text:
Possibility of doing PhD in astronomy with only masters in CS
I have a masters degree in Computer Science & Engineering (and currently employed in s/w industry in India), but have no degree in physics. For long, I've been interested in doing research in physics, especially in astronomy, astrophysics or in particle physics.

Are there good institutes or universities in EU, US or India which accept students without any degree in physics to PhD program in astronomy or astrophysics? If so, do they also offer financial assistance or some form of scholarship to such students to meet at least one's tuition fee expenses?
I checked with an institute in Germany that offers PhD in physics but I was told that a masters degree in physics is a mandatory prerequisite. Does this apply to all leading German institutes? What about other leading institutes in EU or in the US?
What are the pros and cons, if any, between doing PhD in US versus in EU, especially in the field of physics (in the subdomains I mentioned, if that too matters)?

In the US, direct entry from undergrad to PhD is pretty common in physics.

Separately, can you indicate how many physics courses you took in your undergraduate program? If you demonstrate an especially strong background with the degree, that's quite different than wanting to switch areas on a whim for graduate school.

@virmaior Only 2 physics courses during my undergraduate program :( , and unfortunately I have forgotten most of what I learnt in those courses, largely because of several years of working in and/or studying a different domain. There wasn't any option for engineering stream students to take electives during the first 2 years; besides the CS course program was intensive and students hardly got time to even attend class lectures of other department

In Sweden there is no hard requirement. (In Spain, for that matter, there isn't either, but I don't recommend going for a PhD there). You just need to convince a professor that you are a good asset for the team. The way it works here (and in some other countries in Europe) is that the PI gets funding and hires whomever he wants, based on whatever criteria. Other countries make the decision at a department level, usually putting stress on the marks. Anyway, the difference is convincing one party or a few.
It is true that all the people I know in the closest related department, are physicist, but they do a lot of programming and data analysis. Your strong points are:

You can improve code quality. (I have seen code that gives me nightmares.)
You can implement new algorithms.
You can learn the physics along the way.

CS backgrounds are, by the way, quite common in Bioinformatics and, to a lesser degree, Biophysics.
References:
I am in Sweden working in Biophysics, and my girlfriend is doing a PhD in Astrophysics.

Thanks for the information! Is there any website where I can get the list of Swedish institutes offer PhD in physics and their rankings? I'm presuming that knowledge of Swedish is not a requirement for PhD. What are the typical criteria of getting scholarship for PhD in Sweden? While I am aware that Sweden is historically been well-known

@so2 List here. Not all of them have Astronomy. Probably the top institution is the Oskar Klein Center. I'd say rankings are not so important, it is more relevant to find a good research group.

@so2 the requirements are high level of English and a number of university courses (with a MS you have it more than covered). The funding is provided by the PI, every now and they they open positions, fully funded. You should also email the profs that do things interesting for you.

Thanks for the quick response. My earlier follow-up question was truncated. Wanted to ask this as well:
Is a PhD from a top-ranking university in Sweden viewed on par with a PhD from good universities in the US, UK or Germany (in the sciences field)? I'm asking this specifically because I haven't heard of many Indian students doing PhD in Sweden, despite Sweden being traditionally well-known for its contributions to science and mathematics. Is it the case that career opportunities within Sweden are limited for foreign students after their PhD?

@so2 that is a new question, and you should post it as such.

@so2 Consider that India is very big, and Sweden quite small. In my floor, around 20 people, 1 is from India and 10 are from Pakistan; so from here the populations are different.

Thanks! I have posted the follow-up questions as a new question as suggested by you - http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/27616


text:
Should I take the TOEFL exam if I have graduated from a high school in the U.S.?
I am currently a B.Tech. student in India, and am applying for Master's courses in the U.S. I took the GRE exam a week ago.
Does having graduated from high school in the U.S., where English is the native language, count as certification that my English is good enough? Should I still take the TOEFL exam?

If your previous level was in English, you normally do not need to sit any English test. But I insist you check the minimum admission requirements for the degree you are going to apply for, which is available on the website of the universities.

Do you mean given, as in you have given your grade to the applications committee, or do you actually mean taken, as in you recently sat the test?

@Moriarty I think this is a difference between American and British English, although in general I only hear Indians use "give and exam"

@StrongBad In my experience it's the same in both British and American English. The student takes the exam, the professor gives it - see a question about this on English.SE . It looks to be a quirk in the way many Indians speak English (the OP's name is Sanskrit). I think that it's still technically correct, but the nuances of it just don't take on the correct meaning in the mind of a native speaker such as myself.

I know of a russian born guy that studied from high school in the USA. Some schools were demanding the TOEFL, but he was able to get it waived after a few phone calls.

If you are applying as an international student, you need TOEFL. It does not depend on you high school education. For international students, you will be considered as a non-native english speaker, so toefl is necessary. If you are applying as a domestic student (meanign you have citizenship/greencard), you dont need toefl.
Anyways, toefl is a very easy exam!

