextualize your application.
This is especially true if your application has "deficiencies". Your CV might show a multi-year break in research or your research proposal might be somewhat under-developed. Perhaps this is because you were a single parent at some point, or had a medical condition you needed to sort out, or you're first-generation and didn't have good advising during/before/after your undergrad, or you're switching fields, or you decided to take time off to travel the world.
All of the above possibilities, and more, can lead an application to look academically weaker. But, with the appropriate "spin" a personal statement turns your weaknesses into advantages. You learn things through adverse experiences and they can drive your desire to pursue a particular path.
Will I take the straight-A student from a wealthy New Jersey background who happens to have an interest in anaerobic digestion, or a slightly less stellar student who grew up having to dig pit latrines and wants to research ways of improving them? The latter has a lot of personal motivation and context that may lead them to do better research, but this is not easily expressed on a CV and may not be appropriate in a research statement.
Second, to show something of your character.
Grad school can be hard. Graduate students as a population have high rates of depression and work, often alone, in environments with poorly-defined objectives, competing priorities, and minimal oversight, often while facing financial stress. 50% of PhD students leave (power to them!) their programs. Completion of a program does not necessarily lead to personal enrichment or dream jobs.
A personal statement which can speak to one's resiliency and goals provides evidence that a potential admit will be able to handle the challenges described above (whether directly or by finding the support they need and advocating for themselves).
Both of the above reasons are why a program might want, as you say,

the personal statement [to] emphasize the obstacles for one's achievement

Third, to show something of your personality.
Ted put it well in his answer: if someone walks away from reading your personal statement thinking, "I like this person" or some variant thereof, you've done well.
Finally, as an argument.
Your research proposal may or may not have room to discuss why, intellectually, you belong at your chosen program. But your personal statement surely has room. Personal statements tell the Story of You, and that story explains why, logically, your chosen institution is the right place for you given what you've done and what you plan to do in the future.
The personal statement and research proposal complement and support each other in making the argument that what you're doing makes sense, that your chosen institution is the best place for you to do that, and that you being there is of mutual benefit.

Hi @Richard This is a great answer and thanks a lot for your effort put in. I guess I should not overlook the PS. A follow-up question of mine is would there be any difference if I submit a PS (hopefully a good one) despite PS is not one of the requirements of a program? I know this can vary case by case but I want to learn your opinion. Much appreciated!

@Kato: I suggest submitting all and only what the admissions committee has asked for unless you have strong reasons/extenuating circumstances requiring otherwise.

Yeah that makes sense. Thanks for sharing your knowledge, your help is very valuable.

Personal statements are a hold-over from an earlier era, where schools were more interested in assessing character. Even as late as the 80s (and still in places today) grad schools saw themselves as producing well-rounded, thoroughly awesome übermenschen, and not just anyone would do. Academia has become more and more professionalized, standardized, and bureaucratized (more's the pity), so achievement metrics have taken on a greater role in candidate selection. But I wouldn't neglect the personal statement.
Think of the personal statement as an opportunity to make a personal connection, above and beyond the (for lack of a better term) clinical data that will make up the rest of your application. You want to tune it so that if a reviewer is sitting there trying to decide between you and an equally qualified other, he'll think: "You know, I like this person." A good, honest personal statement gives a small edge in highly competitive environment.

I'd guess that idea is/was more prevalent at the undergraduate level. The school I went to had a statement of principles that we were all supposed to aspire/adhere to.

Since asking for a Personal Statement isn't ubiquitous, let me suggest that the meaning is likely dependent on the university that asks for it. Hopefully, like UCB, they provide some guidance.
Nearly everyone in US will want a Statement of Purpose (SoP) so spend some time and effort on that one. Make it forward focused on goals. Use the past only to support the future, not to explain past failures or obstacles.
But you might also keep something for a personal statement, perhaps in the form of an outline or set of bullet points that you can draw on to write a specific one, tailored to the definition given by some university. I suspect that the requirements will vary from place to place so keep an idea of lots of things - inspirations, obstacles overcome, key influences, and the like.
The weight of it will also depend, but I doubt that it will be determinative, except at the margins. A US application depends on a broad look at many aspects with letters being more important than elsewhere.


text:
What exactly are PhD positions (UK)?
Often I've read here about people applying to PhD "positions" in the UK.
In my search for PhD positions (CS & Statistics), I've seen:

Generic PhD programs at research groups
Generic PhD programs at departments, with a note recommending the applicant to first contact a supervisor
Generic Centre for Doctoral Training (CDT) programs
Studentships with a specified project, attached funding that then gets pooled to a number of supervisors
Studentships with a specified project, attached funding and supervisor

The term "PhD position" seems to mean the last one, but those are a very small portion of the number of programs I've found, so I'm confused why those are often discussed as the main thing. Am I missing a significant number of opportunities in my search?

I don't understand the term "generic PhD program". Or CDT, for that matter.

I don't think "PhD position" means anything more specific than a role where (all things going well) you graduate with a PhD.

I removed Europe from your question because Europe is not a homogeneous block.

All of those are PhD positions.
The concept of a "PhD program" (or programme) does not really exist in the UK in the same way as it does in the USA. PhD degrees in the UK do not involve any coursework or exams -- you start doing research from day one, so there is no mandatory or planned programme of study which all students follow together. This means that PhD positions/studentships/degrees are never usually referred to as PhD programmes.
Every one of the permutations you describe could be called a PhD position -- that's just a generic term which means you will be working towards a doctoral degree in that role. It's not useful or necessary to draw the distinctions which you have -- the funding and duration of the degree will almost certainly be near-identical (around £15k per year tax-free stipend for 3.5 to 4 years, plus London weighting if you're in London, perhaps an extra £2-3k pa) no matter which of the various options you go with. When referring to the funding specifically, the term studentship can be used, e.g. "Your studentship will be paid on the first Monday of every month" or "You have been awarded a studentship for four years of study towards the degree of PhD".
The main distinction between these options is just where the funding for the position is coming from: the supervisor's own grant (perhaps if they have an ERC or similar), the allocated budget from the research council (i.e. the government), funding via a CDT, or the university's own PhD bursaries.
All would be correctly referred to as PhD positions and you would be called a PhD student or post-graduate research student (PGRS) while doing one. The latter term is often favoured by university admin as it's a catch-all for Master's and PhD students.

