text:
Should a researcher share scientific ideas in a temporary position and are they entitled to recognition for doing so?
A postdoc joins a group with a good idea to work on, while no specific project was given to him by the PI. After recognising the potential of the idea, the PI decides to take PhD students to work on it. When the postdoc asks, the PI says that the postdoc is going to be on this position only for a short time and the project (work) may not be finished before his contract expires. The contract is funded by the PI.
What should the postdoc do? Is it right for the postdoc to give his ideas in the first instance and should he be recognised when the work gets completed? If so, what about authorship?

When I was a graduate student, my advisor told me something that has stuck with me ever since:

I never worry about giving my ideas away.  I always have more ideas than I can work on, so I give them away as fast as I can.  The only people who worry about somebody stealing their ideas away are people who are afraid they won't have any more.

I have taken that to heart in my career: I give (most) ideas away as fast as I can, and it has served me well.  Having ideas is not an art or a mystical experience, it is the exercise of a skill at creative thinking that can be developed and strengthened just like any other skill.  Over time, giving ideas away thus doesn't diminish your stock of ideas, but instead actually increases it.
The real question, as alluded to by others, is what you do with an idea once you have it.  As I see it, there are basically three honorable actions that you can take (hoarding it away not being one of them):

Pursue the work following from the idea strongly yourself, heavily investing your own time.  In this case, if the work is fruitful, you most certainly should get a lot of credit.  These are the only ideas I might not give away, in certain restricted circumstances---usually I'll share these as well, since more people caring about my problem area is generally better for me.
Give the idea away for somebody else to work on, but continue contributing to the work in an advisory or other accessory manner.  This is the typical mode of operation for many professors, and can certainly be for a postdoc as well, even after you move on to another institution.  If you continue to contribute in a minor way to the work, you should receive minor credit (e.g., Nth authorship).
Give the idea away for somebody else to work on, but don't contribute to the work beyond that.  This is great because you don't burden yourself with the extra work, but you should probably expect an acknowledgement at most, not authorship.

In short: in most cases, it's not the idea, but the work following the idea that counts.  We only think otherwise because we are scared or because our myths of science frequently mischaracterize the result of work as the idea.

Not necessarily true, in non-academic environments I know people with genius ideas, but lacking the skill to get it running. The usual approach to solving this is carefully (not disclosing your idea too openly) finding a partner and do the work with him under specific rules you set up. Not saying the same approach is wise or would work at all in the academic world, but just saying that the idea you mention at the beginning of the post is not necessarily true at all. Blindly giving away ideas only makes sense if there are countless and they are all equally valuable.

@DavidMulder In my experience, "I have a great idea but need somebody to implement it for me..." it a big red flag for an idea having hidden catches that make it not so great.  Please note also that giving away ideas does not mean giving them away blindly---I would not, for example, recommend passing interesting ideas to a person that you consider highly unethical.

Fair enough, and I dunno, a lot of people come to me with random ideas and those that lack the technical skill to comprehend their own ideas or lack necessary market/field knowledge are indeed huge red flags. At the same time I also have met some that did have all the necessary knowledge, but lacked specific skills making implementation impossible. Either way, speaking for myself there are a lot of ideas I share freely, though I also have a list of ideas I share more carefully. Simply because finding out somebody else beat you to something is no fun if you actually consider working on it.

Stephanie's answer addresses a good practical course of action, but I want to add one point. In many fields (definitely in the social sciences and engineering, and also most fields outside academia) the resources required to implement an idea are much greater than those required to conceive it. For this reason, achievement is measured in terms of successful implementations rather than successful conceptions. Therefore, ideas are not currency to be saved up, guarded, or traded away but intellectual bonds to be freely shared. Rather than all sitting in locked rooms with our 5 or 6 best ideas, we offer them during the Q&A of a talk, we publish them in the future work sections of our manuscripts, and we chat about them with fellow researchers over coffee. In this way, we all have hundreds or thousands of good ideas within reach when we actually have the resources to do some work.
So, this is a long-winded way of saying that you could ask for or demand authorship on any subsequent publications, or you could just be happy that your idea will be implemented and continue searching for the project that you have the right amount of resources to perform.

I agree with the first paragraph (and in fact I don't know any academic field in which implementation of ideas is not at least as tricky and difficult as coming up with them).  I think the second paragraph may impose a false dichotomy: your idea can be implemented by others and you can get authorship on the work.  Having the idea is not the only contribution, but it's an essential one, right?

@PeteL.Clark Yes, it's an essential contribution and in a healthy working environment any supervisor will ensure that people are rewarded for ideation. However, I think my main point stands that the although the value of ideas is high, the cost is very low. Personally, I would approach the situation of wanting to be included in a project the same regardless of whether I was the first person to voice the idea, that is, by demonstrating that I would add value and asking that I be involved.

The supervisor is unlikely to reassign project ideas carelessly that weren't their own. It is also worth attempting to use this idea to try and obtain more funding/a longer contract if it is possible at the location.
If the postdoc is not worried about completing all the work themselves then they can follow the PI's plan but should clarify at the start of this process that they want to be involved in working on it for a time and to be recognised at publication for their practical and intellectual contributions.
If, for example, the postdoc could take this new idea to a position in the near future and work on it there themselves and do the main work and publications, then they would understandably have reservations upon sharing it in the first place.
It is basically important to make ones intentions clear at the get go when sharing an idea, and to understand the scope of the idea, appreciate how novel it actually is and what is needed to follow it through. I would make it clear that you want as big a part as possible in the idea because you believe in it and then share it or not depending on whether the current position/group/lab/PI is essential for completing the work or whether there would be other more independent possibilities in the near future.

To address the question:

What should the postdoc do?

Short answer: The postdoc should come up with evidence-backed rationale why they should be listened to in this situation at all. Since the cat (idea) is already out of the bag, it's too late to think about whether it's right or not to share the idea, or for the PI to take and run with it. It's a judgment call and it's up to the PI at this point. From this point, it makes sense to adopt a future-oriented perspective.
Should the postdoc meet and directly address the issue of getting credit for the idea, specifically in the form of authorship on future publications? Yes, that makes sense. But I would do so only after taking some steps to increase the likelihood of reaching a resolution in the postdoc's favor. In this regard, my answer centers on the notion of negotiating leverage.
Worst case, the PI could completely usurp the idea and leave the postdoc hanging after the contract is up. Best case, the postdoc would get an extension and co-authorship invitation for major publications emerging from the project based on her idea.
To increase the likelihood of best-case scenario, the negotiator needs leverage, i.e. other options or resources to bring to the table.
From the description it seems the postdoc does not have leverage in negotiations in this case. Such leverage could include solid leads for other positions with favorable terms for developing this line of research.
Lets imagine the PI suspects you might have solid options or offers on the table to leave the job for another position that will give you more resources to build out the program of your research (employment at will allows you to do just that, unless you care about a good recommendation from this PI). If so, they will either (a) not care and let you go your way, or (b) recognize your value and be more willing to negotiate an arrangement where they would try to make an offer that competes with the offer you have from somewhere else, thus creating conditions in your favor.
It's a gamble, but if push comes to shove, it is better to find yourself in a stronger negotiating position that truly does give you a feasible Plan B if a compromise is unlikely. Good luck!

I think that the PI has not behaved very well. Postdocs need all the help they can get with establishing themselves in order to secure further positions and develop their careers. The PI, as the postdoc's superior/mentor, should be involved in helping to develop and promote a good postdoc wherever possible. If a postdoc has a great idea and one that would result in a long project, a good academic would help the postdoc find ways of funding the project in such a way that the postdoc could stay working on the project. The PI would likely remain as PI, but the postdoc would do most of the work and perhaps supervise some PhD students. That way, the institution has the chance to attract further funding, the PI still has their name on a project and the postdoc is given the opportunity to see their idea through and develop many more skills and experience that will help to further their career.
For the PI to take the idea away from the postdoc and tell them that they're not going to be around long enough to see it through seems very short-sighted to me. If I were the postdoc, I would have a look for possible funding opportunities that could fund the project, such as an early career fellowship, and then suggest to the PI and perhaps the Head of Department that I'd like to try and apply for additional funding for the project to extend my contract and have a role working on it. There are benefits there for the Department and for the PI - the PI can be on the project as a mentor/advisor which looks good for them without demanding much extra work, the department would get extra funding, and perhaps even a PhD studentship or two, depending on the scope of the project.
It may be that the field matters in this instance, as different disciplines have different ways of doing things. Computer Science, for example, is very different to Psychology, which is different to Physics, etc., in terms of how these issues are handled. In my experience, when starting out in academia, you need every drop of experience and every demonstration of merit you can get. It would be wonderful if academia was only about freely sharing ideas and working towards the common goal of enhancing collective knowledge, and everybody giving credit where credit is due, but in reality there are many who will not act that way and will actually give no further thought to quashing your career before it's even started just to get themselves some extra kudos in the eyes of their peers.
My advice would be to share ideas by all means, show your value by providing useful input to discussions etc, but if you have an idea for a project when you are just starting out, take ownership of that idea and bring it to your superiors with the stated goal in mind of securing funding for the project that you will work on. A good department will be eager to demonstrate that they make an effort to support their postdocs in securing a position beyond the postdoc, and will particularly be keen to keep hold of a good researcher while attracting additional funding.


text:
Abstract-only presentation - How does it work?
I submitted an abstract for presentation in an international conference. The paper was accepted, but with a caveat. The organizers replied me that it is an abstract-only presentation. Please what do I do?

