text:
Is it bad etiquette to come to office hours that aren't for your particular class?
I study mathematics at a large state university. My professors sometimes teach two courses in a given semester, usually two undergraduate or one undergraduate, one graduate course. Typically they hold separate office hours for each course.
I come up with questions about what I'm learning at various times throughout the week, and often it's more convenient to ask this question in the office hours for the other course the professor is teaching, i.e. the course I'm not in. Perhaps it's the fastest way to get my answer, perhaps the office hours for my course have passed for the week, whatever reason.
Would you consider using office hours for a different course (but same professor) bad etiquette? (I do try to give priority to students of the other course, and try to avoid taking up too much time if there are students waiting.)
(Note: most of my professors have a open-door type policy, so I don't think they really mind. This question is more on a general level, i.e. including professors that don't have such policies in place.)

Why don't you just ask the professor? It is definitely not bad etiquette to ask what he/she prefers.

@DanielE.Shub I'm not too worried about what my current professors think of the issue - like I said, they have an open-door policy and hence sometimes I even visit during non-office hours. The question was out of general curiosity.

If it were me, I'd go to whichever one (and probably apologise if it were the 'wrong' one, thus also discovering if it bothers him), and make a point not to go to the other one that week.

If they have an open-door policy, then assuming that their door is open is perfectly ethical.

I don't think the professor minds too much, but you should of course be prepared for him to decline if he chooses to. Though I myself could hardly care less, I have colleagues who would definitely think unsuitable (because it's not how it's planned).
However, I think the other students might mind, as you noted, if they began to see it as you “stealing” time from their limited allocation. As always, sharing is no problem unless the resource is scarce :)
So, in short, I don't think it's a big problem, given that you are mindful of others.

I think the last line is perfect, I often have former students stopping to ask questions, and I answer unless I have a line of my students waiting.

I agree with this. Basically, it shouldn't be a problem so long as you're not intruding on other people's time. If there are people waiting to talk to the professor from the proper class, they should have priority during the office hours for that class.

+1 for being mindful of others.  If there are students from the class the office hours are for with questions, they should take priority over questions for the other class.

Until a student comes into my office, it doesn't matter what course my office hours are for: I am not preparing for them in any way.  Most likely I am trying to do "side work": i.e., short, routine tasks that are easily set aside as soon as a student steps in.  If only one student comes in, it doesn't matter what class they're taking.  In fact, it probably doesn't matter if they are taking any class from me at all: if a student wants to stop by my office for any quick reason (e.g. to sign paperwork), then I often tell them to come during my office hours because I know I'll be there.
The only issue occurs when multiple students arrive.  Whenever this happens one has to decide how to "process" the students: serially, in a group, all at once, alternately, and so forth.  This is where designating an office hour as being for a certain class becomes useful: when the student flow is expected to be sufficiently large.  (If I really think the flow will be minimal, then I am not averse to provisionally scheduling office hours for multiple classes at the same time.  E.g. if one class is a graduate class then students will probably stop by very rarely, and if they see I am busy they have an office in the same building and can easily come back after a short time.)  If for instance a student from one class came by right at the beginning of my office hours designated for another class, then I would probably warn them that they could get interrupted at any point, and when the students from the other class came I would give them priority.
From the student perspective, office hours are affected by the distinction between research universities and liberal arts colleges.  As a professor at a research university, I do not feel obligated to "generally" be in my office during business hours, and if I am I may not keep my door open.  (In my department, there is a bit of a split between faculty who are generally available in their office and those that are not.  I have found that being in your office with your door open invites a lot of wasted time.)  However at a liberal arts college, many faculty are in their offices whenever they're not teaching or out to lunch, with the expectation that students can and will drop by at any time.  I visited an old friend at a research college a few years ago, and the situation there was amusingly extreme: the math department student study area was in the center of  a beautiful split-level space, with glass blackboards, study materials....:the works.  Lining the periphery of this lovely oval were....the faculty offices.  Continuing the glass theme, the interior walls of the faculty office were made of glass.  Thus: you can't leave your office without walking by the students (who are few enough in number that you know most of them personally), and a student can see at all times whether you're in your office or not!  In this kind of setting, coming in during some other class's office hours would be unnecessary and is probably a little rude.
Students can schedule an appointment to meet outside of office hours.  My own attitude to this is that if someone contacts me on Day N, then I will offer them an appointment on Day N+2 at the latest, and on Day N+1 unless I will be away from my office or my whole day is booked solid with specific appointments (which is rare).  In many cases I would rather book an appointment even a few hours in the future than be interrupted from what I'm doing in my office at that moment.  This is mostly psychological, but no less true for that.  I'm not sure why students don't do this more often.  In fact, having booked appointments, students fail to show up an annoyingly large percentage of the time. That kind of spaciness wears a lot better once you have a PhD.

If the professor has specifically announced that certain hours are for each course, then I would expect showing up with your questions during the other course's hours to be deeply unfair and annoying to the students of that course who have shown up as they've been told to. And I would not expect the professor to guide you in this, a lot of professors will happily ramble on in response to whatever question comes their way.
And many of the other students will be struggling to keep up with their own course and quite mystified on how to make sense of the material you're covering.
If you show up at the other course's hours and find nobody else there, or wait until those students really have no further questions of their own, then I think it'd be fair to ask if you could introduce material from your course. Be very sensitive to the other students' response and allow a period of dead-air before you ask further questions. Assume that any of them who stick around during your question actually do have questions of their own they're waiting to ask.
You might also ask the professor if an e-mail discussion would be possible, or if there are additional times that can be scheduled ad-hoc.


text:
Become not interested in my research topic after two years of my PhD?
I am supposed to finish my PhD in four years. But after two years of working on a topic, I become not interested in the topic any more. I found out that the topic is boring. What should I do? Should I continue forcing myself to work on the topic, or should I change to something more interesting? I do not want to extend my PhD since my funding only allows me to pursue the degree for four years.
EDIT:
The research topic is quite old, and I think it does not have too much potential in future development. There are already many methods to solve the problem I am working on, and doing a PhD is not using the existing methods, but inventing new ones; this is rather difficult and depressing.

Are you able to finish it anyway?

The ability to proficiently and successfully do boring things is an invaluable skill, in almost any job/role. However, if that is the path you should do or not, nobody can answer but you.

"I found out that the topic is boring." --- So what? A lot of good and important things are boring, and a lot of exciting and interesting things are an utter waste of time. Soap operas for example are very exciting, they are built that way. Should we all do soap operas?