I have never seen citizenship/greencard as a requirement. Based on this criteria people born and educated in English speaking countries like Canada would have to take the TOEFL, which again I have never heard of. Can you provide an example school that has a policy that requires a passport or greencard?

I mentioned greencard because the person who posted this q is from India and a non-native english speaker who did high school in us and bachelors in India. I did mention that in my reply. Non-native english speaker if he/she has gc or citizenship doesn't need TOEFL. Hope you understand.

@Diya Your meaning is clear, but wrong. See, for example, the admissions policy of MIT. It's possible to get US residence with poor English, so although some universities accept permanent residents without question, having residence does not prove your command of English. You say "For international students, you will be considered as a non-native english speaker, so TOEFL is necessary" - also wrong.  Many universities explicitly say "you must do X test only if English is not your first language".

English is not my first language but I have permanent residency in the US; so I am not a international student. I qualify as domestic student. I did not take TOEFL. Hope the guy who asked the Q understood what was told. I had 720 in my GMAT and over 5 years of work experience. The Universities that I applied to did not ask for TOEFL! You can surely guess which universities I applied for MBA!

Every school words the requirements, if any, for the TOEFL a little differently. For example, Harvard GSAS:

Applicants whose native language is other than English and who do not hold the equivalent of a US Bachelor's degree from an institution at which English is the language of instruction must submit scores from the Internet based test (IBT) of the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL)

A quick look suggests that in general native language and the language of your Bachelor's degree is what matters and not the language of your high school.

This makes sense, as the graduate institution is primarily interested in knowing whether you are prepared to communicate in English at a collegiate level.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Chances of entering a graduate program in Germany at the age of fifty
I’m considering applying for a master’s program in Germany, but I’m wondering how the feel about older students?  I am nearly fifty and I know some grad programs in the US aren’t interested in students that won’t have a longer career ahead of them after grad school.

Do you want a salary or do you have enough money (or other means) to support your life during the time you do your PhD? (Please [edit] your question to clarify.)

A master's is not considered a graduate program in Germany (at least not in the same way as in the US) -- it's the terminal university degree that qualifies for entry into a PhD program. Getting into a master's program is not difficult at all, as long as you have the equivalent of a (sufficiently successful) German bachelor's degree. Getting into a PhD program after that is a completely different matter, though. Maybe you can expand your question to explain a bit more about your situation and what you're hoping to get out of this?

Unsure of German age discrimination laws, but given the student/employee role of graduate students, would labor laws apply?

@FrankFYC Not for a masters degree, asa Masters degree in Germany is purely an educational context. In general protection against age discrimination is very weak in Germany. In part age discrimination is institutionalized, by the fact that you'll have a hard time becoming "verbeamted" above age 50 (unless you were already verbeamted before).

"given the student/employee role of graduate students" - to make the comment by @MaartenBuis a bit more explicit: In Germany (at least in technical disciplines that I am aware of), Master students are "exclusively" students, exactly like Bachelor students. They are not affiliated with a particular institute, they do not have an office, or anything like that. Only doctoral students are typically also employed in some way. Both Bachelor and Master students can take on part-time positions as teaching/research assistants, but that's something that happens only after you have become such a student.

I'm from Germany and have a Bachelor and Master Degree from a German university. Over the years I have seen a number of students who were in their 40's and 50's who applied for a Bachelor's or Master's program. Age shouldn't be a concern when you consider applying because you can't be discriminated because of your age. For some Master's programs being older can actually be benefical!
With some programs there is the possibility to outline special circumstances in the application why you should be given the opportunity to enroll. You could describe your reasons there and might get a few extra points which could help your application. Previous working experience and training might get you some extra points too. Make sure you read the admission regulations (Zulassungsordnung) for the program.
Good luck!

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


text:
Is it unprofessional to add illustrations to a master’s thesis?
Sometimes I see articles, even high-quality ones, use illustrations (e.g. imagine a simple Powerpoint depiction of a certain process).
I'm now writing my thesis and found some interesting illustrations that I would like to use in the Definitions section of my thesis.
However, I'm not quite sure if that would turn out to be beneficial:

pro: It would break up the wall of text a bit and provide a more intuitive way of grasping a definition.

con: My supervisor (who probably would not bother to read the whole section anyway) glances over it and doesn’t like illustrations and marks me down.

I don't really want to ask my supervisor about this, since he is a highly decorated senior professor and head of faculty. I'd rather use my “capital” wisely on methodological questions.
What is your view on that?

con: supervisor […] glances over it and doesn't like graphs and marks me down – Does that not apply to any possible decision of your thesis including not using graphics?

Not the answer to your question. But, your relationship to your supervisor seems strained. If there is any way you can improve it, it might be worthwhile.

Would you have the right to use these illustrations in a published work?