What field is this?

Manufacturing Engineering

What is exactly your problem with presenting your abstract at the conference?

Welcome on academia.SE. I took the liberty to remove your signature, since this is not customary on the site. Could you please clarify your question? For example, do you want to know what is expected form you in an abstract-only presentation?

Did you ask the organizers?

You go and present a talk. No paper will be published in the proceedings. If proceedings are published at all for this conference, your abstract will probably be published therein. This is a pretty common conference format in many engineering disciplines. You should take any review feedback, apply it to your article, and find a journal to send it to. If there is a distinction between published papers and abstracts at this conference, you should think about beefing up the paper before you send it to a journal.

I already have the complete paper

I don't think there's a problem with an abstract-only presentation. Possibly the caveat is to remind you that only your abstract will be published in the conference proceedings, and not the full paper. This would work well for you as you can take the feedback at the conference and use it to improve your study. Moreover, for conference papers to be published in a journal, you need to have at least 30 percent new material (field specific); however, in your case, since you'll be presenting only the abstract at the conference, you don't need to think about these things.

source: Stack Exchange

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

authors: الشاعر ناصر بن حمد المسبحي

sort: votes


text:
Should I be stressed about asking for an Academic Reference?
I need a academic reference for application of a PhD program.
I believe this is the same as what is called a Letter of Recommendation, at other institutions.
I am getting one from my potential supervisor, and I need one other.
I thought through all the lecturers I had, and came up with a priorities list of people to approach. Taking into account (in rough order of priority): How likely they are to remember me, How relevant their units/expertise are to my intended course of study,  How well I did in their Unit/s, and How research/project focused the Unit/s I did under them were.
The person I found most suitable is currently lecturing me, and has done serveral times before.
I figured I would basically send him an email saying:

"Looking at continuing my studies on X, that I mentioned to you
  before, with a PhD. For this I need a academic reference. I thought
  you might be suitable because of (reasons outlines above). Could we
  meet to discuss this some time in the next few weeks? I am free on
  Monday mornings, Tuesday afternoons ..."

I thought, fairly casual, not really a big deal kinda thing.
But then I got looking around the internet, and it seems like maybe it is a big deal.
There seems like there is lots of advice and template letters out there.
So is it actually worth worrying too much about?
Should I spend say a hour or so checking over my request email,
to make sure I am giving all the right information and that it is formatted nicely and perfectly grammatical?
Or is it more of a casual thing, the email serves its purpose to give the key points of information and to arrange a meeting. It will be a throw away communication.
Is it different because he is currently lecturing me, so it is not so much of a cold call?
If it is cultural depended I am in Australia. I am applying to the same institution I am currently doing my undergraduate/honours at.

I'd keep it even shorter, but I'd write whole sentences. Better yet, just ask in person after class. Reason: Don't waste his time with longwinded email ping pong.

If the person who you're asking for a letter of reference knows you well enough to write a good letter of recommendation, you don't really need to be worried about the formality of the request. You should be able to ask: "I would like to talk to you about writing a letter of recommendation for me. Could we set an appointment?" or something similar to that, and it should be fine.
Remember: writing letters of recommendation is one of the responsibilities of faculty members (and other instructors)!

+1. They've gotten the same request many times, and it is part of their role as instructors. The worst they're likely to say is "Sorry, but I don't think I know you and your work well enough to write a good recommendation."

It may be their job, but make it a pleasant one. You want the work to go into saying nice things, not in clicking through google and four or five screens or emailing you back and forth finding out where to submit the recommendation or other particulars.  So it becomes your job to supply the web links, name and email address, or other necessary information, and email is probably the best medium for supplying all that.  If the graduate program require forms sent in the post (how quaint!), supply the postage stamps.  Requests lacking these details risk that the letter will never arrive or worse.

@Paul: Yes, you want to provide all of that information—but only after they've agreed to the request!

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


text:
How can I remain motivated while studying for comprehensive exams?
At my university, the MS and PhD programs in Computer Science have comprehensive exams.  The exams retest the student on topics from designated core courses.  The exams are separate from the course and may be written by a group of instructors instead of just the instructor who taught the course.
Students are given a list of books to read.  Some of the books indicate selected chapters, others are expected to be read and understood cover to cover.  The scope of the exams is daunting and preparation for the exams is expected to be a major undertaking by the students taking months of preparation.  For full time students this is difficult.  For part time students like myself who work full-time and have family this effectively sidelines research during the preparation period.  If you do not pass the exams on your first try, it can be very demoralizing.
I was able to stay motivated by following the strategy I described in a similar question: strategy
What other strategies have people used?

May this question belong to Personal Productivity on Stack Exchange.

The strategy that I used was to divide the work into chunks and assign them to finite periods of time.  Let's say your exam is in three months and you have two books to read and two course notes to review.  That means that you'll have 12 weeks to study.  The 12th week should be reserved for "hitting the hotspots" before your exam and general review of all the materials covered in weeks 1-11.  Then divide up material to be covered from the two books and two courses across the remaining 11 weeks.  I would suggest that you divide it into 11 weekly topics.  Assign reading to yourself.  The goal of each week worth of studying is to create your own "cliff notes" for that week's chunk of material that can be studied during week 12.
A good strategy to avoid burnout is to schedule time for no studying.  This especially important since you have family.  Make sure that you schedule your no study time during a time that they also want to interact with you.  For example, no more studying after noon on Sundays would be a good amount of time.
Since you do have family, also consider scheduling alone time for yourself where you get to do only what you want.  Doing nothing, watching tv, or checking on your stackexchange questions are okay during that time.  But make sure to limit those activities to only that time.
Good luck!


text:
How can I identify research opportunities I am qualified for, and position myself as a competitive candidate, in a different field from my degree?
I currently have a BSc. in Environmental Science and would like to go back for a biology focused PhD in the next few years. I keep seeing the recommendation that having a good research fit will be important to potentially being admitted.
My question is, how do I go about getting research experience in biology when my degree is in something unrelated?
Answers to the question on How to gain research experience after master program? suggest various possible research opportunities. I've looked at jobs and volunteer opportunities like those, but I'm not sure I'm qualified for them. Even when I find a job that says ‘no experience necessary’, they are still asking for a biology degree. Presumably anyone with one would have had some experience in a biology lab, whereas most of my lab experience is in geology labs.
I don't understand why they would take someone without a relevant degree or experience (even if it's in-class experience) over interns, under/grad students, various types of volunteers with relevant degrees. Without understanding that, I'm not sure how to approach people about these potential opportunities.
How can I identify research opportunities I am qualified for, and position myself as a competitive candidate for these positions, when I don't have a relevant degree or experience in the field?

Possible duplicate of How to gain research experience after master program? (I don't think being post-bachelors rather than post-masters makes this question substantially different, but I may be wrong)

I guess part of the question as well is how do I move from one major into a slightly related one. It's adding a good bit of difficulty into some of the suggestions from the other question.

@David-richerby Why did you omitted the degree tag? He has mentioned something about degree in his question.

@EnthusiasticStudent Because I felt it was already covered by "graduate admissions". (Almost) anyone who wants to enter graduate school already has one degree and is looking to get another one so the "degree" tag doesn't seem to add any information.

@DavidRicherby I don't feel qualified because the jobs are still asking for a biology degree. Presumably anyone with one would have had some experience in a biology lab, whereas I have none, and would still be under qualified. It would be relieving to discover that's not the case.

@Linasoll OK -- I've edited the question to incorporate that. You might still be OK. Biology is a very broad subject so, even if you had a degree in it, you would probably have only spent a small (or zero!) fraction of it learning things directly relevant to the position. You should certainly consider emailing the people who are offering the jobs saying that you're interested (and why!) and asking if your experience is appropriate.

Maybe addin "in biology" to the title would be a good idea. E.g. in my field (computer science / informatics), you would just have to walk into a door and say "hello, I'm willing to work for free" and you are in ;).

@OBu The question is what doors to walk through.

Well, in computer science, I would check which research institutes nearby are working on topics which I' be learning more about - and then write to the respective group leader and ask for an internship, job as co-worker etc. . I know, in biology the situation might be different.

I've heard similar things before, but what I don't understand is why they would take someone without a relevant degree or experience (even if it's in class experience) over interns, under/grad students, various types of volunteers with relevant degrees. Without understanding that I'm not sure how to approach people.

It seems based on the exchange in the comments that you're not asking how to find research opportunities in biology, but how to identify those you're qualified for and how to be competitive for them. I've edited the question to reflect that.