You are a bit off on US doctoral education, but it isn't important to your message. It isn't as uniform as you suggest. But most places have critical exams and most people don't start dissertation research immediately.

One big difference between a CDT/DTP and indevidually advertised positions is that, at least for some CDTs/DTPs the decision on supervisors/projects may be made after admission (or may not, depending on the program), while cases where you apply directly to the supervisor will always have the supervisor/project fixed prior to advertisement.

Admission to a "generic" PhD programme in the UK will generally NOT come with funding, but instead the obligation to pay tuition fees (which in particular for international candidates can be very hefty). As such, this only really makes sense if you can afford it, or if you have already obtained funding from elsewhere.
Centres for Doctoral Training (CDT) are very fashionable in the UK at the moment, and many of the grant funding bodies (eg EPSRC) no longer fund PhD students as part of individual research grants. This is rather UK-specific and somewhat recent development, hence advice written for eg Europe in general, or 1-2 decades old, may emphasize individual projects over CDTs.
Of the remaining individual-project-based PhD opportunities in CS, a sizable amount will involve industry co-sponsors. As setting such a project is a signficant effort, I would suspect that potential supervisors will often engage in it only if they already have an outstanding candidate at hand. Other opportunities originate in "left-over" research funding, which may require them to be filled very quickly. Both aspects can lead to individual projects being represented even less amongst advertisements than amongst actually funded PhD students.
Nothing in your question makes me assume that you are overlooking significant funding opportunities.


text:
Is it possible to do research in physics provided I won't be doing physics as full time major but rather a part time major
I am currently a highschool student who is going to graduate senior year(12th grade as we call it here) this March(2024) and I am interested in persuing physics as major but due to circumstances and parental pressure I would be doing engineering in computer science (unfortunately,for me it's not my great interest).
Since I don't want to leave my interest for physics,I wish to persue it in distance mode(pretty much part time) and once I complete my engineering I would  enroll in PhD program(I know it's a lot to dream but I personally think I can make it..and I will make it somehow).
I had many dreams of how I would do research during my undergraduate years(which Every aspiring physics graduate has) and now I wonder,if I would be able to manage time with my dual majors..can I still do research provided I am not a full time student?

What do you see physics research as an undergraduate being?

This is both off topic and depends too much on where you study and what the options are there. I'd guess it would be pretty difficult to manage and you might need to defer that goal until later.

My understanding of Undergraduate physics research is like giving mathematical modelling for complex non linear systems(there are hundred and arguably thousands of topics but non linear dynamics are something that particularly interest me at the moment). And honestly I don't see how this is offtopic since I really don't happen to have any approachable person in academia,this should be the perfect spot to do so;but I agree on the part that information is inadequate.

Your major does not define your whole academic life and research. You can definitely do research in physics as a computer scientist, specially in heavily computational fields such as non-linear dynamics. In my opinion the most interesting researches are in multidisciplinary fields. Nowadays you have people developing physics-based neural networks for example. This is coming from a computational Physicist working on ML/AI/Biostatistics.

Thanks doc.. I'll think about it

You could always double major in engineering and physics; my university has a special dual-enrollment option for this. Physics research is probably not what you expect it to be. I would recommend doing really well in physics courses, develop good relationships with these professors, and ask them for advice on doing research, or about their research specifically.

Ok,will work on it.


text:
What type of letter is Pierre Deligne talking about and why did he write a letter to other mathematicians?
Today I watched a YouTube video interview of Pierre Deligne. I have some confusion about a statement given by Pierre (video timing: 56:33 to 58:20). Here is the outline of the statement in the video:

Interviewer: Would you like to write letters to other mathematicians?
Pierre Deligne: Writing a paper takes a lot of time. Writing it is
very useful, to have everything put together in a correct way, and one
learns a lot doing so, but it’s also somewhat painful. So in the
beginning of forming ideas, I find it very convenient to write a
letter. I send it, but often it is really a letter to myself. Because
I don’t have to dwell on things the recipient knows about, some
shortcuts will be all right. Sometimes the letter, or a copy of it,
will stay in a drawer for some years, but it preserves ideas and when
I eventually write a paper, it serves as a blueprint.

What type of letter is he talking about and why does he write a letter to other mathematicians?
I mean, there are many different types of letters out there. I mean, some love letters, friends letters, etc.

I think such letters are essentially like papers about mathematics, except that they begin like a letter ("Dear ..., I hope you are doing well. How is your family?"), end like a letter ("Best wishes ..."), and omit explanations of things that the recipient already knows. I believe Paul Erdös sometimes skipped most of the non-mathematics ("Dear X, Let p be a prime and suppose ....").

@AndreasBlass, that is probably an answer.

One of the best ways to know whether you really understand something is to try to explain it to someone else.

"some love letter , friends letter etc..." A math letter. Like if you wanted to describe the math you were working on with a friend, rather than the entire field of mathematics.

@AndreasBlass: I tracked one example down. You are exactly right, and they are on the most bare-bone side of the possible variations you mention - "Dear Looijenga, I mentioned your problem to Tits and Zagier, and they solved it for me.." (insert math) "Best, P. Deligne." https://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/christian.stump/Deligne_Looijenga_Letter_09-03-1974.pdf

Here’s two more of his letters.

Is this question perhaps a culture difference issue: would you have asked it if the quote had said "email" in place of "letter"?

@user3482749 in video email was not mention

@jasmine I think perhaps you have misread my comment.

It's just to get the ball rolling on the discussion without totally committing to it.

Pierre Deligne started his career way before internet was mainstream. Writing a letter is the same as writing an email to a collaborator and/or fellow mathematician.