Linguistics textbooks even include cartoons fairly often. Commercial cartoons, not originally made for the book. Obviously, they have to pay for the use of them, and attribute them correctly.

What area is your masters in? It would generally be odd to have pictures in a philosophy thesis. In engineering though it would generally be odd not to have pictures and diagrams.

@Graham Hans mentioned in a comment on a related question that it's in finance/economics.

I think the culture of your chair and the attitude of the examiners are very important when considering this question. You may try to ask some of your fellow students on that chair what they think.

The advisor is called advisor for a reason. His literal job is to aid you in writing the thesis, including stylistic decisions. It doesn't matter if he is the reincarnation of Einstein himself, there should be no such thing as "capital" on (reasonable) questions you can ask. (If this is not the case for you, something is wrong.)

@Neinstein: To some extent the metaphor “capital” isn’t wrong — very occasionally, if a student asks their advisor for direct help on every tiny detail, they may run up against the limits of how much time/attention the advisor can reasonably give.  But that’s a rare and extreme situation, and the OP’s kind of high-level question is certainly worth asking the supervisor about.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

If it is like putting a picture of a film star next to an article about them, then you should not do it.
If they are merely "interesting illustrations" to "break up the wall of text", then you should probably not use them.
If they are positively useful, show things that cannot be shown in text, or make something much clearer than text, then you should use them.
(Edited to add: As others have said, if you want to use an illustration from someone else's publication, you need to think about copyright. And in many cases, it is better to make your own illustrations.)

Absolutely (third paragraph), and there's nothing "unprofessional" about it.

Agreed. Any academic output of yours could be seen as an attempt to convey information, so borrow from Teaching: the VARK model says there are 4 modalities by which different people most effectively learn (absorb that information): Visual (pictures, charts, diagrams etc.), Auditory (listening to a speaker), Reading (written text), Kinesthetic (movement, doing) {{others identify more}}. A thesis can't do A or K, but could add V to the already existing R if it conveys information - cover more bases. Even if duplicating the text - some readers will find V easier/quicker to absorb than R.

@frIT FYI VARK applying to learners has been discredited.

@OwenReynolds, technically what has been discredited is learning styles. It is useful to utilize multiple modes of teaching to help reinforce the material and because it is hard to tell a priori what is the optimal way to teach. However, studies have repeatedly shown that individuals don't have inherent learning styles (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/the-myth-of-learning-styles/557687/)

@Jonathon thanks for clarifying what I meant with "cover more bases" - 600 characters is a bit limiting sometimes when a longer explanation or even some pictures may be needed.

I must push back on the frame of your question:  I think you should ask this question of your advisor for the following reasons:
First, learning to write an academic paper or thesis is part of what you are there to learn as a Master's candidate, and part of what your advisor is there to teach you.
Second, as you yourself point out, your advisor is the person (or one of the few people) to be evaluating your work.  It is fine to cast a wide net for advice when developing your overall style as an academic writer.  But it would be foolish to take our advice over your advisor's advice when you are writing a paper for the narrow audience of your advisor and/or your committee.
That said:  The valid use of drawings, figures, diagrams, plots, illustrations, etc is to convey information efficiently and effectively.  They can also be beautiful in their own right; placed strategically to break up text, etc.  But if they are not there to convey information, they should probably not be there.

Second this - learning to ask questions of (and, question, discuss things with, and debate with) highly decorated professors is something you should practice - it's an essential skill for an existence in academia. Try not to ask poorly researched or open ended questions (so, do a bit of reading, say what you've tried or what you think to be correct) and you should be fine.

Third: the advisor is called advisor for a reason. His literal job is to aid OP on writing the thesis.

Strong +1 to this answer.  I’d urge OP to reconsider their advisor’s feedback carefully: Is it really true that the he “doesn’t like illustrations” (an extreme position that very few academics would agree with), or did he just not think the particular illustrations the OP had used were appropriate?  Learning when and how to use illustrations/figures in academic writing is part of what OP should be learning in their thesis.

Textbooks often have pictures. For example Munkres' Topology:

Consult textbooks and papers related to your masters topic for what a "professional" illustration looks like.

Munkres Topology brings back very happy memories.

A thesis is not, and should not be written as, a textbook.

@dotancohen The first part of your comment is salient, but I would question the second part. There are many reasons to write a master's thesis in a fashion akin to thesis.

@dotancohen If it was a sandwich thesis then sure, don't write it as a textbook. If it is a monograph on a single subject then it should be something like a short textbook.

he is a highly decorated senior professor and head of faculty

Highly decorated senior professors and heads of faculty are not demi-gods.
They are human like everyone else and can be great people or assholes. This is how you should assess them and act accordingly. Since he is your advisor he has a duty to help you (he does not need a PhD candidate like someone just starting).

I'm now writing my thesis and found some interesting illustrations

Since you wrote an introduction, its readers will benefit from a crisp, helpful picture (which as Napoleon put it, is better than 100 PowerPoint bullets).