Frankly, most undergraduate students (and new graduates) are under-qualified to do research in any field, including their own. For various altruistic and non-altruistic reasons, we're often willing to take them on anyways.
When I hire an undergraduate or M.S. student to work in my research group, I look for qualities that tell me they'll be train-able, and also a good investment for me. Things like:

motivation (as demonstrated by showing that they actually know what we are currently working on, have looked at our publications before asking for a job, etc.)
interest in pursuing graduate studies related to my field of research
soft skills (oral and written communication, organization, note-taking, etc.)
ability to learn new concepts and skills quickly and somewhat independently
basic quantitative and technical ability

I don't expect anybody I hire at this level to have relevant experience or experimental skills specific to my lab, whether they have a degree in the field or not.
So, keep pursuing opportunities like these, be honest about your lack of a biology degree, but highlight your eagerness to learn and your "transferable" abilities.
You might also look for research opportunities in cross-disciplinary labs that combine your new interest (biology) with your previous degree (environmental science). For these opportunities, your degree might actually give you a competitive advantage over biology students.

Are these opportunities typically posted as jobs, or should I contact people directly? I think that's what is throwing me off, earlier comments were talking specifically about jobs and using research opportunities and jobs interchangeably.

@Linasoll these opportunities could come about either through job/internship posting or unsolicited contact. The related question and its answers talk about how to find opportunities, so I'm not addressing that here.

Yeah I've seen that question, but it's coming from the perspective of a student, not someone who has been in the workforce for a while, so really it's not all applicable. I was honestly hoping to find something that I can do nights/weekends or a regular job since I'm not going to get any sort of internships or similar. All the current advice I can find is how to find something while currently going to school or being just out of school.  @ff524

@Linasoll the individual in the linked question is out of school too ("I just finished an MBA"). As far as I can tell, all the suggestions in those answers apply equally to someone who is out of school for ten years or ten weeks.


text:
Should I include a citation every time I refer to the same thing from the same publication?
In my dissertation, I compare my results to the ABC model presented by John Doe.  It seems excessive to include a reference every time I have a statement such as,

Compared to ABC, our results show a much larger size distribution.

Unlike the related question, How do I cite same reference multiple times in a paper?, in my situation, I am not referencing new information about the model contained in the publication describing the model; I am just referring to the model.  I am inclined to only include a reference the first time I introduce the ABC model. Should I instead include a reference every time I refer to it?
My real issue is that it seems appropriate to include a citation for some of the references but at some point it will become excessive. For example, if I only refer to the DEF model in my introduction and conclusion, but the ABC model 50 times throughout the text, do I only reference each one once, or reference both of them every time.

@jakebeal, I updated my question to make it clear how it differs from the already answered question.

While your question is different, I think that the answers may be equally applicable: they all essentially say that you should cite whenever you start talking about the same thing after a significant gap, then give various heuristics about how large a gap is "significant" enough to merit a new citation.

Most people will not read your dissertation from the first page to the last page. Therefore, it is helpful to refer to the cited result everywhere. It is a matter of convenience for the reader, nothing more.


text:
What should I expect from a paper discussion in a postdoc interview?
I have been invited for a postdoc interview that includes a paper discussion. They sent me their key paper and told me to discuss it because I will do something similar if hired. I read the paper and have understood it but I do not know what to expect.

You should expect that they'll want to talk about the paper and the job they may hire you to do. What specifically are you asking?

A simple question might be if you agree with the conclusions. A bit more intense is how it relates to your work. Even more would be what sorts of extensions might be looked into.
It would be worth knowing whether they have any vested interest in the paper or not.
They might also start with asking you for an overview.
The other questions would be more typical as how do you see yourself fitting in to their research program and/or how independent you want/need to be.

Interesting technique. Though I haven't seen that in that bluntness, I can imagine what they may be interested in.
They probably want you to work on the field, and based on that paper. So, I would expect:

can you explain the model, techniques, results?
can you make suggestions on what is missing and how you might consider extending it?
would you like working on this direction and extend the work?
do you see alternatives or relevant related work?

As I am not on the interview committee, this is only an educated guess, but that's what I would do if we had sent out such a request.

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


text:
I have deep desire to study Physics after I graduate from Computer Engineering; want to know if I have what it takes to be successful in this field
I am now studying Computer Application, a bachelor degree in India. I can get a job in the IT sector if I try only a little harder. But I have this deep desire to study Physics starting from undergraduate.
My high school science scores were average. I consider myself as a smart working science student. I want to apply in UK colleges as there I can start from bachelor degree even if I already have one. I study Physics whenever I get time apart from my present course preparation.   But, I have this depressing and demeaning feeling within me that I shall not be able to cope up with Physics, I shall fail and that I don't belong to that field.
I want to know how can I be finally sure whether I have what it takes to study Physics. So that either I can finally remove this desire of Physics from my head and concentrate on Computer/IT jobs or prepare myself for another field of education that I think will best fit me. How can I assess myself?
It's private to me, so I don't want to ask anyone close to me. Not even my almost-a-physicist brother. I struggle a bit at solving deep thinking problems. I am slow at math but I don't give up. Often it makes me cry, but the next day I'm again after it. And I don't think I shall be happy in the IT sector.

This doesn't answer your question, but the only thing UK admissions care about are good scores in physics/maths. If you want to do a physics BSc, do a foundation year (this is what I did). I had basically zero physics and maths before I did that. The drawback is that it takes 4 years (BSc) or 5 (MPhys) and costs a huge amount of money. But that's the angle in I can see for you, if you are determined to do this in the UK.

Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Indian_Academia/comments/9hssu6/i_have_deep_desire_to_study_physics_after_i/

Answer from a physicists. Please make an effort to define what it means to "belong to the field of physics".

Do you have what it takes to get a bachelor in physics? Sure you do: if you can graduate in another STEM field as computer engineering you can graduate in physics as well. Physics is hard, but with good math skills, and lots of passion this is certainly not an insurmountable challenge.
Do you have what it takes to get a master in physics? Pretty much same as above. If you still like it after 3 years you can certainly put one or two more. If anything, master is easier as you are already through the first barrier (having the proper mindset)
do you have what it takes to obtain a PhD in physics? If you got till here, then the question is more about attitude: can you on work for long hours, many days a week toward a very hard, possibly ill defined problem, for years? This is a skill you develop in any PhD
do you have what it takes to become a physicist? (physicist = an person that does research in physics for a living, typically in universities or laboratories) It takes a person with a PhD who can prove he/she is creative, relentless, ambitious, can get papers published and money grant flowing, and face extreme competition without crushing under pressure. At this stage, it takes exeptional hard and soft skills, and a good dose of luck.

I think you were referring to the bachelor. Go for it, follow your passion. Are you not sure you want to become an academic? Most physics graduates I know who left the field are now working as quant traders, data scientists, entrepreneurs, journalists, teachers, politicians. Not too bad if you think you would not make for a good academic, right? :)

You don't need to work in academia to be a physicist. There are stand alone research labs, government agencies, and industry jobs too.

I specified physicists = an academic working in the field of physics. A physicist working at a public research lab, is basically an academic without teaching, and one at a private lab is close to that. As for physicists at a government agency (that are not labs) - these are often admin jobs, It is logically closer to the list of physicists who left the field (do not do physics) together with peoople working in the publication business. At least at first approximation, that is what one would cover here. What is the point you wanted ot make?

Just that the noun academic usually means "a student or teacher at a college or university" (i.e. someone working in academia). If you want to define words differently I guess that's fine, but I figured it was worth clarifying that point to future readers. (Feel free to disregard the part about government agencies if you want, but I don't think all such jobs are all admin.)

Interesting. According to your link academic refers to both professors and students, something I did not experienc in my research life in the US or UK. Cambridge, Oxford, Merriam Webster and Collins dicitonary refer to academic only as a teacher/professor/researcher. Anyway, I guess your point is that I used the word "academic" and that does not include people who do research in physics but outside of a teaching institution. Let me correct that

Yeah, that's exactly my point. For example, US National Labs are often explicitly mentioned as an alternative to academia, but you can certainly do physics research there. Also, now that you mention it, that definition does seem a little weird. It aligns better with my own interpretation if the "students" part is restricted to graduate students, but I guess that discussion is heading way off-topic.

Not a direct answer but I have zero reputation (new on SE) so I can't comment on your question : I was doing a master's thesis in philosophy and switched to physics a few years ago. The math part is HARD. But with enough hard work, nothing is impossible - I even graduated with pretty good grades, and I absolutely have no regret switching to physics. So another case of "follow your gut feeling" there, if I hadn't tried it I wouldn't have known.
Another remark concerning the math part : when I take CS classes I find them pretty easy - in general, but most specifically regarding mathematics. The equations you'll have to solve in physics are way harder than what you do in CS. So be prepared to that.
Oh and final comment : I'm beginning my master's thesis in physics with a particular focus on numerical simulations. So yes, as has been noted by others, you can join disciplines eventually and get the best of both worlds.