@Buffy Also see rubberducking

I just did something like this last month...
Well, with modern technology available, I didn't write a letter; I wrote up some notes, scanned them in, and attached them to an e-mail.  Keep in mind, though, that Prof. Deligne started his career in the days before e-mail, and telephone calls (from rotary dial phones attached to landlines) were expensive (like a dollar a minute.)
I had an alternate approach to proving a theorem in a paper I had read and thought perhaps the approach could also generalize beyond their theorem.  I wrote up a sketch of the alternate proof (for which some details I have not actually proved) in 3 pages of notes.  I scanned them, and attached them to an email to the authors that read something like "Dear X and Y, I hope you are well.  We talked about this at Online Conference Z and I'm attaching some notes.  I'm happy to meet by Zoom and talk.  Best, -me"
I didn't write up a paper because it would take 10 pages and at least a couple weeks of work to give precise definitions of everything, and any paper would only be publishable in a fairly low-tier journal (since the result isn't new and the approach also isn't new, having been applied to other problems before), which at this point in my career doesn't count for anything.

"which at this point in my career doesn't count for anything." this is a very weird attitude...

@JannikPitt But all but unavoidable: if your career is dependent on doing certain tasks, then spending significant amounts of time on other tasks which are not beneficial to your career is actively harmful to that career.

@JannikPitt: The paper also wouldn't benefit the research community.  The average math paper is cited less than once.  In fact, not counting the authors and reviewers, it's probably read less than once.  In this case, the only people who might have read the paper are the people I've sent the e-mail to.  Why should I waste the time of an editor and reviewers for some write-only journal, when their time is needed to evaluate the papers of people who actually need such papers published for their tenure and promotion?

@AlexanderWoo Saying that you put effort into the problem in thinking about it and even writing some notes up but you don't publish it because it doesn't benefit your career is not the attidue one should have when working in academia. Also the conception that one shouldn't publish a paper because not many people would read it is misguided -  that is not how academia works! Either you find the problem worth your time (and you can afford the time!) and write it up or you don't - all other external factors shouldn't be important...

@JannakPitt - And I don't find it worth my time to write it up.  And even if I did, I would just put it on the ArXiv without submitting to a journal, because it's not worth the peer reviewer's effort.  (Peer review is breaking under the load, in case you didn't know.)  It's not that the default is writing it, and I'm not doing it just because it doesn't benefit my career.  Rather, the default is not writing it, and unlike people in certain career positions, I don't have some perverse incentive to change the default.  Fifty years ago, no one would have even thought of writing this up.

@AlexanderWoo I have no reason to doubt your judgement in this particular case, but this general phenomenon is how in my area we ended up with a lot of important facts and examples that are known only to "experts" (read: the people who happened to participate to the right coffee break at certain conferences), and every grad student has a real uphill struggle to get familiar with the "basics" which are basically trade secrets

@DenisNardin This, I feel, is an incredibly important point which is very damaging to PhD students, or even post-PhD research trying to move into a new area

@DenisNardin: I agree the current situation is not good, but would an even-vaster literature of minor papers really be better?  At least for me (both now and when I was a grad student), “result appeared in an obscure paper in the seventies” was hardly more helpful than “result was known to experts in the seventies”.  A third alternative is emerging now, also not ideal but arguably slightly better: those casual discussions that used to happen in private now happen online, on MathOverflow and other open forums, so the “folklore” is public and searchable.

@DenisNardin: In one of the areas where I work, some outsiders find it hard to identify the important ideas, results, and questions because they are buried beneath an avalanche of minor papers.  The reputation of the area has suffered because many outsiders have concluded from the avalanche of minor papers that this area has no important ideas.

@AlexanderWoo Sure, one needs to find a balance (although, frankly, I'd rather alleviate the avalanche of minor papers by having a few solid survey papers rather than by curbing publication of minor results). I'm just saying that people with years of experience of the subject might not be as good judges for where balance stands as they think.

I am a mathematician and I have written exactly this type of letter before. It was to a collaborator explaining what I thought could be the basis for our next project. As it happens, this collaborator and I are very close friends in addition to being collaborators.
In terms of format it was a letter to a friend. “Dear friend...” then four pages of math where I only had to explain things he didn’t already know and finally best wishes to him and his spouse.
Any actually time sensitive communication was already done by email and if necessary the phone. So this letter was a deliberately slow method of communication. It’s primary value was for me to sit down and think through the entire idea. That I put it into the mail is something of a secondary effect.
So to answer your “what kind of letter” it is probably best to imagine it as an informal business letter between colleagues who have known each other for a while and can include friendly chatter as well (but the chatter probably happens through other channels anyway.)
Just an oddly relevant piece of experience.

The lengthy and fruitful collaboration of G. H. Hardy and J. E.
Littlewood was the most productive in mathematical history. Dominating
the English mathematical scene for the first half of the 20th century,
they produced a hundred joint papers of great influence, most notably
in analysis and number theory.

(From a transcript of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asXHAvibq1g )
They did that joint work almost exclusively by correspondence, even when they were at Cambridge together.
From https://moleseyhill.com/2010-03-22-hardy-littlewood-rules.html :

Hardy Littlewood Rules
Axiom 1: It didn't matter whether what they wrote to each other
         was right or wrong.
Axiom 2: There was no obligation to reply, or even to read,
          any letter one sent to the other.
Axiom 3: They should not try to think about the same things.
Axiom 4: To avoid any quarrels, all papers would be under joint
          name, regardless of whether one of them had
          contributed nothing to the work.

I think, it is widely accepted, that both Hardy and Littlewood were brilliant mathematicians. But I cannot wonder if such rules would not sit well with publication and research ethics nowadays.

@OlegLobachev  There's an SE post on this: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5179/are-the-hardy-littlewood-rules-unethical .