This is a conversation you need to have with your supervisor. If they are any good at supervising, they can help with strategies to either reignite your interest in your topic or salvage what you have done and apply it to something else. If you dislike your topic now, writing it up will be even worse and you may not be able to produce something passable. This is exactly what PhD supervisors are for.

I'm not convinced. The problem is more of a psychological problem, and I'm somewhat certain the supervisor will not be able to solve it, because for the supervisor the area is probably fascinating. It's also dangerous to tell your supervisor you're uninterested in their work. The OP should do a soul search within himself I reckon. Take a while to think things through.

Yikes...if you can't talk to your supervisor, who can you talk to? "Dangerous"? That is literally what they are there for. I'd consider myself a total failure as a PhD supervisor if any of mine ever thought talking to me honestly about their research interests and goals was "dangerous". If someone has that crap a supervisor, they should be looking to get out of there fast!

Also, may be field specific. In my field my supervisees' projects are not terribly closely related to mine, just thematic ties, and reframing and salvaging is certainly possible at the halfway point.

In my field it would even be research-group-specific. Some PIs are very hands-on and own the topic so much that they "hold hands" with the student, especially in the first years. Others are very hands-off and talk to their supervisees once every full moon.

I have sufficient experience to asses that, in many cases, and specifically in what seems to be here a complete rebuke of the research of the advisor (see "The research topic is quite old, and I think it does not have too much potential in future development"), this is not something that will lead to a productive solution. This will lead to either dropping out or to changing an advisor. I recommend then changing an advisor.
Of course, politely and gently talking about this with the advisor first is a good way to go forward.

note the OP has added information now

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it possible to improve(fix) a paper after its acceptance by the conference
After getting the conference's decision to publish a paper there is a short period of time to prepare and sent a camera ready version. However, during the review period, it was found that the paper can be improved significantly or that the minor bug can be fixed.
Is it acceptable to change the scientific content of the paper after it's acceptance?
If yes, to what extent one can change the paper? I am especially interested in the minor setting of the experiment.
Should one inform the conference chairman if he's gonna make changes (fixes)?

What is the field? I have the feeling that CS would be different than anything else.

Generally, papers presented at conferences include the preliminary results, and the purpose is to receive feedback on your preliminary results and improve them for the final study. If this is the case with your paper, I think you could consider making the improvement after the conference, since you are going to improve the study anyways later on based on the inputs you receive at the conference. However, if you strongly feel that making the change would improve the paper significantly, you can write to the Chairman and explain your concern. If he agrees, you can make the change.

I can't speak for all disciplines, but in my area (somewhere
on the boundary between theoretical and practical CS) I've never
met anyone who claimed that changes from the submitted
version to the final version of a conference paper
have to be restricted to those
issues that were spotted by the reviewers.
That means: yes, of course you may fix bugs – in fact, you are
supposed to. You may update experimental results, if you clearly
state that the results published in the final version were obtained using
Comcom-Moc, vers. 3.1.4, 2016-09-24. You may include better
examples, and you may add further explanations.
The caveat is that you may not make changes that might
have influenced the opinion of the reviewers negatively.
So, for instance, if you spot a bug in Comcom-Moc, vers. 3.1.3
(i.e., in the version used in the submitted version),
you must of course fix it, but if
the results for vers. 3.1.4 look a lot less
impressive than the results for the buggy old version,
you have to inform the editor – neither keeping the old results
(which are known to be invalid) nor silently replacing
them by the new ones (which are possibly no longer competitive) would be acceptable. The same applies if you find a bug
in a theoretical proof that can only be repaired by replacing
the main statement of the paper by something significantly
weaker.

In general, you should go ahead and make the change without consulting anyone if it:

Fixes typos, spelling, layout, readablilty without significantly impacting the content or flow of the paper.
Adds results or comments supporting the claims made (and accepted) during review.
Does not result in anything being removed from the paper, or the "results in the paper being weakened" *

Especially if you are adding more results, you should note that this does not permit you to remove anything from the paper to stay within the page limit if applicable.
For any other (major) changes, you should contact the track chair through the conference organizers.
*Closely paraphrased actual wording I have seen for an intl. conference.

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


text:
What can be the end product of my PhD dissertation? Can a PhD be an applied research?
I know that the end product of a master's thesis can be not only a scientific finding, such as the relationship found between certain variables, but also the business plan, or even a concept for a new product or service.
What can be the end product of my PhD dissertation? My idea is to actually to carry out a research project, in other words, to have some 100-200 interviews, collect some qualitative data etc. But can a business plan / model be my actual finding? Can I make a business case, develop that something [and later sell it as a finished product], but still call this everything a PhD by turning the idea into a scientific problem, and having a product as a result / finding?
Can a PhD be an applied research?
Working title: Development of an innovative marketing product (or service) for tourism industry, and understanding a demand for such a product (or service).
Field of study: Marketing / Innovation / Tourism

@matinking Marketing / Innovation / Tourism

What does your advisor say?

@BillBarth I am still working on developing the idea myself. What I want to know is, if a PhD is a pure scientific work or it can be something for practice / business?

Sometimes the output of a PhD (say in English) is most of a book on a topic. Maybe you can go talk to a few Marketing professors at your university and see what they think. They're much more likely to know what is acceptable in your field.

@Tema that would depend on the specifics of the field and on your particular university requirements for being awarded a PhD. If you don't have an advisor yet nor contacts at the university, you can look at former theses of previous students; if no one has that it probably means the answer is no.

There are huge funding opportunities for students and startups available in my country, the government and institutions support everyone who has an idea, but if with startups it is understandable, the question is if my startup-like research project would count for a PhD. Is it really depending on a country / university? Are there any / many PhD dissertations leading to a product / startup idea at all?

Typically if you do a PhD, the IP will belong to the university (at least partially, but often entirely), so the eventual product would not be yours to sell. Based on your post, I must ask the question why you want a PhD? I get the feeling you misunderstand PhDs on a conceptual level.

@MarcClaesen I need to define "a research problem", which is now more like "a practice problem". I want a PhD to enrich my academic writing skills at the same time and have a title so that I may also have a possibility to teach and do a more scientific job in the future. Plus the PhD develops analytical thinking, which is also not bad for entrepreneurs. There are even courses like PhD in Management / Entrepreneurship available today.