Like anything in life, you should try it and see how it goes. However, I have an answer for this particular fields you mentioned because I do have PhD in Computer Science and I’m working with people with the background in physics and mathematicians all the time.
why you may not enjoy physics
The chances are that you, as a software engineer, will find physics not moving as fast as computer engineering field. Also, there are mountains of knowledge to climb on. Third, as a software engineer you might like “virtual things” to develop ( computer games, graphics, chat rooms, virtual reality, etc.) but in physics you are kept down by the reality of universe. Fourth, how good is your math? Get ready to climb on another set of mountains to be sufficient in math.
There is another solution!
Why not marriage the both fields together! Why not look at simulators that are developed by software engineers for people who want to do physical simulations? You can start looking at simulators like Comsol? In this case you are enjoying physics as well as being a software engineers. Also there are game engines that are used that requires programmers know physics.

It is hard to give specific advice here so I'll just try to make a few helpful comments.
Most important is that it would be a shame if you learn at age 60 that you made a wrong decision at 20 and that you feel you wasted your life. If you have the opportunity to do what you want to do, and not everyone does, take advantage of it.
But switching will be hard. In fact, it will be starting over, rather than leveraging a lot of what you already know. Be prepared for that. Your age doesn't matter, though you will likely finish later than others who started earlier.
Thinking physics is hard. It isn't necessarily harder than thinking computing, but it is a different way of thinking. Be prepared for that. Of course, there are a lot of subfields of physics and each is hard in its own way. Some are very mathematical, some computational, etc. But a bachelors is usually pretty general, with the expectation that you will specialize later.
It is hard to think of an assessment that will predict success unless you have already been evaluated in meaningfully difficult scientific courses - especially physics. It is a bit of a blind leap. But desire and enthusiasm can make you a success as long as you put in the work, and work effectively.
It would, in fact, be a good idea to discuss it with your brother. He knows something about physics, but he knows a lot about you. He can point out the challenges you will face.

I would added that living abroad gives a completely different level of difficult and should be careful considered. I don't know India, but I believe they have good undergraduate courses there too - why are you considering going to the UK?

I was in kind of similar situation few years back and I've successfully changed my stream to physics now and pursuing my masters in Physics in a good University in India. I run a blog for all  the Physics enthusiastic Engineering grads like you looking to switch to Physics somehow. Along with me Vaibhav Sharma, an engineer turned Physicist currently pursuing his PhD in Cornell University writes articles about switching to Physics in it. Also you can meet 150+ other engineers like you aspiring to switch to Physics there. You might want to take a look at that.
https://physicsafterengineering.blogspot.com/2018/03/physics-after-engineering.html
These are the major ways for doing Msc or Integrated Ph.D.(or direct Ph.D. in some cases) in Physics after Engineering.
JAM
Universities Entrance tests.
Opportunities abroad (Physics GRE, General GRE, IELTS and TOFEL etc)
JEST
TIFR GS (Integrated Ph.D. paper)
MS by research programs
TIFR Hyderabad
Direct Ph.D.
Astronomy and related programs
GATE
CSIR NET
Distance programs
Details about the exams are mentioned in the blog

I'm a physics ph.d. from one of the top universities but I took career change afterwards and work in computer science field now. It may depend where you (want to or end up) live- some places have more jobs in certain fields- e.g. silicon valley is very much populated with CS jobs. Maybe think about what you really want and why you want to study, what do you define a success as?
p.s. If you keep having itches, why not try taking some courses or do research interns? Graduate study (research mostly) is very different from undergraduate coursework. In both experimental or theoretical physics, your computing skills may be valuable.

Physics is very hard, if you've learned only IT on pre-grad level, you probably can't imagine, how hard is it. It is not like the IT.
Furthermore, you earn much lesser with it. Simply, there are much lesser physicist jobs.
Do it only if you have an inherent internal urge for that.
From the other side, giving up physics you will likely lose something what you will sorrow in the rest of your life.
The main hardness what I can see in your plan, that you want to do two hard switch simultanously:

Switch from IT to Physics (nearly impossible)
Switch from India to the UK (probably very hard)

In my life, I could do some similar as (2), but in much better circumstances. I had no chance for (1).
Your chances are better, but still low, if

There is some strong financial support behind you (you can simply migrate into the UK and apply to a physics University, paying it and learning there, without the need of finding a job there).
You are young (ideally, below 25)
You have the urge to learn and work with around 10 times harder as you are doing now.

Math is a very strong requirement in Physics, knowing only IT you probably can't imagine how hard.
I think your chances are low, but nothing is impossible. In your case I would try both of (1) and (2), but I would be ready for that at least one of them won't succeed.

funny you should say this: I happen to think CS is much harder than physics.

@ZeroTheHero Check the https://physics.stackexchange.com , particularly the answers of physicists to the questions of other physicists... I changed "cs" to "it", cs is also a hard science, I think it matches better.

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


text:
A master's degree from IGNOU is eligible for a CSIR -NET qualification?
If someone completes his master degree in mathematics from Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU). Can he be eligible for a CSIR -NET application?
CSIR -NET is a necessary qualification for lectureship or junior research fellowship in india given by the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR).

I think the answer is yes if the grades are above the common threshold; however I am really not an expert on this. You might get a better reception on you question if you were more detailed. Explain what ignou is and what the CSIR NET is. You can update your question via an [edit].

Besides the answer below, I found this page which says the university code of IGNOU is 099. You need to follow the link the answer below provided and then determine if you're eligible. For your information, I would suggest you to ask CSIR to get the official answer. Please do not count on what the strangers on Internet say. Instead, please follow what the authority says.

I follow CSIR -NET official page but can't find the link where can I ask question regarding eligibility.

CSIR Contact Address

The requirements for the NET application can be found in the CSIR homepage. Take a look into the main notification documentation.


text:
Personal/Diversity Statement
I advised students to spend several weeks crafting a statement of purpose for PhD applications in the US, and have reviewed them. However, many students now report that there is an additional "personal statement" or "diversity statement", usually 500 words.
I don't remember these when I applied. When were they introduced? Is this in response to SFA v. Harvard? How seriously do readers review these?
I feel as though I misled students not to prepare them. I can give them a clear structure for the statement of purpose—a paragraph about each relevant research experience, an introductory paragraph stating the subfield, summary of experience, and that you want to create new knowledge.

Hi. Could you please be more specific? What is this statement for?

They need the statement for phd applications in the US (?)? Or for something different?

Nearly every application for a PhD (MIT, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford) requires a 500-word statement in addition to the Purpose. It is called a "Personal Statement". It is phrased in a round-about way but it seems oriented around "diversity". E.g, Harvard's: "We are committed to educating individuals who reflect the growing diversity of perspectives and life experiences represented in society today and who will contribute to our commitment to sustain a welcoming, supportive, and inclusive environment. Please share how your experiences or activities will advance our mission and commitment."

@Test - those aren't really DEI statements in the sense that most people are using. They really are just "personal" statements where the student talks about themselves. The language re: diversity is kind of just boilerplate now, inviting students to tell the university how they (as people) will make the university a more diverse place. Some institutions are only interested in superficial metrics of "diversity" (e.g., "quotas" of students belonging to particular racial  groups), but a lot actually just want students with different life experiences who won't all think the same as each other.

Where can you find examples of these statements? Every example I can find puts diversity front and center.

@Test - if you're searching for "diversity" or "DEI" statements, you're only going to get examples where diversity is front and center, as "diversity statement" or "DEI statement" is very commonly understood to be explicitly a statement of how a candidate/applicant is going to support an institution's DEI initiatives. What you mention above, with your Harvard example, is really just a "personal statement", and you should search for examples of those instead of "diversity statement."

@Test - The "diversity of perspectives" from the Harvard example is really just inviting students to tell the selection committee what sets the student apart from all the other tens of thousands of applicants, and implicitly telling them that they are interested in students who aren't necessarily the "typical" student - students who have had interesting life experiences that give them different perspectives than other students. For example, if a student overcame childhood cancer and now wants to do cancer research, they'd put that story in this statement.

Diversity statements are relatively new - they started to get fairly popular in the mid-2010s or so, and are still included in many applications today, though some schools have stopped asking for them recently with recent pushback against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. I have mostly only seen these kinds of statements requested for faculty hires, and never seen it in grad student applications.
However, some grant funding agencies require proposals to address DEI, so some institutions do actually pay attention to what's in a candidate's diversity statement and don't just treat it as a checkmark, as they want their candidates to be able to bring in money.
There are plenty of online guides about how to write useful DEI statements, and wherever they apply will clearly ask for these statements if they're needed, so you're not really misleading your students. In general, what institutes (who are actually serious about the statement) want is to see that the applicant is at least cognizant that there are under-represented groups in academia, and that the applicant can positively contribute to reducing that underrepresentation - whether through advising students who are members of underrepresented groups, doing outreach in disadvantaged communities, collaborating with diverse research groups, etc.
ETA per @user176372's suggestion: In terms of advising students on how to write DEI statements - the general format of the letters is a lot less rigid than in research or teaching statements, but generally start out with (1) some general statement on the importance of DEI (in the applicant's view), followed by (2) examples of how the applicant has supported DEI in the past, and (3) how the applicant intends to support DEI efforts at the institution they're applying to. As with any other application material, the student can give themselves quite the leg up over other candidates if they actually look up the institute's existing DEI policies and programs and tailors their statement accordingly.