@OlegLobachev Regarding Axiom 4, that's not the original phrasing. In fact the information comes second-hand via Harald Bohr anyway, but according to Bohr it is "it was quite indifferent if one of them had not contributed the least bit to the contents of a paper under their common name" (this version can be found in Littlewood's Miscellany). I would translate this as "It is not necessary to remove authorship if one of us contributes much less than the other to a joint paper". Hardy and Littlewood still published single-author papers.

I do research in applied mathematics and computer science and, whenever I have an idea, I write an email explaining it and send it to myself.
I found that writing such emails helps me find holes in my reasoning (things I missed or skipped over) but also helps me synthesize my ideas (which sometimes leads to simplifications of the resulting concept).
This emails also prove useful when I want to email other people to exchange on my ideas.
Furthermore, I write new developments as answers to the first email which gives me a centralized place to see the evolution of the idea and be able to come back to my previous positions on the subject.
The main downside is that, at the moment, I am the sender of most of my unread emails...

Imagine a time before fax machines were standard, before the Berlin wall came down, before TeX.  Travel to see other mathematicians was not always possible, and about the only way to communicate mathematics that involved intricate diagrams was to write and draw with pen and paper, and put it in the post.  Perhaps someone the age of Deligne will post an answer, but at least I have worked with Mathematicians born about that time so I know a bit of their habits.
By 1972, I imagine that photocopiers were easily accessible at L'Institut Des Hautes Études Scientifiques so the author of a letter could easily keep a copy.  One could write another mathematician with a partial result, a conjecture, perhaps the outline of a new theory.
Knowing the recipient personally was decidedly optional.
Mail to another country could take one to twenty weeks, so it often made sense to write letters that went on for many pages.  If one knew the background of the recipient, one could skip that bits about notation and definitions and also ignore the realities of technical typists.
Sending by fax become affordable to academics circa 1990, and one could write shorter letters as one could expect a timely reply.  However, drawing something as simple as a 3D commutative diagram was really hard except drawn by hand.
The last time I received such a math letter, albeit in the form of a fax, was probably in 1995.  The first such letter I ever wrote was in 1985, I think, on special lightweight paper so it could go by air from the US to Romania.

but often it is really a letter to myself

In engineering, this is a key concept as a part of the review process. Of course a reviewer provides a second pair of eyes to spot mistakes by the designer. However there is an secondary well-recognized effect as well: having to explain your design to someone else can allow you to see flaws in it which were not obvious during the design process.
The same thing happens with fault-finding. It is not at all uncommon that in the process of explaining a confusing problem to someone, you realize what the cause might be.
This is commonly known in software engineering as "Rubber Duck Programming", on the principle that explaining the problem to an inanimate object (such as a rubber duck) can be as useful as another human being.
The author in this case is finding the same thing. Whilst his correspondents may have useful insights, what matters are the insights he finds himself whilst writing that explanation.

Rubber ducks, and then drawers
It's a form of rubber duck debugging where you preserve the conversation in the form of paper/letters.

There is a rather touching book by Steven Strogatz, the famed chaos theorist, entitled The Calculus of Friendship chronicling decades of correspondence between him and his high school math teacher, Joff. Usually, Joff would write with a puzzle or general question on something and Steve would respond with the solution in addition to some banter or small talk. There are some very interesting proofs/discussions of nontrivial (at least to me) topics (e.g. general method for deriving closed-form solutions for recurrence relations with shift operators, the convergence point of sum(sin k / k) for k=1,inf) explained in understandable ways, its fun to read and probably an enjoyable thing to do so it is not unheard of as many have already testified.


text:
How to compensate for previous low grades when applying to PhDs in the UK?
I want to know how to compensate a low overall grade for past education for a Ph.D. application in computer science in the UK ?
Thanks

All the other parts of the application?

@jon  GO away it's clear enough

Really, what sort of an answer are you looking for?

For a US perspective, see https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38237/how-does-the-admissions-process-work-for-ph-d-programs-in-the-us-particularly

It's not clear what you consider to be a low grade, or whether you are already in the UK. This answer assumes that you have a low 2:1 (i.e. 60%-65%) and have obtained your degree(s) in the UK.
If your highest qualification is a BSc, you can compensate for a low overall mark by one or more of the following:

Get a Master's degree (preferably a research-based Master's) and do well in it
Get some research experience either independently, through your workplace or through someone at your local university
Make sure you have excellent reference letters from three reputable academics, of which at least one can talk about your research ability and experience in detail

If your highest qualification is a Master's and the poor marks were in your BSc, you have already demonstrated that you're on an upward trend and there's not much more you can do. If your highest qualification is a Master's but the poor marks were in that Master's, there's not much you can do about that, unless you have a very good explanation as to why that might be (mitigating personal circumstances, perhaps). Again, having a referee who can vouch for you will go some way to compensate for that.
However, it's worth bearing in mind that if your degree is classified below a 2:1 (i.e. a 2:2, 3rd or pass), your application may be screened out before your references are even read. It's possible to get around this if you have someone on the admissions committee who will vouch for you, but this presumes that you have already contacted a potential supervisor who understands why your grades are poor and is still keen to take you as a student.
Note that we have a wiki question on this site that is US-focused, but much of the advice is also applicable in the UK: How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in the US, particularly for weak or borderline students?

In UK biology, having poor BSc marks but wanting to do a PhD is THE classic reason to do a masters in the same subject as your undergrad.

Retired Director of UG Studies here...
While you will learn a lot doing a PhD, it is, more than anything else, a process in learning how to research.  So, particularly for Computer Science, evidence that you can present, analyse data and prove results (proof is a vastly underestimated part of a PhD for Maths/CompSci) is paramount.
If you did badly in your GCSEs, that probably won't make any difference if you later got a 1st for your UG degree or at least a merit for your Masters.
Faced with 2 candidates for a research PhD, one with poor past results and one with stellar but both with equal recent results, I would always chose the one that I thought most likely to complete the PhD.  Drop-outs can hinder future funding and create problems with funding applications.  Show that you're a sticker and have strong study momentum and you should be fine.