There is something in OP which I don't think the existing answers address.

I'm now writing my thesis and found some interesting illustrations that I would like to use [...]

The other answers talk about the benefits of having figures, etc., in your thesis, but these should be figures that you create yourself. There are several drawbacks to adding illustrations that you merely found.

You will probably need to get permission to do this (unless the image comes with a CC or similarly permissive licence).
You will certainly need to attribute the image (even if the original creator does not require this, the presumption is that anything in your thesis is your own work unless specified not to be, and you must not appear to take credit).
Since they are not your own work, they will not get credit and so can't really benefit you - but they could still harm you if your supervisor/examiner thinks they are inappropriate.

So for these reasons, I would not use them. But if you can create your own (and I mean create, not just redraw) images that are helpful to the reader, then by all means do so.

"Since they are not your own work, they will not get credit and so can't really benefit you" I disagree. Curating a good illustration is actual valuable work, so I would count it positively. And more subjectively, if the illustration helps the explanation, the whole thing will be marked up.

A good third party drawing is just as valuable as a good quote.

Yes, perhaps what I said was too strong. But the credit you can get for including a third-party image is going to be insignificant compared to the credit for comparable original content.

Use in an academic publication is for sure absolutely covered by fair use. So attribution; yes, no matter the license.
Permission; not necessary, as long as it exists in the public domain already.

I would say a thesis is making an argument, with evidence.  The question is: do the illustrations help to build the argument?
If they are decoration, like in a magazine, clearly not.  If the text can be fully understood without them, like in an online news story which the publication requires to have an illustration, even if it's a stock photo, then the photo isn't adding anything.
Your reader does not need images to help them read the piece, because you can assume they are able to read at a good standard, and your piece does not need to sell itself on a newsstand, bookstore or online clickbait.
But if the argument is aided by the image, then maybe there is a case to include them.  A diagram or graph presents information in a different way to text, and that would be absolutely fine IMHO.  A picture of an experimental setup or historical source material may help the reader understand the context better.  A cartoon could make a point in an ironic way that the text could not do.  Think about what the purpose of each image is, and what you are saying with it.
In general, though, I would be sparing in using images.  The reader is there to read, not to view a photo album.  It is hard to make a good argument with primarily images ('eye of the beholder' and all that).  Also, you may run into copyright and plagiarism issues if too much of the content is not your own.
Obviously there are some fields which are very graphical - eg art or fashion - where your source material is all image-based and you have to use that material.  For those different expectations might apply.

There is still a tendency in academia to think that writing is somehow more professional if it uses long words, long sentences, latinisms, and no illustrations. I remember trying to break the mould by using "I" and "you" and being told off for it. It's easy to make confused muddled thinking sound more rigorous by using lots of jargon: the reason is that if the reader can't understand what you're saying, they might give you the benefit of the doubt. Try to avoid that temptation: go for maximum clarity, using pictures if they help to convey the message.

At the end of the day you're trying to communicate something. If you make your text more complicated for no reason, you're making the task harder for the reader.  If you write your text in an annoying font, likewise. If the pictures help communicate, then great. If they just waste the reader's time and the only result is the library has to buy more shelves, perhaps they can be omitted. That said, a pleasing page design can sometimes assist in reading of the text - which aids in getting your message across.

There's a difference here that I think needs to be drawn between "illustrations" and "diagrams".
Diagrams are technical drawings that add useful information to your thesis that is better conveyed visually than textually. I would also include charts in this category. Include as many of these as you need, they're a great way to effectively convey information.
Illustrations, however, tend to be less textual and more descriptive. So, you might show an illustration of what a design might look like in context. Now, whether you include these or not is largely dependent on what your thesis is. If you're doing a design-based course like Architecture or Fashion, then sure, include illustrations. Other than that, I probably wouldn't, except perhaps as an appendix if you really want to.
The key difference here is whether you're actually adding information to the paper or merely illustrating it in a pretty fashion.

That being said, it's your thesis. You're not submitting it for publication to a journal so sans explicit instructions from the university to the contrary, you're free to make stylistic decisions to suit yourself. I, for one, chose to break my dissertation into chapters and put amusing, albeit relevant, epigraphs at the start of each. Not very "professional", I'll admit, but it made the whole thing a bit nicer to read and I liked them. No reasonable professor is going to care about a stylistic choice here or there, they're only going to care about the content. Within reason of course.

I wouldn't even call your epigraphs (or the illustrations) unprofessional---plenty of "serious" professional books do that too!

@Matt - To be clear, I never said they were unprofessional, just that they're not to the strictest of interpretations (read stick up the butt) professional. I think they sit in the middle ground and that's fine

The other answers make good points, but some textbooks also have (a few) pictures that are not strictly related to the text, often at the beginning of chapters. If done with style, this can be fine.
But you are not a textbook author and your thesis is not a textbook. It is also your first major article, so you may not have the judgement to know what is appropriate and what is not. Also, a thesis is a different type of document.
Nevertheless, you might consider adding a personal touch, for example in the dedication or perhaps even in the introduction. But if you are really worried that your supervisor might not like it, you should probably leave it out. Even if they don't have a problem with it, you run the risk of always thinking about whether it might have been a problem and contributed to the grade and other doubts.