This seems like effectively the right answer to me except that it's missing advice to do better on supervising for DEI considerations in the future. Having gone through a faculty hiring season as an applicant recently: None of my mentors could very much advise me (because diversity statements are new). The "grace period" on this phase in seems to be closing a lot more rapidly than people may think.

@user176372 What do you mean by, The "grace period" on this phase in seems to be closing a lot more rapidly than people may think.

@Test As this answer says, requests for DEI statements seem to be 5-10 years old. For junior applicants (from PhD through to asst. professor), I get the impression that hiring bodies aren't scrutinizing statements so closely. People have largely "gotten the memo", though. In the next 5-10 years, especially at the tenure-track level, I suspect most strong applicants will have service experiences with clear DEI framing to draw on for their statements. Probably doesn't matter applying for PhD, but postdoc for TT certainly.

I don't remember these when I applied. When were they introduced? Is this in response to SFA v. Harvard? How seriously do readers review these?

Diversity statements have been introduced in the US quite recently, to my experience around the George Floyd incident (specifically, they predate by years SFA vs Harvard). Mostly due to cultural and political factors. Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) offices currently take a huge part in many higher education institutes.
As of now they are predominantly popular in the US academic sector, and have also influenced some other countries that share similar political cultures, such as the UK and Canada.
Note that not all institutes in the US, and even less so in the UK and Canada, require Diversity statements.

How seriously do readers review these?

This depends on the institute and the specific reviewer. My experience is that the content of the diversity statement is not overly important, as long as it ticks the right boxes ("I am very dedicated to inclusion", "I believe in diversity ...", "I have experience in helping my community and people from underrepresented groups…" etc.).


text:
Is it appropriate to ask a professor how I may be able to improve my letter of recommendation?
Background
I graduated with a BS in math about a year and a half ago from a not well known school and with a less than stellar academic record. I did not go to graduate school (I was not accepted). Since then, I have improved my mathematical ability considerably, but I have not kept in touch with my professors. I can demonstrate this improvement in many ways, the most obvious of which is by referring to my subject GRE score.
Given that I was a mediocre student, I assume that my professors' letters of recommendation did not paint me in as positive of a light as they would have if they knew me now.
I am now interested in applying to graduate school again but this time I would like to secure stronger letters of recommendation.
Question
Is it appropriate to ask a professor the following question:

"Is there any way I can demonstrate my current mathematical ability
and thereby improve your letter of recommendation for me?"

If so, how should I ask this question?
Further Considerations
If the answer to the above question is "Yes", then for at least two of the professors, I can suggest showing them my typed solutions to every question (save the trivial ones) in the textbook used for their class. These classes were both upper level classes (second level Linear Algebra and second level Real Analysis). With the last professor, I can demonstrate knowledge of Calculus of Variations (a subject that this professor is interested in) as well as Functional Analysis. Should this be my approach?

If possible, you might want to publish some papers :) Considering the conditions you are under, this seems to be more effective way for your application.

I was thinking of doing this but is it likely that I can get a paper published as an undergraduate without direct support from a professor?

You can certainly publish without support, but it would require that you first do some original research, which is very rarely possible for undergraduates without very direct guidance to find a suitable open question.

Is doing a smallish research project (e.g., over the summer) with one of those professors an option? This would help you on the paper front as well as with LoRs.

@xLeitix I am in the  (strange) position that I was given an open research problem about 3 years ago but due to my negligence i produced no results on it. After graduating, however, I made significant progress on it but the professor does not know this and I am somewhat hesitant to show him the results because of my earlier lackadaisical efforts.

@illysial That shouldn't make you hesitant - any bad blood from those early efforts will likely be washed away when he discovers you've continued to work on it.

I think it is okay to ask the question.  However, I do not think you should suggest that professors read your solutions since they are likely very busy.
You may do better to tell the professors what you have been working on, including your GRE score, and then ask them if there is anything else you can do to prepare yourself for graduate school.  Then follow their suggestions.  Essentially it is the same question, but I think it could show you are a "deep learner" rather than a "strategic learner" who only cares about the letter.

You're thinking about the problem a little bit sideways, as do many students.
First, when you originally request a letter of recommendation, ask the person your asking to support you if they can write you a strong letter.  If they say no, they can write you a letter but they're not in a position to write a strong one, you can either move on to the next person (if there is one), or have a very mature conversation where you ask what's the best portrayal you can get.  For example, if you feel like there's a hole in your application portfolio that this person can help fill, ask about it.  Sometimes, if a student with average grade performance is a stand out in terms of writing, communication, leadership, I can focus on that and come out with an OK letter.
Now, to new recommendations from your original references: If your original recommenders have had no interactions with you that would change their opinion, its probably already too late to get a better recommendation.  If there's something about your overall package that would change your likelihood to be admitted to a grad program, then you should be able to dig up a new reference to support your application.  Your personal statement should be carefully crafted, stating very clearly what's changed about your situation, why you're a better candidate than you were originally, and some evidence to support it that an admissions committee can understand.  A recommendation involving a recent interaction from a new person would be extremely helpful.
For what its worth, the admissions committee will be very interested in how you've spent your time since your BS.  They might expect you to be showing maturity not typical of recent graduates.  If you can show a solid understanding of why you are now seeking a graduate degree and how you expect it to impact your career in your application package, that will prove very helpful.  If you've been twiddling your thumbs since you graduated, and that's apparent in your package, that will not go over very well.  If that's the case, you might consider delaying your application until you can make your application package look right, and spend six months working very hard just to develop those good recommendations.


text:
Did BSc, doing MSc, applying for PhD. Is it frowned upon to not have a letter from my BSc advisor?
I am currently pursuing an MSc and am preparing my PhD application. For this reason, I reach out to professors I know well in order to ask them whether they would be willing to write recommendation letters for me. I got a BSc from a different university and I obtained it by writing a final thesis.
My question is:
At the time of the application, I will only have written a BSc thesis and not yet the one for the MSc. Would it be considered a "red flag" if the professor who supervised my BSc thesis is not one of the three references I provide with my application?
The reasons why I hesitate to ask that professor is that even though my thesis turned out fine, I entirely interacted with one of her PhD students during the process of completing it and not with her personally (there are other professors who I know personally). Also, because she teaches at my old university and not at the one I am currently studying at, I question whether she might have lower incentives to positively recommend me.
Related: here

There are so many questions about this topic on this forum. Have you tried to search for your question?

Possible duplicate of Who should write a recommendation letter?

Yes, I did search for my question on here and there is no satisfying one available on this site. In my opinion, it is also not a duplicate of the question you cited because mine is specifically grounded on the situation of having studied at 2 different universities before applying. That issue is surely more prevalent in Europe (due to Bologna) than in the US but there might nevertheless be students who - in the future - come across this question and appreciate its existence, which is why I have decided to ask it.

Will you get a recommendation letter from your current (MSc) supervisor? I would assume that would be the most relevant and important one. References from your last position will likely be the most relevant for the next one, as those are the people that have worked with you most recently.
It might be a bit curious that you omit a recommendation letter from the only completed work you have by the time of application, however if the references you attach to your application are more relevant in terms of timing and topic I think it wouldn't hurt your chances.

Yes, I will get one from my current supervisor. Thank you for your answer. Before accepting it, I will wait for a little while to see whether someone else also has to contribute something to this discussion.


text:
What are the common signs that a graduate interview has been a success or a flop
I am not familiar with the graduate interview process. Are there signs during and after the interview that student will be able to tell whether he or she will be accepted or rejected in into the research group?
More importantly, how would an applicant know if the graduate interview was a flop. For example, if the professor doesn't follow up with a letter after the interview, is that a sign that the student will probably not considered to be a part of the group?

We try to be meticulously fair during our interviews. We tend to ask similar questions and try to retain a similar demeanor across all of them.
You should know that we don't usually make up our minds during the interview itself. It's not like a job interview. The answers you give will form just one component of our entire impression of you.
And up until the final committee meeting when all of the finalists are put up on the board and ranked against each other, it's very hard to say with specificity who got in and who got rejected.
p.s. While I try to send my interviewees a quick note by e-mail thanking them for their time, I would be aghast to think that if I forgot to do so that someone would read devastation and gloom into that oversight. Sometimes a missed e-mail is just a missed e-mail.

I think pretty universally there is no way to tell the outcome based on the interview. Unlike RoboKaren's department, the department where I did my PhD was notoriously non-uniform during interviews. Of the 7 people in my cohort, so people who had "successful" interviews. One interview started with "Tell me about your father?" Another student was asked to solve a problem on the white board and failed to calculate the cutoff frequency for an RC circuit, which is about as basic as you can get in terms of electrical engineering. A third had the interviewer actually fall asleep during the interview while the student was answering a question. The student quietly excused herself and continued on with her schedule.