What PhD application asks for an applicants GCSE results?! I didn't even have to write down my A Levels for any of mine...


text:
How do you develop research skills?
I'm a PhD student in applied mathematics
I’m in a quiet period since I’ve submitted all that my supervisor asked for (I’m a first year), I like to read as many articles as I can get my hands on. I’ll use connected papers and google scholar (as well as Microsoft academic) to find all the associated articles I can and then import them into notability where I highlight, read and find good search terms for future papers. I also like to make notes and repeat any calculations I see so i can gain a deeper understanding. What should I be doing so that I can develop my skills as a researcher?
Am I doing this right, is it good practice do this?

You definitely need to add your field, otherwise this is way to broad.

@Arno just did :)

A key part of doing a PhD is learning to not just wait around for your supervisor to give you work to do, but to take the initiative and come up with some research problem or project on your own. Your time is probably better spent this way rather than repeating old calculations.

Though not at the weekends! Hope you are giving yourself some time off :)

@astronat I agree with that. A lot of the calculations link with the work I'm doing so it's often beneficial to see how quantities are derived and used etc.

Research is about answering unanswered questions. Primarily those that are important in a field.
So, to get started, ask a lot of questions and keep a notebook. Find out if they are already answered by reading and asking others. Figure out if they are significant in some way or could lead to things that are.
Let the questions lead to hypotheses - what the answers to the questions might be.
In applied math (not my field) the questions might involve things that are particularly difficult in some domain. Ask why? Ask whether they can be simplified. Make a hypothesis about how they might be simplified. Then validate/invalidate the hypothesis. Along the way, other questions will occur to you. Write them down (notebook).
Then...
Ask more questions.


text:
Feeling bad about taking time off
So I'm a first year PhD student in the UK working on an applied mathematics project. Excluding weekends I put in about 37/40 hours a week of work which leaves me pretty tired to say the least.
Normally I'll also work on weekends to keep the momentum going but lately I've been feeling really burnt out and despite the breaks making me feel more refreshed, I still feel guilty for "missing" out on work I should be doing. How do I combat this feeling and am I alone by feeling this way? I rarely take breaks.

The first year of a PhD is not a time to work during the weekend, that will happen in the last 6 months before your thesis is due. You have to put in perspective that crunch times should be far and in between otherwise you will burn out.

Does your department have counsellors or medics you could speak to?
"37/40 hours" a week is on the long side for a full-time job. For a student not frantically revising for imminent exams, it sounds ridiculous.
Of course times have changed, and or Stephen Hawking's biography clearly states that average students in his cohort were expected to get through their first degrees on about 80 hours a year!

@Robbie 37-40hours are normal working hours and would be the expectation for any full time position.

@H98 If you get to the point of feeling burnt out or lacking ideas, it is a very clear sign that a break is overdue - especially if you were productive. (Says the person who himself is useless as taking holidays...)

Whatever hours you are "excluding [over] weekends" seems crucial to list here ...

Indeed.  If you're burning out from 37h a week of work, this is a problem because that's sort of a normal minimum for a typical working job.  If you're spending 30h working over every weekend, though, that can't be sustainable.  The weekend hours are the ones that we need to know.

@DetlevCM; J… Here in the UK, 37-40 hours in a working week specifically do include at least a one-hour break in every shift - often called a "lunch break" - which is by law supposed to make a very big difference to how tired anyone feels at the end of the week.
Whether you noticed or not, the "standard" working week in the UK is not 40, nor 37 but 35 hours… specifically because 35 "working" hours plus that hour-long break in each shift adds up to 40 hours.
If you don't know that from experience and won't take my word for it, ask a human resources professional or workplace lawyer…

@RobbieGoodwin As far as I am aware lunch breaks are unpaid on top of your regular working time. Add to that, especially the UK is well known to only have a lunch break on paper and no real lunch break in reality... - From what I have seen in the UK, it is that you are given somewhere around 60-80 (or more...) hours of work while paid for 40...
Well, fortunately I nowadays live in a country with a higher quality of life. (Though there are friends and family who remain.) - It also seems that the only way to fix insane working times (especially in academia) is to change employers...

@DetlevCM Where d'you get these ideas? Your not being aware doesn't alter the fact that here in the UK, much of both time and pay for breaks is regulated.
Still, that's going off the topic. H98 shouldn't be working that hard.

@RobbieGoodwin From 9.5 years spent in the UK. Well, fortunately I had the opportunity to move back to the continent in 2016 and have been much happier ever since.

@DetlevCM Good for your move and that doesn't alter the fact that your not being aware is no measure of anything but your awareness… Oops!

@RobbieGoodwin Maybe you should try working in academia then and experience some of its realities. Or do you think I'm imagining the people who are being buried under work? The people working regularly in the evening? Not finishing before 20:00 or later, working into the night? (Especially if you try to do good work...) - And of course there is always the "gentle pressure" of management to do more and the threat of a "performance review" if you do not deal with the tasks of your ever increasing workload.

@RobbieGoodwin, I've spent time at 2 of the top UK unis. At both leaving at 5/6pm on occasion would invite 'Having a half day today, are we?' sort of jokes. Leaving at that time regularly would (unless you are extremely productive) leave you with a reputation for laziness. Working during the weekend is the norm (especially beyond 1st year PhD). The people with top output tend to start around 8/9am and leave around midnight. Emailing a UK professor in STEM tends to get you a reply within minutes, anytime before 2am any day of the week...

I'm older now and wiser yet for about 10 years I worked an average 60-hour week.
That (many) other people are pushed too hard is no excuse for H98 being exploited.