Depends from your filed of study. Literature (for example) do not use many pictures. Physics (again, for example as field) believe that "a picture is value 1000 words".
My personal opinion: pictures that explains the concepts/ideas/tests/methodology(etc.) are very welcome as are capable to say something that may be difficult to express in words. However every picture that you add in your manuscript should be properly described.
This is what I recommend to my students when they write their thesis with me:
https://francescolelli.info/thesis/simple-writing-rules-that-can-improve-the-quality-of-your-thesis/
The second bullet talks about how to describe pictures and tables.

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


text:
Journal doesn’t react for several months – should I withdraw?
I submitted a paper to a journal in mathematics. For the last three and a half months, the status of the article is with editor. I sent a mail to the editorial office to update the status. They replied me saying they will ask the handling editor to contact me. After one more month I asked to expedite the process. No reply. Now for the last three and half months, there is no change in the process.
Is it better to withdraw the article or wait for some more time?

Voting to reopen this as the journal in question does not only act slowly (which is addressed in the duplicate), but doesn’t react at all.

If the journal fails to respond to your requests over several months, this suggests that something or somebody is not working properly – even in very-long-review fields like mathematics. It may be that the editor is missing in action or that some communication got lost or the entire journal is malfunctioning, but what exactly is going on is hard to tell for any outsider.
From your account of the situation I can only see two reasons why withdrawing may not be in your favor:

The next-best choice of journal is significantly worse (in terms of level or suitability).
The paper is already under review but the status doesn’t reflect it. In this case you actually lose progress by withdrawing.

You have to decide for yourself how likely it is that one of these applies, but I consider them rather unlikely. Should you decide not to withdraw immediately, I would at least send another mail to the journal setting a clear short deadline (a week or so) for them to show at least some sign of life.

Thanks for the suggestion. I will wait for some more time.

I will wait for some more time. – As you wish, but if you ask me, you did that enough already.

It depends whether the paper was already sent to the reviewers or if it is standing on the editor's desk. I think that 3 months is too much time for deciding if the paper will be submitted to review or desk rejected (at least in Physics/Soft Matter/Phys.Bio.). However, I am aware that in some Mathematical fields the time from the paper submission to the publishing is general longer than in Physics. Sometimes the read is challenging for the editor and also finding the adequate reviewers.
I had several delays with one of my papers because of the journal lost contact with the handling editors (2 times), make sure that this is not the case. I decided to not withdraw my paper because it is in the last round of reviews and I already spent a lot of effort in the process.
Good luck!


text:
Can undergraduates publish in journals (Elsevier)?
I am in my last year as an undergraduate student at a top Canadian university (not sure if it matters). This is my second time publishing in the school’s journal. The requirements are 1) it meets the theme and 2) we received at least an A− in the paper. I am very excited to have my paper published as it is an underrepresented field. My professor also loved the topic.
As much as I would love to attend grad school, I cannot continue next year due to financial constraints and personal reasons. As such, I was wondering if undergrads can still publish a paper in an official journal (outside the university) if the topic is interesting? It’s a history field, more specially, human migration.

Would you please explain what you mean by "we received at least an A- in the paper"? Is the paper part of the class assignment?

Only rarely do journals ask about the qualifications of authors although they sometimes use university affiliation (as indicated by an institutional email address) as a kind of proxy for qualifications.
If you can persuade the referees and editor that your work merits publication, and fits with the style and goals of the journal, you will see your work in print. That said, depending on your ability to write clearly and to negotiate your way through the often obscure author-guidelines, you might find it useful to enlist the help of a more experienced person.

There is no rule that you cannot publish a paper as undergrad, however you might need quite a lot of guidance by a supervisor. The procedures from submission to the actual publication of an article might be quite complicated and cumbersome.
It is likely that the article doesn't get accepted in the current form so there might still be a significant amount of work until publication.

[short answer] undergrad, like everyone else can publish a paper.

I would rather put your 'question' differently: if undergrads can't publish a paper in an official journal.
[assumption] by journal, you alluding to academic journals.

I am very excited to have my paper published as it is an underrepresented field. My professor also loved the topic.