WOW. Well I guess we have both ends of the spectrum here.


text:
What is a good way to tackle difficult technical questions during graduate interview
I went into an engineering graduate school interview totally unprepared today and may have totally wrecked it.
The interview began like any other interview. The professor introduced his area of research, then I discussed my area of interest and academic background. I asked him a few questions regarding funding, number of graduate, thesis topic.
Then he said we should discuss some technical questions, which was not unreasonable, although I have never been asked to discuss technical questions with any other interviewers.
To begin he made me cite a number of theorems from linear algebra, I had some difficulty remembering the terminology but was in the ball park. Then he made me recite some theorems using formal proof "there exists...such that..." which really caught me off guard. He gave some other questions, but I had to ask him to clarify some of the terminologies he used in these questions which I don't think he was very eager to give out. Lastly, he made to write the closed form expression of some matrix operation which is a pain because I had to perform a bunch of mental calculations.
To be honest, I think I took too long to answer most of those questions and had trouble distinguish between the questions that should be addressed using intuition or mathematical derivation. The interviewer did not give obvious signals after I had answered a question correctly, this made me beat around the bush several times until he said my original answer was correct. Also, these questions were out of my current focus, despite having studied them at some point.
Can someone give me some tips on how to tackle questions in a graduate interval setting for which you think you will have difficult answering? What does the interviewer want to know in this case? How I can think step by step, how fast I can do this or if I was intuitive or made good use of analogy?
This may also be applicable to thesis deference, software interviews...

There's always one of those interviews, regardless of industry or academia. I had a 2-hour technical when I got my current job and it was like complete brain drain. Is the issue not knowing how to do the issue, or being nervous about it?

This is not unusual for any technical position. It gets easier with practise. One of my first interviews for a PhD position involved me solving problems on a blackboard in front of five professors. Needless to say, it did not go well. But do not be afraid to ask for clarification during the interview. You cannot be expected to regurgitate a mathematics text book.

Relax it is the most important thing; if you are stressed it will show. Also people ask tough questions not only to see if you get the answer right, but also see how you get to the answer, and to see how you respond to the answer you gave being challenged and questioned.
Also If you don't know something or are unsure but think you could have a stab at it say so. Some people may not appreciate this but other really do. I have left a couple of interviews (I got the role) where people commented on my honesty. The person asking the question generally knows the answer, so don't BS them.
Talk of people knowing the answer, I worked with one guy who used to want to know the answer to esoteric or difficult technical stuff, so asked the same question to at least 2 candidate, and had a set of 5/6 questions. They would design chunks of the system in the interview, and then he'd pick the best guy. He had no idea what the answer should be, but figured if two people gave the same answer it was probably in the ballpark.
As I said at the start relax, one way to get a second to think is take a sip of water before answering. It allows you to get your thoughts in order after the shock of the questions. Also ask for clarification, even if you understand the whole question, again 5 seconds can be enough to pull you head back to the task, and dredge up those critical facts.


text:
How common is it to outsource tedious research tasks to undergrads?
How ethical or common is it for grad students to actively hire undergrads into their lab for the sole purpose of outsourcing tedious labour?
Is this frowned upon and is it really any different than a typical undergrad research opportunity.

I don't know what you mean by "is it really any different than a typical undergrad research opportunity", can you [edit] your post to clarify? You should also specify what field you're referring to, as different fields vary with respect to 1) how much tedious work is involved in research, and 2) how much non-tedious work undergrads and other junior students are capable of.

Also, what do you mean by "hire"?

I sense that you want to hear that this is highly unethical.

If it wouldn't be tedious, it wouldn't be research.

This is somewhat off-topic, but how is it that a student has the authority and funds to hire someone into their lab?

I did a lot of "tedious" labour as an undergrad. No payment, but experience. Yes, I did it willingly, because I accepted that this work has to be done to progress in science, somebody has to do it, and that somebody happened to be me. With time, they realised that I could do more, and gave me more interesting tasks. In German, they say "Lehrjahre sind keine Herrenjahre" - "years as an apprentice are not years as a master." Unless they make you brew coffee or similar unrelated work, I think it is pretty acceptable, as long it is science-relevant.

Ethical?? I don't know how tedious you mean, but I can't imagine how this would be worse than working in a student cafeteria, doing data entry at the student bookstore, "reading library shelves" to spot misshelved books, working at a local fast food restaurant, etc. (all things I did to pay for college costs), and it is also something that looks a lot better on a resume or a graduate school application than these other jobs.

Yeah, one of the things you'll learn if and when you end up in grad school is that research isn't like the sexy BBC documentary it might seem like from the outside. All research is tedious - it's unending menial labour that happens to also need you to use your brain.  If you stick around long enough and get promoted you'll have the honour of getting to do the even more tedious and even less fun stuff, like managing a group of people doing the tedious stuff that attracted you to the job in the first place. If you don't have a passion for tedium then research simply isn't for you.

I'm not reading the books people have written here, but noticed the question in the side bar. As someone who lives in a University city and does a lot of programming consultant work for high end clients, I can assure you, it's extremely normal and done quite often. This is kind of the point of having an intern around.

I am a graduate student, and I often hire undergraduate research assistants.
My primary motivation in hiring undergraduate research assistants is to create opportunities for these students to get a sense of what research is about, gain some experience that can help them get a job or admission to graduate school, and help them figure out what they want to do next.
Sometimes my undergraduate students do work that is tedious, because research can sometimes be tedious. This is especially true when they are inexperienced, because it can be hard to see the bigger picture behind what you're doing. (They may not even have the necessary background to understand the bigger picture, at least not until they've taken some more advanced coursework and read a few dozen research articles.) A good supervisor tries to help students see the big picture, but it's hard.
Supervising undergraduate students is a lot of work for me. I don't do it because it somehow helps me progress in my research by offloading tasks that I really need to get done (if anything, it slows down my research). Usually the work I give to undergrads is work that isn't on the critical path for my own personal research, because I can't trust that it will get done quickly/correctly. And in most cases, by the time my undergrads have learned enough to really be useful to me, they're graduating.
I hire these students because I remember how meaningful my undergraduate research experience was to me, and I want to pay it forward.
To directly answer your question,

How ethical or common is it for grad students to actively hire undergrads into their lab for the sole purpose of outsourcing tedious labour?

It's probably much less common than you think, for the reasons described above. It can happen sometimes in the context of a research effort in which someone has to collect a lot of data, and it doesn't require any knowledge or skill to do so. But even then, it's often quicker for the graduate student to do it himself.
When it does happen, I see no ethical problem as long as the nature of the work is disclosed to the undergrad before he/she accepts the job. Compared to many other student jobs (working the phones and calling alumni for donations, for example), being a pipette monkey is actually probably one of the better jobs.

"if anything, it slows down my research" this has also been my experience after years of undergrad research. It is hard to see this as an undergrad, but usually the grad student really would be faster doing it all her/himself rather than training up a student to do parts of her/his work.

if the students are lacking sufficient knowledge to get the job done quickly, why don't you just let them do the research when they do their dissertations? I know that you want to pay forward, but isn't that when comes to efficiency, the students have more time to study? Sooner or later they will do the research.

Is this true for tasks like data entry? I have had a number of friends who spent a lot of time as undergraduates in research labs doing data entry, mostly copying hand-written survey responses into an Excel sheet. Minimal training necessary, many hours of tedious work done. Not really seeing how the graduate student him- or herself would do it any faster alone.

@KRyan Task like that, and other lab-monkey stuff (e.g. continuity checks on 12,000 cables in the DAQ system) are one of the places where a lab/professor can benefit from undergrad involvement in a way that actually saves time. But even that is not free, as someone has to train the undergrads up to spec and check in on them regularly to make sure that things continue to get done right. I've mostly seen it when the task "belongs" to a grad student or post doc who supervises fairly closely;  it's a force multiplier for your experienced personnel and they get a taste of mentoring.

The cost-benefit calculation behind a decision whether or not to transfer a task set, as noted by @xLeitix, actually applies quite broadly.  One key time in my Ph.D., and multiple times since I took a research job in the private sector, the decision has been made not to transfer a piece of work to someone else because (a) it wouldn't have gotten done much faster anyways, (b) it would've taken two people's time, and (c) the transfer of knowledge would've provided little future benefit.

@KRyan There is very little of this type of tasks in my research, so I can't judge. What there is a lot in my research are programming tasks, which also sound like they should be easy to outsource to an undergrad (assuming that the undergrad can program well). It turns out they are not - undergrads that don't "see the bigger picture" often fail to implement even reasonably well-specified software so that it is of actual use for the research project, and teaching them the bigger picture takes so much time that it would have been faster to just code it yourself.

(I am sure there is an interesting programming "Lesson Learned" in what I just wrote)

I have a fair amount of experience with this - this was how I originally got into research, as an undergraduate, I've been the lab manager for a lab with a large undergraduate component in it, and as a professor I often include undergraduate research assistants in my budget.
Lets address the parts of your question one at a time, paraphrasing a bit for the sake of clarity:

Is it common?