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


text:
Email addresses for research assistants
What is the best email address for a Research Assistant (RA)?
I noticed that most of the RAs and faculty in grad schools use their first name only as an email handle, like: firstname@school.edu.
However, as far as I know, the "perfect" professional email address would be like: FirstnameLastname@school.edu.
Only few of them used this format but with a dot in the middle, like: Firstname.Lastname@school.edu.
I think it might be neater to use the firstname-only form, but is it still professional to use it?
I'm sorry for this silly question, but I would appreciate your clarification.

Surely this is entirely dependent on your institution's policy for assigning email addresses? Other than at very small institutions, the chance that you have any choice in the matter at all is minimal...

This is probably going to get closed for inviting too many opinions. There's no definitive answer, and I don't even agree that most RAs choose the first@school.edu format. That would have been already taken at my university. I had 'bbarth@labname.school.edu' because we ran our own mail back then.

I like firstname@glastname.com, so that it stays the same whichever institution I happen to work for or study at.

@Gaurav: what does the "g" stand for?

@Taladris it's my first initial, but I didn't want to write down "first@(first initial)last.com", so I went for the simpler option and hoped people would think it was a typo. Alas, no :-P

I'm not really sure why this is closed as "opinion-based" --- it seems pretty straightforward to me.

Most schools don't actually give you a choice: they simply set you up with a standard email address following their standard format.  Often this is some combination of first name or first initial plus last name, though I've even seen some schools give everybody a horrible alphanumerical mess as their official email address.  Many places will then also give you an option of setting up one or more email aliases, which you can use to modify the default.
Personally, I think that anything that includes your last name (and nothing else bizarre) is pretty reasonable and professional.  For my own case, for example, one can reach me in various locations with various forms of "beal", "jbeal", "jakebeal", "jacobbeal", and "jacob.beal", all of which convey the same basic information of "yes, this is who you think it is."
It is worth noting that, in some circles, being the one to get your first name or your initials on a system can be considered particularly special.  This is because it can indicate that you had been a very early adopter and/or involved in the system's development.  That's unlikely to be the case for most RAs at a university, however.

In a small group, particularly one you are starting, you might be able to set policy by selecting your email. Otherwise, you are probably stuck with whatever local policy dictates. At LSU when starting my PhD I was asked for my preferred Unix login, I gave my surname (exactly 8 letters ;-). Here in Chile middle names aren't commonly used, so we used first initial + (at most) 7 letters of the surname; if that gave a collision, use middle initial to disambiguate; if still colliding, apply some special rule. The university policy is first.last, decorated by numbers (2, 3, ...) in case of repeats. At least at the Computer Lab of Cambridge in the UK the policy seems to be three initials plus a number.

Cambridge has used abc123 across all departments since more or less day one, I believe, and it's assigned sequentially. They're into (or close to?)  four digits for some of the most common two-letter pairs.


text:
Wrong PhD project choice for PhD - stick it out, change, leave?
I have just passed my transfer for a PhD project I don't enjoy, and am trying to decide what to do next.
Some background first:
I graduated originally as an MEng, but have been out of engineering practise for approximately 10 years. I started my PhD at a UK Doctoral Training Centre with a view to re-entering engineering with some more up to date knowledge/discovering academia was where I wanted to be and staying. With 20-20 hindsight, I should have probably done a Masters to find this out, but anyway.
I had a fairly free project choice, and chose something I thought would be interesting, but in a new area for me. I have had doubts for about six months, but told myself that I was just stressed about transfer, and shouldn't make any decisions until I had got through that and could think clearly. In doing so I may well have dug myself in deeper. I have two years of funding left, and could leave with a Masters at any time.
Anyway, as far as I see it I have three options:
Re-shape my project to see if I can finish it. My reservations about this are that I am not really part of a research group and one of the difficulties I have faced is not having anyone to guide me when I get stuck. I'm pretty much learning everything for the first time, alone. While I could reshape the project, I worry that I will just find myself back here again in a few more months. I have convinced myself a number of times already that "it will be alright" but it still isn't.
Approach other academics at the Uni to start again with something completely new (I am funded, not the project). Has anyone else completely changed their project a year in and completed on time? Has anyone changed after transfer/upgrade - is this even possible?
Go to the engineering industry and try and convince them that the masters I have as a result of the first part of my studies is useful, and that the career path I have had to date (which has been varied) will settle with a return to engineering. How I convince them that I have the sticking power and the skills after 10 years off and a half-finished research degree is another matter...
I have started to talk to my tutor at University about option one and two, but would appreciate some advice from those not invested in the outcome. Thanks

You can definitely change your topic after nearly a year in (or close to that) - in fact this happened to a colleague of mine whose funding stipulated that he remained at this university while the whole department moved to another university. - Obviously that requires that whoever "takes you in" is interested in doing so. How this works out with regards to funding would be up to your funder - it may be possible that it leaves you with only 2 years of funding.
A lot of things are possible if there is interest in it - i.e. if you have the support of your supervisors/the faculty in general.

A second comment I would make is that it is unfortunately not unusual for PhD Students to end up working on topics on their own with little support and with no clear plan as to where it goes. The lucky ones become part of a team - but they are the minority. It is also a further reality that a PhD often starts out in one area and then develops into another.

An on a final note, I will leave you with a link - which originally popped up on LinkedIn a long time ago but could be very well relevant to you - you are not alone with those feelings: http://crypto.junod.info/2013/09/09/an-aspiring-scientists-frustration-with-modern-day-academia-a-resignation/

Thanks DetlevCM,it's good to know that others have done it.

Is there something that does interest you? From your question, it appears that you don't already have something in mind. In practice, this means you would likely spend another 6 months casting around for a research question. If this is true, then your timing is tighter than you think. One option is to suspend while you are working this out (and get a job during that time).
Ultimately, you should consider why you are doing a PhD. If you are after the piece of paper to get access to an academic career, then the project itself is less important. In this situation, you could try and address the 'working alone' problem without changing projects. For example, do you have some skills that are different to your project team and you could collaborate on a small project with another student, or provide data analysis or programming assistance? Could you establish a journal club or something similar to learn with the other students?
On the other hand, if you are doing a PhD because you have a burning desire to do research in a particular field, then the project is more important. Not just because you want to develop expertise in that field, but also because the PhD research starts your contact network and partly positions you for post-doc jobs.
I did change topics (drastically) nine months into my PhD. I took a 3 month break during which I earned some money, did some reading and thought about a new question. My particular scholarship had extension provisions so I was funded for 3 years after I re-entered. I did complete within that extended time and could definitely have completed more quickly if I needed to. I wasn't in the UK system, so I can't comment on how much change you are permitted, but I had to do some paperwork that was mostly because I changed part of the supervisor team.