In the instance that your professor loves the topic, then, write up a structured abstract and engage the professor. (S)he would most likely come on board as 'co-author'.
Even if your professor doesn't come on board, writing a structured abstract will assist you in 'gathering your thoughts' and 'self-checking' your research and write-up your manuscript.
NB: structured abstract is different from traditional abstract. Not all journals request/required structured abstracts.
[structured abstract]
In structured abstract, the 'different' sections are 'separated' under sub-headings. This could be: background, purpose, approach/methodology, findings, originality/conclusion

Drafting an Impactful Structured Abstract
How to write a structured abstract
SAG structured abstract
Write an abstract

I emphasise that 'qualification' is not a requirement for publishing. Feel free to work on your 'research topic', write and submit to a journal for consideration.
PS: Some journals (actually few) actually check authors' affiliation and desk reject a paper! Don't that this too serious? Most will focus on the quality of the manuscript and not the authors.

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


text:
Has anyone, based on great performance, ever been awarded a higher degree than the one they enrolled for?
Out of curiosity, I was wondering if anyone, historically, has ever been awarded a degree that was a level higher than the one they were enrolled in and studying for, simply because their performance warranted a higher award? For example, somebody could have been awarded a MPhil instead of an MSc or a PhD instead of an MSc?

I would be shocked if this ever happened. A PhD isn't just doing really well at a Master's program. You can't get a Master's by getting a 4.0 GPA in your undergraduate work. They simply have different requirements. Proving a negative on this will be more or less impossible, though.

From a certain POV "honorary" degrees are sort of this concept. I mean Bill Murray was awarded an honorary doctorate of humanities degree and he didn't even complete his pre-med degree.

An MPhil and an MSc are both masters-level. Though I suppose Philosophy is higher than Science, it would be more likely to get upgraded to a doctorate.

@scrappedcola a DLit is usually awarded for more academic excellence, but likewise is honorary as you don't enrol for it.

@OrangeDog: Why on Earth would philosophy be considered "higher" than science?

@jamesqf seems I was mistaken. Though it's roughly based on age of the degree. https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/2013/chapter02-section11.html

@NuclearWang I have seen different Master theses that would have passed as (good) PhD theses. I did not see anyone get a PhD for it, though, but it is not nearly as absurd as you believe it to be.

Dantzig is a kind of related case: he was enrolled in a PhD program at the time, but he effectively wrote his thesis by accident (thinking two examples of unsolved problems in statistics were actually a homework assignment, and solving them, which his advisor later accepted as his thesis). Doesn’t quite count since he was a PhD candidate (and he still had to complete the other requirements for the degree), but he certainly wasn’t intending to write his thesis that week.

This almost counts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Arts_(Oxbridge_and_Dublin). Except you don't get the upgrade due to performance. Rather, you simply get it 7 years after matriculation (for a small fee, of course).

@HansAdler: "practically no formal requirements other than having a qualifying lower degree" - well, and (depending on the field) a certain stream of publications in the field that has been going on for a while (read: some months to years). Also, I'd say the view that a PhD thesis is like a Master's thesis, just at a higher quality, is a bit too superficial. Maybe this is indeed more likely in some fields than in others. Apart from that, while the PhD does not require any course attendance, the Master usually does, and it's well possible the student will have dropped out of the Master ...

... for failing some of their course-related requirements before they get to the thesis writing part (or have enough time to indeed produce a thesis that is - wherever they get the content from - comparable in size and information density to a PhD thesis).

@HansAdler: "Additional publications required with a traditional, monolithic thesis?" - it depends on what you mean by "traditional, monolithic thesis". My impression from CS in Germany is that there are either so-called "stapler theses" that more or less directly reuse the content of several of the author's papers and add some introduction, common conclusion, and intermediate transitions. The alternative are "monolithic" theses that are basically drafted from scratch, using both content from the author's previous publications (rewritten and possibly more in-depth or focusing additional ...

... aspects; often merging the content of two or three related papers into one newly written chapter) and providing some new insight or synergies on various of the discussed materials. In both cases, thought, the typical procedure seems to be that the candidate is supposed to publish conference and journal papers for a few years, until their supervisor is convinced they have produced a number of meaningful findings and developed sufficient expertise in research procedures to start drafting their thesis.

@HansAdler: "If the student doesn't even meet the requirements of an MSc" - I'm not sure what this responds to. My remark that a PhD thesis is not a "high-quality MSc thesis"? I was referring to the consideration that a PhD thesis is supposed to be research-oriented, whereas MSc theses are rather showing some research skills and qualifying for the practical profession. As such, at least in CS, I would expect quite some more focus on technical decisions in an MSc thesis than what would be good in a PhD thesis. This may, of course, heavily vary by field and customs.

@jamesqf "Philosophy" > "Science" because a "philosophy" degree means that you create something (your thesis) which pushes beyond the current state of the art, while a regular old "science" degree never even comes close to the state of the art (btw, a "Master" degree fits right in the middle, you're supposed to learn up to the state of the art without having to go past that).

I am aware of CNRS directors of research who had never enrolled in academic courses but are entitled doctors on the basis of research achievements. Comment only, I am not sure of this but I don't know details...