Yes, it's reasonably common to hire an undergraduate assistant to handle boring tasks.

Is it ethical?

This line of questioning seems to have become popular on this site of late: "There is a thing I don't like, is it ethical?" without really articulating why it wouldn't be ethical. Lets say I hire a undergraduate to do the most boring job in my lab. Is that less ethical than if I was the manager at the local Arby's? Or the university library?
There is no ethical obligation to keep an undergraduate entertained and engaged. I have exchanged money for their time and effort. That's all.

Is this frowned upon and is it really any different than a typical
  undergrad research opportunity.

It's certainly not frowned upon, see above. As to whether or not it's different from a typical undergrad research opportunity, that very much depends on what you mean by "typical".
But I will say this: Research is often tedious.
Undergraduate research is often especially tedious because it's often a small chunk of a larger process, and one that can be "safely" given to someone with relatively little expertise and experience. That is not to say it is not essential work - what's given to undergrads is often "Someone has to do this, and it will take lots of time." If a graduate student or professor does it, they can't be doing other things. If an undergrad does it, they can work on advancing the project in other ways in parallel.
Consider some examples from my field:

Abstracting Data: Much of the data for outbreaks of infectious diseases doesn't come in nice, machine readable forms. Instead, it comes in nice, human readable weekly reports, describing what happened that week. Wading through those is tedious and boring - find a number, update some rows on a spreadsheet, rinse, repeat. But someone has to do it. Similarly, one of my first research jobs was taking meteorological reports that were in old hard copies and transcribing them.
Citation tracking: Find a number in the published literature - see where they got it from. See where they got it from got it from. Follow that rabbit hole as far as it goes. Again, this is pretty mindless.

Yes, these are boring. They also have to be done. And in my experience, they're valuable research experience. Wading through references looking for something is how I ended up writing my first review paper. A student (admittedly a graduate student) in a lab I worked in ended up being quite prominent for maintaining some data that was largely just tedious abstraction and making it public.
As @ff524 has said however, this is not without effort, especially if you're also trying to make sure the student is learning and engaging in research. Undergraduates are likely slower, more prone to make mistakes, and need more supervision. It's a lot of investment in time and energy for someone who - if all goes according to plan - won't actually be around for very long.

"There is no ethical obligation to keep an undergraduate entertained and engaged. ... Research is often tedious." Yep.

It is very common in my field (structural engineering) especially if the research involves testing of multiple material specimens (or samples), casting and curing concrete, preparing and installing sensors (strain gauges, LVDTs). We do it for many reasons,

"If you do not see it or touch it (get your hands dirty), you won't understand it." You can't expect a structural engineering student not to be able to work with construction materials! Especially if this student is looking for going to graduate school.
It cuts down on the time needed from graduate students to do "basic" labor work. Although this can be a double edge sword, the undergraduate student can miss up! We make sure that there is a graduate student or lab technician around the undergraduate students to supervise them and provide direction.
We only use the top 1-3 undergraduate students. Those who we know are interested in going to graduate school. This has many advantages as you can expect.
They don't work for free! We pay them too (since generally we don't include them in papers, maybe acknowledge them), this motivates them in a way.
They don't do all the "dirty" work, the graduate student still has to do his part!

Your answer fit more the pattern I see in ecology: lots of manips so we need a lot of ppl to do them. And this is very standardized in my University: undergrad workers got a union, with a minimal salary (that is higher than the minimum salary in my province).

Having been both an undergraduate student and a graduate student/analyst who has hired students, I do understand your frustration, but I also agree with @ff524. It is common to have undergrads help with these things, but depending on the task it can often be incredibly helpful and meaningful to the undergraduate student in the long run.
As an undergraduate student, I entered loads and loads of data for a field research team. Yes – data entry is tedious. But I learned a lot:

Good data collection practices – for example, to write neatly and to include helpful comments for the analyst.
What important pieces of data were collected in the field and what each field meant.
How a data base worked and about relational tables.
How a poorly structured collection form could make data entry almost impossible - and visa versa.
I made connections in the research team that led to amazing field research opportunities.

I have asked my summer students to take over what are likely tedious, repetitive tasks – but in the process, they learned those same things I did as an undergrad: good data management, how to give feedback to a research team, etc. — and both have now been hired on to do more creative work that requires more responsibility.


text:
Is it common to work concurrently on projects with PIs other than your advisor?
Is this a common occurrence? Or is there some expectation to remain loyal to one's advisor and only do projects related to his/her vision. Field is computer science.

It very much depends on your relationship with your PI, funding sources, etc. For example, a PI might discourage this kind of work if you are solely funded by one of their grants, wherein they need most/all of your research output heading toward a specific objective. On the other hand, it might be necessary to work on other projects if you have a gap in funding and need to take a research assistantship elsewhere for a semester or two.
In my own experience, even within a given department (or even a given PI), there's also a component of how interested a given student is in pursuing other projects, and how well they balance their time.

I completely concur.  My advisor encouraged me to work with other PIs as well.  Some of my friends in grad school would have been strongly rebuked for doing the same.


text:
Why do some individuals who are productive PhD students at leading Western institutions, then publish infrequently as faculty in their home country?
I am a computer science student from Turkey. While I was checking the websites and publications of various CS Professors in Turkey for my future studies, I noticed a strange trend. (Excluding minor exceptions)
Usually, these professors hold a Ph.D from leading western institutions, and during their Ph.D they have published papers at extremely competitive top venues, like ICCV, ICDM, ICML and other places depending on their research interests. But, after returning back to Turkey and starting in an academic position, they can't even get their papers published in second tier venues.
So, what might be the reason for this ? If these people can publish during their Ph.D then why can't they do now ? Also, CS is not a field where extremely expensive lab equipment is required. So why are these people unsuccesful at publishing in top conferences/journals ?

Because they were part of a productive group in the prestigious institution they visited. And it's no longer the case.

Because they only published papers in order to get a job in their home country.

The problem that faces faculty at second- (and lower-) tier institutions including those in foreign countries is that research is often not valued or not given the resources necessary to flourish.
For example, at many national universities  faculty have considerable responsibilities other than research, including teaching and national and local service. They may not have enough (or any) quality graduate students to help with teaching,  to inspire them to explore new research areas, or to conduct research together.  They may also have much more administrative duties with much less administrative support.
Finally, there may be little incentive for them to do or publish research. They may have civil service salaries that are not adjusted for research output. External consulting or tutoring may be more lucrative than doing work within the university.

Also, many of the best graduate students go off to do PhDs in the "leading western institutions," so faculty in the home country may have students of a lower caliber overall to work (and publish) with.

@ff524 sure, but still faculty must be able to publish at least one paper alone.

@mehdi It depends on the field - in the systems side of computer science, for example, it's not very common to publish alone.

+1: in particular, though "trying to publish their papers in top venues and failing" is a possibility, I think it's more likely that the institutions they go to have neither the sticks nor the carrots that encourage faculty to publish as often as possible in top places.  One certainly does not have to go to Turkey to see this phenomenon take place: many people within the US are much more research-active as graduate students than they are as tenure-track faculty.  Maybe even most.

Another factor might be that they're actually more interested in teaching than research.  My own MS advisor is an example: published competitive research as a student, now appears only as co-author with his grad students (of which he has about twice as many as anyone else in the department), but has been voted best teacher in the university a couple of times.

So, less whipping less output?

Added "They may not have enough (or any) quality graduate students to help with teaching,  to inspire them to explore new research areas, or to conduct research together"-- tip of the hat to @ff524

too much teaching & community/committee/administrative service workload (overworked), no/less funding, difficult to hire people with same research background, less research culture, the research subfield is almost non-existent in the home country, no/less quality equipment, lower currency, etc.

I think that if the professor really published during his PhD, then probably it's a matter of not enough incentives in his home country (that is, he just needs to teach some courses per year, and scientific production is not a pre-requisite for tenure). In my country, for instance, in one of the most reputable universities, hiring equals tenure.
However, if he didn't publish during PhD, then one of the possibilities is that he just can't do research (not that he is not capable, maybe he just doesn't fit). As far I'm concerned, to get in top10 univ. at US you just need very good grades and excellent LoR, so it's perfectly possible that a very smart yet not good at research do PhD studies at top10.
Then, univ. back in their home country hires them  due to prestige of top10, even if there are better researchers that did top50, for example.

It is true that unfortunately-too-often admission to top-tier grad programs (in STEM, or math, with which I am most familiar) in the U.S. is based on prior events which are not well correlated with subsequent activity or interest, apart from the more common concern about (short-term?) "success". That is, getting through grad school, while a relatively good thing, is not large-scale success. I am acquainted with several high-end quiz-kids who finished PhD's at elite places but did not find much interest in continuing... Certainly no moral failing...