Thanks Jen. There are other things that interest me, yes. The question was quite vague, mainly to avoid it becoming huge. I moved away from my original research ideas and interests when I chose my project, because I couldn't find the "perfect" project in that field and thought a new challenge would be preferable. That, in hindsight, was the first step to where I find myself now. I'm going to see if I can take a break and go back to re-explore that field and what is on offer.

I am going to assume as a funded science PhD, you have something in the region of 3.5 years of funding.
You're only a year in, so it's not too late to change. There is even time for you to change completely (though it could be a lot of work to get done on time before your money runs out).
Typically I would say the first year of your PhD will involve you gaining useful knowledge and skills, though a project that may well not end up being what you write about in your thesis. It's your second and more the third year where you have the skills and can really do some research for your thesis.
Saying that, don't hang about! Organise a meeting with your supervisor asap to go over the options with them, they are given the position of supervisor as they should know how to steer their students to get a good PhD, but they can only help you if you tell them that you're not happy and what you want to do. You will have gained useful skills, so the time hasn't been wasted, but you do need to sort it out sooner rather than later.
I would hope there are other projects available you can move into, but the worst case scenario isn't the end of the world. Like you say with minimal effort you should be able to write up what you have done and get a Masters, then move on with that qualification and experience.

Thanks Matt. Just to clear up some points I didn't get across for future answers - I have two years of funding left, and could leave tomorrow with the masters already accomplished.

@Anon-ee-mouse: You can edit the question to add this (IMHO relevant) information.

@Matt depends on the funding body. Some people on industry funded PhDs get only 3 years - and then it is up to the department to find money. In other cases you can get the sponsor to provide some extra funding. If it is EPSRC in the UK it is generally 3.5 years, then again they apparently prefer doctoral training centres which I believe would be 4 years.

@Anon-ee-mouse: I went with 3.5 as it was the middle of the usual 3-4 year funding period. As the other answers suggest, 2 years left is enough time if you work hard, it would just be  easier if you had a bit longer.
It sounds like it depends on what your supervisors suggest or are willing to do. Theres no point being unhappy for another 2 years, but if they just didn't realise you weren't happy, hopefully they can work something out with you that is better. As you say, they have an interest in not losing you, so they should want to help!

My own Phd drifted off from its initial question and I spent considerable extra time to finish it. This required financing out of my own pocket by keeping a job and doing the thesis in parallel. I cannot recommend it, but at least 'I got it my way'.
I have no advice, but a comment: Your framing of the problem reveals two different logics: Your engineering training shows through in a utalitarian idea of normative decision making. But wondering if the options will be accepted by your fellows and former emplyees suggests an approach to decisionmaking as appropriatness. Amartya Sen has argued that there are different levels to be considered, where acting morally or appropriate is at a different level than acting opportunistic or utalitarian. It might be that your problem is situated at a conflict between your trained rational-choice reasoning and your intuitive ideas of what is the right thing to do. I have no idea where it would lead you, but what about asking your gut what you feel is the right thing; towards yourself, your financiers, the academic community, the engineering business environment or your friends and family: Which option will make you and your fellows proud of your choice? If you prefer an intellectual approach to adjacent lines of thinking, you could do some reading on 'the logic of appropriateness' or 'social contract and choice'.

Short Answer: Stick with the PhD, if your problem is the project approach and/or solving problem on your own.
Read your question carefully two times, and here are couple of points based on your question, my own and other friends' situation similar to yours:
Aim of Ph.D.: Ok, lets go back to basic. What is the aim of Ph.D. at least within UK universities: to 'contribute' something to a field, and learn how to read and write research.
'Perfect' Project: There is not such a thing, at least at the Ph.D. level; and don't waste time looking for it. This is because, perfection in your eyes are subjective and based on your incomplete knowledge of all the sub sections of your field. The point here is that, there is a Ph.D. level problem and you want to solve it and contribute a solution to its field.
I'm Alone & Depressed: If you are fortunate enough the supervisor(s) gave you the freedom to 'sink or swim' then take the challenge and learn how to 'swim' and contribute to the field. If you suffer from depression you need to talk to the student service first hand; if not useful talk to your GP (free in the UK) he/she will guide you to get professional help.
Two Years of Funding: You have actually enough time and money. You will have a year to finish your research and another one to write up your thesis and submit.

I wouldn't say it is "fortunate" if your supervisor leaves you excessive free reign - because it often comes coupled with a lack of resources. (Some personal experience there...) - Now if you are working on pure maths or something else purely theoretical, that is no issue, however in any field that requires experimental setups or first hand data that can be a huge problem. In addition, the ability to discuss a topic with someone is very beneficial - they may notice things you overlook and vice versa - so being alone can be very problematic.

Of course the other extreme of a very controlling supervisor isn't any better.

Thanks Dave, your reply definitely gave me pause to check what is driving my thoughts and feelings. Though I know there is no "perfect" project, I am pretty sure there is one that fits much better than my current research.  Finally, using your analogy I am all up for learning how to swim, but perhaps with a research group around me to point out that different strokes exist.