Firstly, you are certainly not alone in feeling like you are missing out on work. In the competitive world of academia, everyone feels this way at some point or another, though it is rarely because they are actually not doing enough work. Also, I can only imagine how difficult it must have been to start a PhD while working remotely, as you have no colleagues or peers around you to gauge the "normal" level of work. Once we are all allowed back to our offices, you will see that plenty of PhD time is spent not working at all... my office had regular badminton matches during the working day, or we'd all stop for a cup of tea together, or go out for lunch or to the pub as soon as the clock hit 5pm (or before) :).
You will honestly be more productive if you stop trying to force yourself to work solidly for eight hours a day. One of the great benefits of academic work is the flexibility: if you're having a terrible day, there's nothing to stop you working for a couple of hours and taking the rest of the day off; conversely, if you're having a great day, there's nothing to stop you working late, chasing the solution to your current problem.
Furthermore, you're a first year PhD student, meaning if you started in October you're about five months into your PhD, which is likely going to take you between three and a half and four years to complete. During an undergraduate degree, it's common to work intensively for short bursts, while completing coursework or preparing for exams. A PhD requires a completely different strategy.
It's often said that a PhD is a marathon, not a sprint. In my personal experience, this is very true. You have to learn to pace yourself, since you don't have external deadlines any more (possibly excluding things like submitting a paper to a journal, but that is likely a self-imposed and flexible deadline). The only one you have is your thesis submission, still more than three years away. You can't keep up the high intensity work for that long. As you correctly recognise, you will end up burned out.
My strongest piece of advice is to stop working at the weekend. Your brain needs a break to be able to think productively and creatively when you are at work. Try to prioritise other, non-mathematical activities during the evenings and weekends -- go for a walk or run, read a book, draw, practice a musical instrument -- what ever you can do to relax under the current restrictions.
If you are worried about losing momentum, try writing a short paragraph or list of bullet points every Friday afternoon before you stop work, detailing where you are and what the next step in your work should be. You can even do this at the end of every day, to help you get started the following morning.
Finally, do you have anyone close to you who you can talk to about this? I suggest mentioning it to your PhD supervisor, as they can probably help you with time management or prioritisation strategies (and if they're a good supervisor, I expect they'll reassure you that you are working hard enough, and can afford to relax). If you are not already in touch with the other PhD students in your department, then perhaps send them an email and organise an online meeting, perhaps a virtual pub session on a Friday afternoon, where you can all chat and relax together. You will soon learn that everyone has gripes and complaints about their work, and how busy they are etc. It can be good to let off steam in this way.
In summary: take breaks (as many as you think you need times two), stop working weekends (unless you really, really, really need to, and I mean "PhD thesis is due in a week and I just found a huge mistake in my analysis" need to), and try to talk to your PhD peers at least once a week if you can (and don't just talk about work!).

The end of the first paragraph sounds really very British ;-)

@MassimoOrtolano guilty as charged haha ;)

Not sure if that's still on-topic for this answer, but: How do you tell whether taking a break would actually be more productive or not?

@lucidbrot I think this is something you have to learn over time (I only really got to grips with time management in the final year of my PhD), as it is probably different for everyone. Personally I have never taken a break that I subsequently regretted. The benefits to productivity may not be immediate; rather, I find the effect is cumulative. Over weeks and months of letting your brain and body relax and recharge, your time spent at work is probably going to be more productive.

@lucidbrot plenty of senior academics demonstrate that's it's possible to have an academic career without being able to judge when to take a break, but that doesn't make it a good idea.  I've tried to give a sort of beginners' guide

I came to my PhD from a job where weekend work was all but impossible (no remote access to the systems I needed) so it was quite a shock having to decide to switch off. That's going to be harder these days when much more work is done from home (I'm an experimentalist so I'm in the lab a lot).
Something I found that really helped, and that I still use as a postdoc, was to categorise weekend work, roughly as follows.
Good reasons:

Inspiration strikes - make plentiful notes and revisit in the week, probably telling someone about it.
A little work for a lot of return, e.g. starting an experiment or simulation that's then going to run for hours to days unattended.
Time sharing of lab space or equipment (probably less applicable to you) - but take a break to make up for it.

No-so-good reasons, but necessary ones:

A hard deadline.  This could be internal (progress review, group meeting presentation) or external (conference submission).  Consider whether the deadline inherently means weekend working or whether you put it off until the last minute; if the latter, try to start earlier next time (we're all guilty of that).

Bad reasons:

You feel like you need to put the hours in.
You're stuck and feel that the only way out is effort.  That works up to a point, but so often doesn't - it's much more effective to forget about the problem for the weekend. When you return to work mode you may even start with some broader reading and discussions to get the ideas flowing.

It's always worth noting down your thoughts before downtime (I still prefer a physical book for this), but just enough to prompt you on your return then shut the notebook. Don't spend your downtime writing the world's most comprehensive to-do list

I like that answer. In many ways I feel telling people "there's good and bad reasons to work weekends" is more productive than telling them "never do it", because most people inherently know that, well, sometimes you do have to. It's the part about not knowing when you really have to that gets people.

There's mountains of evidence (research, studies, documented cases of overwork, expert interviews/articles, etc.) to suggest that overworking leads to disastrous results (we've seen that even more in 2020) and increased health problems (hypertension, weight gain, smoking/drugs/etc.). There's a reason there are laws, in the US at least, for limiting the time an individual can spend working; it's not only for safety and reliability but the general culture/health of the population.
There is absolutely no reason to feel bad about taking time off and not working during off hours. That time off is actually built into your schedule (incl. professional schedules and academic schedules). You are human and not a robot, you need to give your mind a rest and do other things (sociable, recreational, exercise, personal hobbies, personal health, etc.) so that you can get different input and stimuli in your life. The mind is a muscle and like all muscles there's a time to exercise it and a time to let it rest. I have seen people put off doctor appointments, dentist appointments, vacations, etc. just because they got addicted to "work" culture and the love of being "busy" (social status). They are not happy or health people.
Your #1 investment, #1 tool, and #1 asset is you and you only get the one. There's no undo, redo, eraser, or next time if you don't take care of yourself. Life is too short to only work. Work to live, not live to work.
Best of luck! :)

Normally I'll also work on weekends to keep the momentum going

Simple answer - do not do it.
Weekends are for the rest and free time, during these days just forget about your work activities - hang out with your friends, read a good book, watch a film, whatever. You are not a robot, job is not your life. Focus on yourself.