Although a bit old, there's the case of Luzin's Master's thesis: . . . he completed his thesis The integral and trigonometric series which he submitted in 1915. After his oral examination he was awarded a doctorate, despite having submitted his thesis for the Master's Degree. In fact, even for a Ph.D. thesis, Luzin's is one of the strongest ever written in mathematics --- in my opinion easily in the top 20 (and probably in the top 10) of all-time Ph.D. theses in mathematics for its influence on later developments.
This appears to be the published version of Luzin's thesis, which is 242 pages and in Russian, with the table of contents on pp. 241-242. For references to it, this search and this other search seem to work the best. I didn't get many hits for the title's French translation, by the way.

Do you have any links that support your claim that Luzin's thesis is probably in the top 10 of all time? I don't recall hearing anyone make such a strong claim.

The good old 20th century. Has anything similar occurred in the 21st century?

Any links to the thesis by the way (ideally English)? Not sure if I'm just blind, but I don't seem to be able to find it.

@Mehrdad: The link is included in my 2nd paragraph -- click "This" and then at the web page you're sent to, click on "PDF file" where you see Full text: PDF file (17957 kB)". There are no translations in English, although some of what's in the thesis is discussed in several papers about Luzin in the AMS translated journal Russian Mathematical Surveys. I don't have any specific references where I'm at now -- I'd have to look this up when I'm home if you or anyone else is sufficiently interested.

@Bill Dubuque: No links, this is my belief based on how often and for how many decades afterwards I've seen it cited as the basis for something. In fact, I actually think his thesis is in the top 5, but I was playing it safe because, as is the case with anyone, I only know a few areas reasonably well to have a feel for its literature. The only people off-hand right now who I would rank higher are Riemann and Lebesgue. Maybe Gauss, I don't know. Definitely Gauss if you use Disquisitiones Arithmeticae, but maybe not if you use Demonstratio nova theorematis omnem functionem algebraicam ...

@Bill Dubuque: I've included "in my opinion" to make my opinion statement more accurate.

It was more common for something like this to happen during his time.

@ÉbeIsaac Give it a chance, the 21st century hasn't been around that long ;)

Donald Knuth:

When Donald Ervin Knuth was a college student at Case Institute of Technology in Cleveland, Ohio, in the 1950s he showed such intelligence and talent that the faculty voted to award him a master’s degree in mathematics simultaneously with his bachelor’s degree.

(Source)
Knuth himself explained:

At Case I put a lot of time into stuff out of class, but in class, I found a really clever way to, right now, let me brag this way to say, to avoid having to study too hard, for my classes. In the first place, I noticed though, that when I was a sophomore, my grades started to go down, in the first part of my sophomore year. And I ascribed it to too much ping-pong playing and playing cards too much in the dorm, and so; no, I’m sorry; this was the second half of my freshman year. I started having a little problem with my grades, and so I had to give up ping-pong.
But starting in my sophomore — junior year, I found out that you could take graduate courses at Case, and they were easier than the undergraduate courses. The reason is that Case had really strict admissions requirements for undergrads, but they were fairly loose about admitting graduate students. I think they wanted to build up, you know, admit graduate students, so when you had graduate students, in a class, they usually didn’t know as much as the undergrads did, so if you would take a graduate course, you didn’t have as much competition, you know, and the teacher would recycle stuff, and all this. So I started taking graduate classes, and you know, and all these hotshot undergrads would be taking the other classes.
And as a result, I had accumulated also, by the time I was a senior, I had accumulated lots and lots of graduate credits. Now, as a result then, Case did, on Graduation Day, Case did an unprecedented thing that had never been done before, they awarded me a Master’s Degree, simultaneously with my Bachelor’s Degree. And this, the faculty had gotten together and made a, and voted unanimously that this should happen, and I remember, you know, that was another thing that got into the newspapers at the time, that they were awarding a Master’s Degree at the same time as a Bachelor’s Degree. So, but the reason was that I had taken these graduate courses because they were easier. I didn’t, I don’t know if I’ve ever told anybody else this before today, but that was one of the reasons I could do so many other things.

(Source, transcript)

+1 This is a nice example, however I would say it is not a full answer to the problem. At least while reading the longer explanation it sounds a bit like Knuth simply did the studies necessary for a Master's degree, while technically not being enrolled for it. He did not get the degree for his performance in undergraduate courses, which is kind of what the question implied (and what is probably indeed unheard of in modern times).

@mlk At least for my undergraduate experience, it's perfectly normal for an undergraduate student to take (lots of) graduate level classes, and yet be awarded an undergraduate degree. Getting a master's degree requires a separate admission process, and a variety of other steps beyond the gradate level classes. Knuth's experience is extremely unusual, at least compared to my school.

@isaacg I took a bunch of grad classes as an undergrad, and as a result I got a master's degree essentially with my bachelor's too.  I never had to be admitted to the master's program as I recall (nor did was there a specific combined BS/master's program)--the only extra thing I had to do was take the comprehensive exams, which were no big deal.