text:
Adviser-Poaching and the Politics of Graduate School
My boyfriend, Mark, is pursuing his PhD in Aerospace Engineering at a prestigious school. He has just finished up his 2nd year and passed his qualifying exam last semester. His adviser is Chinese, and the two other students are Chinese as well.
My boyfriend, being the only American citizen, feels like he is more or less the designated "proof-reader," always writing and editing their papers, presentation, and even their post-doc's papers. On top of that, his adviser is a "paper-pusher" and is more interested in publishing papers than the actual research. There have been instances of "academic fraud" where data plot graphs depicting test results are shown with a perfect straight line. Research papers and perfect results seem to be the most important thing in which his adviser is interested. Mark is very unhappy with the lab group dynamic (it's very difficult being the only American student), and the research.
When Mark first visited the university during his senior year of undergrad, many professors had turned him down (he had a 3.0 GPA, which barely makes the cut-off), except for this adviser. Mark feels indebted to this one advisor who showed faith in Mark. Although nice, the advisor did leave Mark to believe that the research and studies would be focused on Thermal-Fluids and aircraft design. This adviser has a track record with the university being misleading and vague. The research that Mark has been doing for the past 2 years have strayed away further and further from what he actually wants to do.
Now being in graduate school for 2 years, Mark has maintained a 3.9 GPA. He has spoken to another professor about his research. This professor is interested in Mark and has the funding to provide to Mark, but is very concerned about poaching students, even though Mark was the one who approached this professor.
Mark has tried to convey to his current professor that he is unhappy with the research and the lab-group dynamic. He also mentioning about this other professor. Instead of "quitting" oh his current professor, he tried to compromise saying how he can have "co-advisers" still working with his current adviser, but getting funding with the other. He tried to meet in the middle, but instead his current adviser dismissed this idea and avoided the situation.
Mark then talked to the administration: the department head and another person who handles these cases. They agree with him, and come to understand the situation. Like mentioned, this adviser has a track record of being misleading, so they are aware of his intentions. When the four of them met, the adviser was very angry, calling this meeting unprofessional and unnecessary, talking about Mark like he wasn't in the room, and accusing the other professor (who was absent) of poaching. It became apparent during this meeting this adviser is more invested in the research (in fear of losing lab researchers), than Mark's academic future and his studies.
Two days after this meeting, the adviser sends Mark a very long email. It entails a very "guilt trip" paragraph claiming that he wouldn't be here if it wasn't for him (how others turned him down for funding). He also seems to be playing the victim card saying he wished that Mark had talked to him about this. He also mentioned that he had talked to the other professor.
It appears that this is a very manipulating and toxic adviser. What Mark is concerned about is what his current adviser had talked to this new professor about. This new professor is VERY concerned about making it seem like he is poaching Mark away from his adviser. He is concerned that the new professor will back out of all of this, and he will be left going back to his old adviser since he's depending on funding.
What should he do in this specific situation? Any thoughts, suggestions, insight will be helpful.

There's been instances of "academic fraud" Reported ones? You are saying this adviser has a documented history of academic fraud? In my opinion, Mark needs to eject before the crash.

@CapeCode "academic fraud" as in manipulating test results to allude to a specified conclusion. The adviser will ask Mark to remove certain test points and change some of the values from their data to show a "perfect trend." Nothing has been recorded, but he has had a track record of being very loose with his words and vague, to get away with other things.

There have been instances of "academic fraud"... this adviser has a track record of being misleading ... a very "guilt trip" paragraph — Don't walk. Run.  Screw the funding.  Just get out.

Right, that's what I feared. With all the empathy I can have for Mark, the fraud thing is the killer criterion eject, eject!

@Dodd, what precisely do YOU see as racist in this question?

Accusing the OP of racism is a rather serious charge (and for my part, I see no anti-Chinese bias in this post; cultural differences can cause conflict or misunderstanding without either side being at fault). But let us not get into an argument in the comments: if you really see a pattern of racial bias, I recommend you open a discussion on meta so the community as a whole can examine the evidence and recommend next steps.

The damage has already been done in this situation, and your boyfriend should move on with his future.
Basically, at this point, I don't see any way in which the relationship with his current advisor can be mended. The name calling and guit tripping makes for an impossible working environment. Even if he were to stay, he would have to deal with the cloud of the previous attempt to leave hanging over his head. Therefore, it is in his best interests to find a new advising situation as quickly as possible.

Thanks @aeismail ! Though the big concern is finding the new adviser. He is dependent on funding, and that new professor is very hesitant to "student-poaching". Definitely agree that the damage is already done.

@Paulina I would be very hesitant to label the situation student-poaching. Mark needs to tell his current advisor directly and without any ambiguity that it was his decision to leave due to their incompatibility, and that he had begun approaching other staff members about changing advisor. If Mark's current advisor won't accept this, the advisor is just digging an even deeper hole for himself.

@Moriarty Yes, I agree, I wouldn't label the situation as student-poaching since Mark is the one approaching other faculty. The issue is that there seems to be a large disconnect in communication between him and his current adviser. He's rejecting that idea (very delusional) and believes that Dr. A (the professor that Mark approached) is poaching him. Dr. A is also concerned how it may appear as well. Thanks again for your input!

@Paulina how is the current advisor viewed amongst the other faculty? If it's widely known that he is not a "good" member of the department (to put it concisely!), any slander will probably be treated with great suspicion.

I agree that he needs to move on. Perhaps Mark could approach the administrators who were at the meeting, and ask them to talk with the potential adviser about Mark's need to change advisers ASAP. The meeting may have helped convince them of that need.

Yes, he's been more or less still in contact with the administrators during this process. They are very useful tools during this process (moderating meetings, giving him advice). It's still tough though since his current adviser is being very difficult not taking it well (calling their meeting "unprofessional and unnecessary" and accusing the potential new adviser a student-poacher.

I am specifically suggesting that the administrators could reassure Dr. A that he will not be generally viewed as a student-poacher, but as someone who is providing a constructive solution to a difficult problem. I am sure calling a meeting they held "unprofessional" has not helped the current adviser's political standing.

I agree with what's been said....  Keep in mind that Dr. A and Crappy Current Advisor are colleagues in the same department.  We don't know what previous history they may have had with each other.  One way or the other, you have to recognize this is an awkward position for Dr A.  Just as CCA has been laying a guilt trip on Mark, he probably plays these games with colleagues as well, and Dr A may feel embarrassed for his colleague, or may want to avoid unpleasant conflict.  Bottom line, say good-bye to Dr A; check in regularly with Dr. A and administration.  Yes, it's a bit of a gamble, but

clearly Mark can't stay with CCA -- he's already burned a significant part of the bridge.  The thing to do now is to find ways to minimize the impact on the relationship between CCA and Dr A.  Good luck to Mark!  What you can do, Paulina, is help Mark concentrate on other things while he's waiting for formal acceptance from Dr A.  Don't bring up this topic unless Mark does....  He's fortunate to have you there to support him!