text:
PhD offer - Making decisions on right PhD
I hope everyone is well. I would like some advice about accepting PhD offers/waiting for the 'perfect' phd.
I don't want to over-explain my situation, but I think the background is important, as I am struggling with where I stand as a candidate (my chances of getting a phd, so I want to explain a little)..
Here is my situation in terms of grades/experience:

I had a hard time at uni with mental health and working too much to support myself financially in 2nd-3rd year causing me to fail an entire semester (i pushed through which give me confidence that I am capable - I was not given this opportunity to redo the year and my grades are on my transcript (sometimes they take them off if you have mitigating circumstances, which I never claimed for during this time.)
I did a summer project which led to publication in field of astrochemistry- best summer ever - decided I love physics and started thinking about phd.
Final year (Integrated MPhys) I found my feet and decided I love research and got a First class that year (80%+ in my project)
I graduated with an overall 2:1 MPhys (just) and have not-so-great-grades on my transcipt from the 2nd and 3rd year (a few fails in more complex topics such as theoretical and cosmology)
I am interested in high energy cosmology/astrophysics, but I have a love for the environment too and obviously climate change is super relevant and important.

Because of my grades/experience, I never thought I would be good enough to do a PhD, but in my final year I loved it so much and managed to get the grades to be able to pursue one if I wanted to.
------------ Fast forward 6 months  ------------
Finally decided research is definitely what I want to do. I missed all the deadlines (my new job took over and I not 100% sure what field I want to go into). I applied late to a PhD (funding was late so timing was perfect) related to atmospheric physics in the department of environmental science : when I saw it it seemed to tick most of my boxes:

location
supervisor
physics/climate science which I love
multidisciplinary research group (lots of exposure) and really lovely team (important to me as I am a people person)

I got accepted, which to me was a surprise. I got through on the basis of a face-to-face interview and a CV. Was this a lucky coincidence or am I actually a good candidate?
Here's the but: I love astronomy, radio astronomy, high energy particle physics and cosmology and have experience in these fields - they are challenging (which scares me) but also is exciting. However, very competitive. I am afraid my grades are not good enough for these topics and my chances of getting a phd within this field, at a good institution are slim. Also, it is possible I am not 'good' at these subjects due to failed past grades. This being said, my research in these topics has always been very high standard in labs and projects. Do grades really matter? This is super difficult for me to decide what avenue of research to go down, as I have so many interests, and a PhD is a huge commitment - I want to make sure I am the right fit.
---- Summary -----
I have a great offer from a fantastic uni in a topic i love (climate/environmental science), but its not physics and I am worried I wont enjoy it or regret my choice.
Should I accept the offer because I was lucky enough to bag one, in a topic I do love, but giving up another love of mine: astronomy and risk not getting a PhD at all.
I also feel super guilty that I have un-officially had an offer for some time and another candidate could have my position so there is some time sensitivity on this.
I am also worried about wasting another year. I have taken this academic year off to work in order to save, pay off debts and get myself in a better financial situation to avoid what happened previously. This PhD will be starting in September 2020, however, if I decline, I will have to wait another year before I can apply again - I really dont like my job (not relevant to my future and I am not learning anything that will improve my CV) and getting a new one I like, or doing research internships is unlikely at the moment due to lockdown.
Apologies for the long winded and detailed post but I hope someone can relate and offer some advice on the matter.

This question will likely be closed as it's not really applicable to others, but I hope I can offer some insight. I'm a finishing PhD student in cosmology in the UK so think my perspective is relevant.
Firstly, I want to address what sounds to me like a classic case of imposter syndrome. You say

I got through on the basis of a face-to-face interview and a CV. Was
  this a lucky coincidence or am I actually a good candidate?

There are no lucky coincidences when it comes to hiring PhD students. You've been chosen due to your excellent track record in research (having a publication as an undergraduate is a big achievement and something you should be very proud of) and your clear passion for the subject. The admissions committee are likely all senior lecturers or professors who've probably supervised 30+ students between them. They know a good candidate when they spot one. Your offer was not a fluke.

Here's the but: I love astronomy, radio astronomy, high energy
  particle physics and cosmology and have experience in these fields -
  they are challenging (which scares me) but also is exciting. However,
  very competitive. I am afraid my grades are not good enough for these
  topics and my chances of getting a phd within this field, at a good
  institution are slim.

Every field of research is challenging, and unfortunately, I don't think atmospheric physics/climate science is any less competitive than those you list here. That being said, competitiveness is not a good metric to decide what to study. You will have a miserable time doing a PhD on a subject you're not 100% committed to and interested in. Only you can tell whether this applies to atmospheric physics or cosmology for you.

Do grades really matter?

Yes and no. Your grades are clearly good enough to make you a competitive PhD applicant, since you have an offer in hand. However, really poor grades in every cosmology/astrophysics/astronomy module you've taken might be a concern for an admissions committee. You can mitigate such a scenario with a good track record in research, which you seem to have. If you were to apply to a cosmology PhD I think you'd have a good chance of success -- but I think this would be much better judged by someone who knows you and your work well, such as your personal tutor or MPhys project supervisor. I am sure they would welcome an email from you asking for their advice.
You also seem to feel the time pressure to accept, to not waste another year. Ignore the time pressure. This decision should not be rushed. Even if you're really not enjoying your job, it's not the end of the world if you do decide to apply again next year rather than taking the offer you have in hand. Supervisors would generally rather take a student who has some life experience, perspective and real motivation to complete a PhD, rather than someone fresh out of undergrad who's applying just because they don't know what to do next. You will not be reducing your chances of getting another offer by taking this route.
Overall, the decision is yours, and above all else must be based on which topic you would really prefer to study. You weren't "lucky" to bag an offer (well, naturally a small amount of luck and good timing comes into it), you were offered a PhD on the merit of your previous work and research experience. There's no reason to believe you wouldn't be able to get another offer next year.