... but, arguably, "losing interest" disserves those faculty and students at a university where one has gained tenure, etc. True, it is a very rough game, and the "win" of getting tenure maybe is enough to absolve anyone. But, still, it's better if one hasn't been crushed into oblivion by that, and can be a help to others. A tricky business.


text:
Can I study and obtain two PhDs in different subjects simultaneously?
I am a student of LLM. After LLM I want to do Ph.D on Waqf family courts. I am also interested in doing a Ph.D on comparative religion from Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi. My doubt is can I do a Ph.D in both subjects simultaneously from the same university or different university, or is it necessary to complete in one subject and then pursue another. After all is it allowed to obtain two Ph.Ds.

This will depend completely on the policies of the institutions involved; it's not possible to give a general answer as to whether it is allowed.  However, I think most people find that doing one PhD occupies all their time and then some; it's hard to imagine being able to successfully complete two simultaneously.

What is LLM? A subject? An institution? A degree?

@Michael: LL.M. is a master's in law from Commonwealth countries.

I understand that you have two research interests (although I don't understand which they are), but why do you want 2 PhDs?

Related: http://academia.stackexchange.com/a/16606/10643

If you want to meet your research interests, imagine a person who has two or three research interests. Is he required to to get two or three other PhDs just because he is interested in a research topic?

See Is doing two PhDs a good path?

I knew someone who was attempting to get two PhDs in different departments at the same institution.  I don't know if he finished.

Check the policies and regulations
Answering to your question hugely depends on the policies of the universities where you want to do PhDs and the country and education system where you are located. Some may allow you and some may not. Even, some universities may not also be interested in students doing simultaneous degrees. Moreover, you need to make sure whether your funding provider (if you are not self-funding) allows you to study for two degrees or not. So, nobody can give you exact information on this part of your question.
However, I have a general advice to you:
Don't run, Walk!
Take a deep breath and answer this question: Why do you want to apply for two PhD degrees simultaneously?
A PhD degree requires the student to spend most of his time studying and collaborating with his/her advisor. You may need to take some courses in each program, spend your time searching for topics and current papers and books, read them, find an original topic for your dissertation. Put all these huge academic chores besides to your personal life.
It is not a good idea to study two degrees even if the policies allow you to do so.
Don't leave your interests
However, if you are so interested in both subjects, you can apply for one PhD as your major research path and follow the other path as you second or minor research interest. Read papers and books about it. Even, in your free time, you can talk to a professor whose research field is near to your minor research path. Attend conferences, colloquiums and seminars about your favorite subject. Keep in mind that you simply don't need to obtain another PhD to meet your research interests.

Not all of this may be universally applicable.

In some countries, such as The Netherlands, a PhD does not (traditionally) require to take courses, but is 100% research-oriented.  But as this answer is written for India, that is not really relevant.

You may want to consider doing your PhD in the interdisciplinary space between Law and Religion, rather than pursuing two separate degrees. This prevents your becoming spread too thin--with time and energy--to be effective at either. You may also find that the interdisciplinary space provides you a unique opportunity with unique research problems.


text:
What does it mean if a committee chair asks if I applied to many similar jobs and if I plan to fly back and forth?
I am currently working at Europe and applying for tenure track positions in US. I will attend an interview that is held by a school.
The committee chair told me to research on the air tickets.
Also, in her message she asked if I applied many schools in US and if I plan to fly back and forth.
I do not know how to answer this question because I am not sure what she meant. Does she want other schools to share the international fare? If so should I contact other schools about it (that was the first school offering me interview)?

When she asked if you applied to many schools and if you plan to fly back and forth, she meant did you apply to a relatively large number of schools in the US, and do you plan to fly backwards and forwards between Europe and these schools if invited for interviews? Rather than trying to second-guess her, perhaps just answer her question honestly and see what she says next.

We have no way of knowing her motivations for her questions. But I can say, NO you should not contact other schools about sharing international fares.

Unfortunately there are budget constraints at all institutions, and interviewing faculty can be an expensive affair.  Most likely, this is a polite way of trying to figure out whether you'll already be state side during a date range they'd want to interview you. No reason to have you hop the pond repeatedly if the timing works out.
No, you should not preempt the question and ask other schools about sharing airfare.
I am tempted to think this school is reluctant to spend the money to bring people from abroad over.  It is somewhat strange they would have you research airfare. In my experience, there is staff that takes care of that. I, for one, would mark this in the 'con' column, because if they skimp on airfare for desirable faculty, what else might they skimp on?


text:
How important is the meeting with the dean in a faculty interview?
I was invited to a campus interview for a tenure track faculty job. The chair just told me that the dean might not be on campus on the date I chose and he/she would talk with me on the phone. I am wondering how important is the meeting with the dean? Should I reschedule the visit so that I can meet the dean in person?

In US institutions I'm familiar with, the meeting with the dean serves the following purposes:

It is a way for the dean to exert oversight over the hiring process. While the dean is usually not able to tell if the candidate is really as amazing as the department will claim he/she is when they later ask to hire him/her, the dean can at least provide a basic sanity check, filter out obviously unqualified candidates, or detect various red flags indicating that there may be something seriously wrong with the department's candidate selection mechanism.
It is a way for the dean to signal to the department that he/she takes hiring seriously and is involved in the process. This may lead the department faculty to also take it more seriously and approach hiring with more respect and integrity.
It is a way for the department and dean to signal to the candidate that they take him/her seriously, to the extent that the dean is making his/her precious time available for the purpose of having the meeting. If the candidate is a hot commodity being sought after by several schools, this can be important.
It is an opportunity for the candidate to impress the dean with his/her brilliance. Usually the dean will not be so involved with decision making that this will make much of a difference, but nonetheless, there are subtle ways that the dean being particularly impressed with a candidate (or conversely, particularly unimpressed) can be communicated down the hiring chain, and in cases of extreme brilliance/lack thereof this could end up making a difference.
It is an opportunity for the dean to impress the candidate with his/her own brilliance. The interview is a two-sided event in which both parties are evaluating each other, so this is part of the package of the university trying to sell itself to an attractive candidate. Again, usually candidates won't care so much about the personality of the dean where they are interviewing, but in extreme cases a super-amazing dean can make the school seem materially more attractive, and a super-horrible dean can make the candidate run for their life.

Usually none of these effects are very significant, and not meeting the dean almost certainly won't make any difference one way or another on the outcome of the interview. The final use for the meeting that I can think of is the only one that actually matters somewhat (though still not very much), which is:

In the event that the candidate met with the dean and was later hired, they arrive at a campus where they already met the dean. This contributes to their sense of familiarity with the place (and presumably confidence that it is well run) and gives them a feeling that if there is any trouble at the department they know who to go to. A small thing perhaps, but still worth something in my opinion...

Bottom line: in your situation, don't worry about it. If you end up being hired you will meet the dean sooner or later.

This depends very strongly on the institution.  At many larger US institutions, meeting the dean is little more than a formality since the decision is essentially made by the faculty in the department that would hire you, and the dean generally signs off on whatever they determine.  But in other universities the Dean may play a key role in the decision process; this is the case, for instance, at my current institution.  In that situation, it is preferable to meet the dean in person in order to make a stronger impression.
Ideally, you would have a colleague in the department you're applying to who could give you an inside view on how essential dean is to the decision process.

In an institution in which a meeting with the dean was important, the department chair would say that it is, and probably insist on rescheduling the OP's visit. Since the chair apparently didn't do either of those things, that means this is not one of these institutions.

Should I reschedule the visit so that I can meet the dean in person?

I don't see a need to do this, unless your contact person suggests as much.  However, you can optionally ask whether it would be better to reschedule.
If the department feels a phone interview is workable, then it should be fine.
An exception would be, if English is not your first language, or you have a hearing impairment, that might make it more difficult for you to understand what's being said, or asked, in a phone interview.


text:
Can a list of scientific numbers be shortened with only the final having the exponent?
If I have a list of numbers 24 x 105, 15 x 105, 2 x 105, etc. In a medical journal article, is it acceptable to write 24, 15, and 2 x 105?

I think that it would be rather confusing to use this approach in the text of publication. If you would be using such numbers in a tabular format, though, you could specify common multiplier in the appropriate column's header and use base numbers as corresponding cells' values.

In my field, the notation a(b) to represent a x 10bis common for tables with variable exponents. There would always be an explanatory note in the table, however.

Shouldn't that be 2.4 x 10^6, 1.5 x 10^6, etc. ?

Short answer: No. It is not acceptable, because it is confusing. There are examples when a list of data points includes 3x105 and 5x100 at the same time --- how can the reader be sure how to interpret what you suggest?
If you insist on using it, you have to get around the confusion in some way. One of the used tricks is if you make it in a table:

--------------------------------------------
 Experiment           1    2    3    4    5
 Value (in 10^5 kg)  24   15   3.1   8   40
--------------------------------------------

This way you make it clear that the multiplier 105 applies to all values. This is mostly usable for large data sheets. For couple values like you show, I would stick to the standard notation and keep the multipliers with each value.

You don't need a table to do so, just like this: "the values of the experiences, in 10^5 kg, are 24, 15, so on"

@Ooker I would be quite unhappy about such a presentation of the data (with my copy editor hat on), it's still borderline unclear.

I can't see why it's unclear. Can you elaborate your thought?

authors: وائل الهبيط الهبيط