Oh dear, there's a mistake in the first part of my comment, and of course I can't edit it any more.  Partial re-do:  Bottom line, say good-bye to CCA; check in regularly with Dr. A and administration.  Yes, it's a bit of a gamble, but --

Mark already talked to the department chair and the graduate chair (though he might be called differently). He needs to continue this conversation urgently. He should also invite them to solve the problem instead of asking them to support his solution (even if in the end, they amount to the same).  I would advise to ask the chair to find a new advisor, which could be Professor A. This way, the idea of poaching is out of the room and it is made clearer that the initiative came from Mark, who felt stuck with his current advisor.
Graduate students switch advisors and its hard for the previous advisor, as the previous advisor has invested time and money in him. Switching advisors is not a frequent, but a sufficiently common occurrence.
Mark as a graduate student has no real power (other than just leaving the program) and a reasonably functioning department will offer some protection. (I am towards the end of a lifetime in academia and in general, departments do want to protect their students. Some departments are of course dysfunctional or toxic, and some situations are not handled with the care they deserve, but it is true as a general statement. Departments are measured also by graduation rate and by the success of their students.)
Besides, the relationship between old advisor and Mark has reached a point where it makes no sense for Mark to continue with his current advisor, even if Mark would have to move to another school or look for a different career path. As a professor with graduate students, I would be foolish to insist on keeping a student who wants to leave.

authors: Костя Дряхлов

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


text:
Tablet/e-writer/pressure pad for writing with normal pen and paper, but electronic output
I would like to be able to create short 'video tutorials' or 'video lectures' where I draw on the screen and record my voice. I know that I can use OBS software to capture an application window and my voice to make the video and that is not the problem.
The question I have is about how to draw and have the image come up on the screen.
What I would like to do is to draw on a piece of paper with a normal pen on top of an electronic pressure pad, so I can see what I am doing on the paper and also record it on a screen.
My question is 'Is there any electronic writing device that will work with a normal pen and paper on top of it?' -- I am not asking what is the best way or the best device, I am just wondering if it is possible.
I have read this question and the answers, which is somewhat similar, but different because the question is just generally about capturing writing on a whiteboard or paper and not about writing on paper. I have also seen this question, which is again less specific than the question here.
I am aware that one answer would be to have something like a document viewer with a camera above the piece of paper, but I would like to try to avoid that if possible so my hand does not get in the way.
So far I have only found either pressure sensitive pads to write on, where you cannot download the image like this one.
Any suggestions very gratefully received.

I understand this is not an answer to your question, but what you are trying to achieve is perfectly solved by using an iPad with an Apple Pencil. You can even record the videos/animations directly on the iPad without having to go through your computer screen. There exists a great app exactly for that purpose: https://www.qrayon.com/home/vittle/ I understand you may have reasons why you might not want to go that route, but I wanted to bring it up because it is a truly excellent solution to the exact problem you are describing.

Also, just in case it is relevant: there's absolutely no need to get the "pro" version for this purpose. You can get the "regular" ipad (6th or 7th generation) and it will let you do exactly what you want. You might be able to find an older refurbished model (e.g. through Apple) if you want to save money.

@user2705196 - thanks for the very useful suggestion


text:
Writing a letter of recommendation for a faculty colleague I cannot highly recommend
A colleague of mine has asked that I write him a letter of recommendation (LOR). I will call him Steve. He recently was denied tenure and is looking for a new position at several other universities. Steve is currently a co-author on three papers I am trying to publish. He has been extremely difficult to work with on these papers. (There is a reason he is being denied tenure. Everything is a battle with him). I am not in good conscience able to write a strong LOR for Steve. I am not even in good conscience able to write a LOR for him at all. I am of the opinion that he should never hold another faculty position again.
There are a few questions on this site, such as this one, that suggest that I should tell Steve that I cannot write him a strong letter of recommendation. However, Steve also funded a graduate student that worked with us on all three of the aforementioned papers, so there is money and a fledgling student involved, not to mention my own publications. There are two concerns that I thus have:

By declining to write Steve a LOR, I fear that he will refuse to cooperate on the pending publications we have. (And he has not exactly been cooperative to begin with. Again, there is a reason he is being dismissed). This would obviously affect my publications that I have worked on for the past two years. (I regret even getting tangled up with Steve. But that's a discussion for a different day). Moreover, it would be rather unfortunate for the graduate student Steve oversaw if these publications are held hostage or squashed. This graduate student is deserving of these publications and her career could be quite negatively affected by not getting these papers published. Steve has already informed this student that if she does not comply with helping him obtain a new position, he will not allow her to defend her dissertation in a few months.

By declining to write a LOR for Steve, I also feel that I am declining to provide the search committees at Steve's potential employers valuable insight into what he will be like as a faculty member. I personally would be rather frustrated if I was on a search committee and was denied important information on the temperament and capabilities of a candidate because no one wanted to speak ill of an incorrigible and manipulative colleague. I would also feel rather angry if I was an applicant to one of Steve's potential employers and was passed over because no one dared write a negative letter about a weak candidate. Unlike the case of declining to write a letter for a weak student, allowing a potential faculty member to obscure his actions as a professor can have a much larger impact in my opinion. (Poor students fail out and are dismissed from the program; poor professors dodge and scramble, all the while affecting their students and colleagues).
I am uniquely equipped in my department to write at length about Steve's capabilities as a faculty member. I have done by far the most work with him out of any of the faculty. Steve already has a letter of recommendation from our department chair that expresses Steve's strong ability to obtain grants (one of his few positive capabilities). Steve likely could find one or two other faculty members to write him positive letters (even if they have to stretch the truth in order to save face before Steve). He obtained such letters for his intermediate review (done 3-4 years before applying for tenure as a means of gauging if a potential tenure candidate is progressing on the path). Because no one wanted to step up and write Steve a letter of reservation (i.e. "I have reservations about this candidate"), he continued to do the things that ended up leading to him being denied tenure. It cost the department time and money, as well as engendered a distrust of our department among the university administration.

With these two thoughts in mind, should I decline to write Steve a letter of recommendation?

ADDENDUM
I will admit that there is potential for a revenge factor here. I also feel that it is important that actions such as Steve's not be perpetuated. I am able to provide concrete examples and commentary on his fitness for a faculty position and would refrain from ad hominem attacks.
Because the LOR process would be kept private, I feel that I would have enough time to still submit each of the three publications Steve and I co-authored before Steve could possibly find out I had essentially blacklisted him. All three papers are in their final "submission-ready" format. We are literally just waiting for Steve to finish applying for new positions so that he can give the final submission approval as an author.
I have spoken with department administration about Steve's student. They are considering what to do in terms of interventions.
To address the people worried about litigation for defamation: I am not excessively worried about losing a defamation case. Campus police records, written statements by multiple graduate students, previously recorded statements by faculty, email records--all are likely admissible in court. I would be able to satisfy the onus probandi requisite for defeating a defamation case (in my opinion). In a prior life, I worked as counsel for a large school district. My specialty: Employment law. This includes defending the district against employees and students who claim they were "defamed" by negative reviews/termination. While perhaps warranted in general, I am ultimately not looking for legal advice on this matter. I have an attorney on retainer and understand basic tort law.