Off-topic, but I'm happy to talk informally about what doing a PhD in cosmology is like. You can find my email address via my stackexchange profile.

I just wanted to say thank you so much for taking the time to write this response - it is really nice to hear this feedback from the view of someone with experience. I will take on everything you have said, and will not rush this decision. Thank you again for the clarity and your thoughts on this.


text:
Testing out of Undergraduate Major Requirements
Background
I am a pending transfer student (incoming undergraduate sophomore) at various universities. I plan on pursuing a double major in math and physics.
Now, I believe that I am proficient in many of the math/physics topics required for a double major at these universities. However, I taught myself much of this material, so I do not have official coursework in these fields from my previous university.
I would like to get credit for these major requirements so I can focus on taking classes in new (hopefully graduate) topics.
Question
Is it in the norm to request an exam to place out of a major requirement?
If so, is there any protocol for making such a request?
If not, are there other methods of getting out of major requirements?
Thanks in advance.

In the US, AP or CLEP are an alternative.

Some universities will permit this and have regular procedures. For others it might be an exceptional case. One place to start is to go to the department office and enquire. Another is a (possible) enrollment counseling office that has responsibility for placing transfers.
You might wind up with a few oral exams, however, so be prepared for that. The oral "exam" might just be an interview with a faculty member who explores what you have done and asks a few questions.
The only other way I can think of is to have transcripts of very similar courses, but you likely don't have that.
You probably don't get traditional "credit" for the courses, but a notation that you didn't need to take them. Grades are not likely, but there may be exceptions.
But each institution will have different procedures (in the US, at least).

@ Buffy Thanks for the response. I now believe I have a better idea on how to proceed. I may be asking too much here, but if credit towards a major is not offered for the courses I test out of, what is the replacement? Can I substitute a course I placed out of for another? Or is this school-specific?

I think the likely thing is that you would take a more advanced course if it is part of the major. For other, general education, courses, it could be institution dependent.

@ Buffy Would it then generally be frowned upon to propose a substitute course that is in the math/physics department but is not a major requirement, such as a graduate course?

You can ask of course

@ Buffy That's fair. I appreciate the help.


text:
How to ask for a reference when you’re not sure that you're applying yet
I am applying to an MSc program where I need to find an advisor prior to applying. I spoke to a potential advisor earlier this week for 45 minutes. She told me to take the holidays to think about it and to contact her in the new year and, if I’m interested, we could look at filling out the scholarship application (it requires a research proposal so she would help with that).
The scholarship application is due at the end of January. The application for the actual program is also due at the end of January. There is a specific form to fill out for the applications. I would like to ask 2 professors for references, however, nothing is “set in stone” for the applications. Maybe, for whatever reason, the potential advisor suddenly decides not to take me on, or I end up sending in the application after my referees give their reference.
Basically, I’m worried my referees would send in their part without my application. How should I ask for the references in an email?

I would tell them this.

I'm thinking about applying to a master's program and for a scholarship.  The deadline is the end of January, so I have to decide
  soon.  If I decide to apply, would you be willing to provide a letter
  of reference?
Here are the links: ...
I've also attached copies of my unofficial transcript and my resume.  You
  have my permission to discuss any of this in any letter you decide to write.

Most of your instructors will likely have acted as references in the past and if it's just an LOR you need, they know how to do that.  Give links to  the program and scholarship pages so they can confirm the details of what's required.

would it be appropriate to send them all of the required documentation in the first email or wait until after they have agreed to be a reference?


text:
Could a research group weed out less good researchers by requiring mental calculation to join it?
Does the ability to perform mental maths calculations predict ability to do research in mathematics?

I think it's fine to close this question. I don't have enough knowledge to be able to figure out how to ask it the best way so I think it was better to ask it than not and then have it get closed so that other people can improve it without invalidating an answer. Go ahead and close it if you want. I think it is not however worth deleting because one of the comments at https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/20784/is-it-common-for-people-to-not-like-getting-any-help-making-a-mathematical-compu seems to suggest that this question is suitable here.

I would expect there are studies around measuring the effect for various applications - did you check for those?

On the contrary, I voted to "Leave Open" when I review the close request.. Mental calculation is not equivalent to the ability to do research. The answer to the question may be no. But, this is still a good question worth asking and answering. I see no reason to close it.

Consider the possibility that those people who can't do mental calculations (fast or at all) may have exactly the type of mind to be able to come up with creative ideas - are all artists mathematicians or are all mathematicians artists?

I suggest to boil down this wall of text to 'does the ability to perform mental calculation the predict ability to do research?'.

Sometimes I think we should clearly distinguish quantitative/computational talent from mathematical talent. After controlling for experience and general intelligence, the correlation between them doesn't seem to be a whole lot greater than zero.

@ElizabethHenning I think astronaut made a mistake. Sometimes people can't be sure ahead of time that what they're doing is not a mistake. I wrote in a comment that other people could edit this question. I don't know for sure but it probably would have been better to edit it and vote to close it until it's really carefully researched how to fix it up but unfortunately, I saw no close link on this question.

All other things being equal, skills at mental arithmetic are likely to give a small in edge in some fields of mathematics. They could find a mistake faster, or perform parts of an involved calculation faster. I would guess that skills at mental arithmetic also correlate with general numeracy, which correlates with the ability to get university mathematics studies done, so a connection to ability as a researcher is possible.
However, by the time you are hiring someone, or even taking someone as a student, they already have research output or at least grades and completed courses. These include the information about how much their skills at mental arithmetic benefits or hampers them. As such, I suggest disregarding the person's ability at mental arithmetic when hiring them.

[long monologue removed by moderator] Would a question of this sort be suitable on any Stack Exchange website? If not, could I asked other questions whose answers will give me the resources to ask that question in a way that does belong on one Stack Exchange website?

For on-topicness of questions, ask at relevant Meta websites. If you want to ask how to test mental arithmetic abilities of someone or whether your suggested scheme would do it, matheducators might be a relevant SE website. Please check the help center for what is on topic there before asking.