Are you offering to write a reference if asked by a prospective employer, that is usually betwen you and them...

The threat against the student should be surfaced immediately with the department chair. Likely they would allow you to take over as the advisor. Letting Steve hold a student hostage is not a good outcome for the department.

@SolarMike Under certain jurisdictions, references can be seen by the applicant.

@CaptainEmacs so one method is only to mention positive things and leave the rest out... ie if they are late often then timeliness is not mentioned etc etc

@SolarMike Result: "Steve brought in a large grant once for the department. I wrote some papers with him and he gave me a bottle of $10 wine once. He usually can make it through a class without yelling the F-word. Steve has never killed a student."

Truth is the defense against defamation. Of course, news of the suit will do a great job of eliminating the subjects future employment...

@JalapenoNachos A defamation of character lawsuit requires statements to be false. Stating "Steve was an incompetent instructor. His slides contained numerous errors and he missed nine class periods over the course of three months" is only defamatory if it is false. His attendance is a matter of record and many students could come forward to attest to this fact.

The general rule is to refuse to write a letter if you cannot write a positive and honest one. Deviating from that rule makes the letter writer look bad too. And there is a chance that the subject will find out, either because they have a legal right to see the letter or because someone leaks to them that the letter was not good. So I think writing a weak or negative letter is an absolute last resort. Is there no excuse you can think of to explain why you cannot write a letter?

@Thomas At this point, I am not looking to recuse myself from writing the letter. My question "Why should I NOT write a negative letter when refusing to do so could significantly affect the hiring process."

@Thomas I think the problem is that refusing to write a recommendation very often results in increased hostility, no matter how good the reasons. I mean you're telling someone they aren't good enough for the life step they are currently trying to take, even if you're letting them know that they have potential for improvement. It's easy to say they should just be honest, but it's always far more nuanced when you are the one in that position. It's a very good - and a very tough - question.

The chair probably took the right approach. If this is in the US, a search committee will read between the lines of a nominally positive letter and notice the selective omissions.

"He was instrumental in bringing up contentious scientific questions that had significant impact on the development of our joint publications." "Working with him was a unique experience" "He excels in disruptive discourse" "A mark of his character is his readiness to always challenge present thinking" "He is fearless and will not hesitate speaking truth to power" "With his energy he shows great effectiveness in dominating decision-making processes"

Because it is relevant to possible retaliation by Steve: are you tenured?  Are you thinking about promotion or job searches anytime soon?

@NateEldredge I am effectively tenured. I have a joint appointment with this university, but I am secure at my other institution. This actually means I am even less affected by fallout from Steve.

@Vladhagen "never killed a student" --- to my knowledge. Gotta hedge your bets here.

"Steve was an incompetent instructor" is stating as a fact something that's really your opinion. You could be sued over it and be required to prove the incompetence, to standards which are not your own. If you are concerned about being sued, then you should stick strictly to facts. If you really want to say something like the above, then make it explicit that it's your opinion: "In my opinion, Steve was an incompetent instructor", which is a factual statement about your opinion, not a factual claim about Steve. You can then give examples of facts contribute to you to holding that opinion.

@Makyen Coming to class drunk is usually considered "incompetence." I'm overall not too worried about being sued.

@Vladhagen I wasn't challenging your evaluation, just providing you with how the statements you had in quotes will be evaluated from the outside, if you end up being sued. Beyond doing that, particularly given that your response implies you didn't get the gist of what I was trying to say, the only thing left is to suggest that you seek competent legal council, should you be concerned about being sued. Oh, and to be clear: IANAL.

@Vladhagen a defamation suit doesn't require things to be false, it requires you to not be able to prove them right (at least where I live). That's a huge difference.

@DonQuiKong In the United States a defamation suit is notoriously difficult to win for the claimant. "In American courts, the burden of proof rests with the person who brings a claim of libel. In British courts, the author or journalist has the burden of proof, and typically loses." https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways

@DonQuiKong Such a thought is not reflected in American tort law pertaining to defamation litigation. The burden of proof to disprove a statement of unfitness, such as the ones I would make, is on the plaintiff. I have numerous documents--all of which are court admissible--which would support my claims.

Obligatory.

I love that the OP is a former lawyer and the people who are giving him law-related advice here are not.

There is quite a bit going on here.
First things first: you seem to suggest that it is a code of honor among academics to never write a weak or negative recommendation letter or to omit all weak points in a letter.  I think that's too strong.  Indeed, when people suggest declining to write letters, I think they are mostly thinking of letters for students of whom they do not have a strong opinion, rather than a clear, qualified negative opinion.  I would say rather that you can write a letter for whomever you want, and omitting weak points that you feel are crucially relevant to the position being applied to is an ethical lapse.
In your case, you say that you have strong feelings and strong evidence that your colleague Steve should not get another tenure track job.  Given that, I think the correct thing to do is to write a letter for him.  In that letter, you should take extra care that your criticism be 100% factual.  Indeed, I would mostly or entirely restrict yourself to reporting the facts.  You should be able to trust a hiring committee to put the pieces together correctly.
As an aside: getting a tenure track job is a significant achievement in the current job market.  Getting a tenure track job after being denied tenure is much harder still.  The idea that Steve can get another tenure track job using letters from the department that denied him tenure boggles my mind. I think that's essentially impossible: any positive things said in such letters will have to be outweighed by the fact that the department as a whole denied him tenure!  (Or possibly the department supported him and his tenure was denied at a higher level.  Even so, it would be hard for department members to make a convincing case.) A nice letter from the chair about grant support is not going to cut it.
There are some other aspects to your question that I find more alarming.

Steve has already informed this student that if she does not comply with helping him obtain a new position, he will not allow her to defend her dissertation in a few months.

That's really horrible.  It's so horrible that in my view if you know about that and are not doing anything about it, you become somewhat complicit.  Can you not take this student as your own?  I think you should (or find some other way to ensure the student lands on her feet).

By declining to write Steve a LOR, I fear that he will refuse to cooperate on the pending publications we have. (And he has not exactly been cooperative to begin with. Again, there is a reason he is being dismissed). This would obviously affect my publications that I have worked on for the past two years. (I regret even getting tangled up with Steve. But that's a discussion for a different day).

Indeed maybe you should not have collaborated with someone who is as uncooperative and immoral as you say Steve is.  Some academic investments don't pay out.  You don't need, and apparently don't want, to be held hostage to this person for the foreseeable future.  It sounds like you have no guarantee that the work will come through successfully no matter what you do and that it very much depends on Steve's future career.  I would seriously consider decoupling from him, even if that costs you a certain amount of academic work.
In summary: I suggest honesty all around while making extricating Steve's poor student from the situation as your top priority.  Steve is trying to strongarm his student from a position of no power -- the university administration is not going to support him; on the contrary, they have already dimissed him!  You should not pretend that you approve of Steve's actions.  Neither should you try to "blacklist" him: just let the facts speak for themselves.

Out of curiosity, have you ever read an LOR that included clear negative opinions? Did you find them more or less credible than an LOR that noticeably omitted positive information which you would have expected to be included?

@Elizabeth: Yes, I have read LOR that included clear negative opinions.  (Admittedly, they form a small percentage of the literally thousands of LORs I've read.)  I don't see how to make a direct comparison in the sense you want, but I find the "omitting" letters to be annoyingly ambiguous: it is possible that the letter is just badly written and/or written by someone with different ideas than mine.  I have sometimes followed up on letters of both types, by the way.

I have read letters that were exceedingly short -- essentially "So and so has asked me to write a letter of evaluation for him. I have indeed worked for several years with him but do not wish to write about these interactions in more detail than is necessary. I wish him luck in his future endeavors." The point is that the letter says it all -- no more detail is necessary, I think I understand what the person wants to say. The only difficulty arises if there are other, positive letters and one has to resolve the difference. More detail would be useful in that context.

"Indeed maybe you should not have collaborated with someone who is as uncooperative and immoral as you say Steve is." Well, in hindsight, obviously not. But hindsight wasn't available at the time.

A recommendation letter that doesn't actually include a recommendation says everything it needs to say, IMO.

+1 for "making extricating Steve's poor student from the situation as your top priority"

"The idea that Steve can get another tenure track job using letters from the department that denied him tenure boggles my mind." Does anyone outside of the department know that Steve was denied tenure?

Can Steve (legally) access a LOR?

I have seen very critical comments about colleagues mainly from colleagues which themselves had quite a bit to answer for. So, negative reviews may have the opposite effect that OP may want to elicit.

@user2768: It is extremely likely that the tenure denial will be known to other interested parties.  Based on the OP's description, Steve stayed in the department for 5 years or more.  Even if other departments don't have specific information about the case (which they would in many cases), anyone looking at the CV would suspect that the reason for leaving is tenure denial.  Moreover the chair's letter would be totally dishonest if it did not address this point.  Also: it is likely to be difficult for Steve to access a LOR.

@CaptainEmacs: I agree with that, which is why I suggested that the OP be completely factual and also not think of his letter as intended to generate any particular outcome but simply to make the parties aware of the relevant facts.

@PeteL.Clark Yes, indeed. I upvoted your answer. My comment was responding, I think, to Elizabeth. And frankly, maybe Steve is a very nasty fellow - but perhaps there are departments that actually can work with him, due to a different constellation. So, it is very difficult for OP to make a general decision on that and it is, frankly, not their job to do so. I completely agree with being factual.

Both of the points you've quoted here - making the student's ability to defend her dissertation contingent on her helping him get a job, and refusing to cooperate on publications if denied - sound highly unethical to me, to the extent that if there is any evidence that Steve has threatened either of those things, the university administration would be very interested to hear of it. I'd be very surprised if they didn't step in to see that those threats can't be turned into actual damage to the careers of people who don't deserve it.

"The idea that Steve can get another tenure track job using letters from the department that denied him tenure boggles my mind." - The only time I could see this working is if the tenure case got tangled up at the Dean/Provost level, but that seems not to be the case here.

First off, I would get some kind of documentation of him threatening to prevent the Student from defending her dissertation. Either capture an e-mail he sent to the student, or get some kind of recording of the conversation. That is a unconscionable course of action. Your department chair should be able to tell you what they can do for the student to help secure their future.
I've had similar problems in the past where coworkers asked me for letters that I could not in good conscience provide. My method was to provide a full copy of the letter to the coworker first, before sending it to anyone. Then, I told them to their face "This is the letter that I wrote. You can decide for yourself if this is what you would like submitted on your behalf, or if you'd like to ask someone else." This method would avoid Steve having any defamation case, since he has consented to the "publishing" (giving it to anyone) of the piece. However, make sure to be fair. List his positive qualities (like being very good at getting grants) also.
In fact, I follow this practice for all of my letters of recommendation. I don't like talking about people behind their backs, good or bad. Also, since this you mentioned the "revenge" aspect in your edit, I will also say that delivering not-so-glowing recommendations to someone's face is pretty satisfying.
As for your collaborative work, I would avoid the sunk-cost fallacy. I would be wary of the fact that Steve is clearly already not well thought-of at your institution, and I wouldn't want to put my name on a collaborative work with someone like that regardless. If he does end up job hopping to other institutions, it becomes pretty likely that he won't be well thought of in those places as well, and having your name on a work with someone like that could harm your reputation more than help it. The same is true of the student.

If you have a copy of a threatening email, should such exist, what would prevent you from adding it to the LOR?

While I agree that coauthoring with people who do not have the respect of the community is inadvisable for a faculty member, I don't think "the same is true of the student." We have had other questions on here about whether an advisor's negative actions cast a shadow on a student's work, and the general consensus was that academia knows that students have very limited power in these situations.

This turned out to be too big of a comment, so I post it as an answer.
It seems like you should cut your losses. As Pete L. Clark's (great) answer says, not all investments work out in the end. If you're already tenured this should be fine.
The really worrying aspect of the situation is the grad student's situation. If it comes to it, wouldn't it be possible to compensate the hypothetical lack of publications with a strong letter of recommendation for her, explaining why these publication weren't submitted? You're probably the only person with power who knows about the situation. Help her.
As a final note I'd like to mention that another important thing to take into account is that Steve is not the only one with bargaining chips here. Withholding these publications will certainly affect his possibilities of getting a new job in academia.

Withholding these publications will certainly affect his possibilities of getting a new job in academia. Honestly, it sounds like Steve's possibilities are limited.

@Thomas I'm not so sure about that, he can always try to move to a lower tier university. Also, I don't think he would apply for other positions if he thought he couldn't. That's why I just added it as a final comment, since that's where the situation gets more complicated: sure, a desperate person with "nothing to lose" might do horrible things, but it's a spectrum of possibilities.

It's not uncommon for people who are good at selling and networking to repeatedly land jobs they aren't qualified for. Steve, with his "strong ability to obtain grants" might very well fall into this category.