(Though in my case, I wouldn't say the grad courses were easier than the undergrad ones.)

@mlk I suspect that doing the work for a masters and being granted a masters despite not being enrolled for it, is the exact type of example OP was after.

seconding isaacg's experience. Yes you can take graduate level courses, even up to all the coursework required, but you usually have to apply to the graduate program and write the Master thesis anyway - unless your Bachelor thesis is so exceptional that someone is willing to bend the rules for you.

@isaacg, and also needs a Master's thesis to complete the Master's degree

@Kimball Neat!  What country was that in?  In the US, I was told that courses taken before enrollment in grad school could never count for grad credit.  They even warned us that we'd have to repeat core grad classes in grad school to meet the degree requirements even if we already took them in undergrad.

@Nat This was in the US, though I guess things depend upon the individual school.  I remember my department had to do something because the grad college didn't want to accept more than a certain number of grad credits I took as an undergrad either (b/c the tuition rate was different).

See also the account in Stories about the B5000 And People Who Were There, section III. The Summer Of 1960 (Time Spent with don knuth). As Knuth says it now (elsewhere), it was a publicity stunt by the university to award a master's degree to this exceptional undergraduate student, thus getting the university's name into the news. And the reason it worked was that it was unusual.

Belatedly echoing @Kimball's story, in 1973, by dint of having taken lots of grad courses and mostly doing alright, was awarded a M.S. along with my B.S., in mathematics (in the U.S.). It did require some special paperwork... Things might be more rigid now.

The famous Polish mathematician, Stefan Banach, famously received his PhD in 1920 without having had a college degree. In fact, its a pretty famous story, he did not want to get any sort of degree as he claimed he can still come up with ideas that are better and more deserving of a degree. He was actually tricked into defending a PhD thesis as he was asked to "explain some mathematical problems to people who struggle with understanding them", which later turned out to be members of his PhD defense committee.
You could find interesting details here.

From a quick glance, the reference given does not appear to mention this story.  Another reference?

There are not that many that are in English, but I believe this one also has the story: Jahnke, Hans Niels (2003). A History of Analysis. American Mathematical Society. ISBN 0821826239.

There's a thorough answer here: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/111724/who-wrote-up-banachs-thesis.

"received his PhD in 1920 without having had a college degree" This actually might have been pretty standard for the time and place. I know of  many mathematicians that have no degree but a PhD (some places in Central Europe, until the 1960s or 1970s). After high-school they enrolled at the university with the goal of getting a PhD, there was no intermediate degree and hardly any mandatory course work. This is not to say that the education career of Banach was not unusual, only that PhD without other degree was the standard at some places in the past.

What a strange coincidence! Earlier this morning at home I just happened to be looking at an old photocopy I have of the published version of Banach's thesis regarding something in it (you can find it online here), and I also wound up reading about its origins on pp. 31-33 (if memory serves me) in Kaluza's 1996 book The Life of Stefan Banach when I looked there to see how I should translate "Université de Léopol" (this appears in a footnote on the first page of the published version of Banach's thesis).

@quid : this may be indeed the case. I remember seeing (late 80's) people with a professor degree (degree, not title), without having a PhD. They got it right after their MSc (grade-wise, not time-wise), something which was possible by then but it's not anymore.

Not quite the same, but George Dantzig famously solved two previously unsolved problems in statistical theory as a graduate student, after showing up late for class and mistaking them for homework assignments.  When he decided to start his PhD, his professor told him to "wrap the two problems in a binder, and I'll accept them as your thesis."

For some reason I can't seem to find what those two problems actually are, and I'm surprisingly curious about it.

@Muzer https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/533146/dantzigs-unsolved-homework-problems

Lol, that sounds like the "Will Hunting" plot

Is that a case where nobody told him these problems were hard? So he thought “it’s homework, so there must be a (relatively) easy solution. What is the solution?”

Ludwig Wittgenstein was famously awarded his PhD in Philosophy by his advisor, Bertrand Russell, entirely on the basis of classwork completed for his prior degree, plus the addition of a book he had written outside school (The Tractatus) standing in for a thesis.

I'm not sure if this counts, as "body of work in lieu of a thesis" is uncommon but not unheard-of.

I had a professor in University whose advisor recommended he switch from a Master's Program to a PhD Program, based on the research he was doing (he never received a Master's).
I realize this may not be in the spirit of your question, but it fits the criteria (awarded a degree higher than they were enrolled in). Apparently transfers like this are common enough to have a process for it at some universities:
https://www.grad.ubc.ca/faculty-staff/policies-procedures/transfer-masters-doctoral-programs-without-completing-masters

Students may be eligible to transfer from a master’s program into a related doctoral program ("fast track") if they have  completed the following requirements:
◾Hold a bachelor's degree, and have completed a minimum of one year of study in a master's program with 9 credits at the 500-level or above and of first class standing (80% or better).
Also:
◾(for Ph.D.) clear evidence of research ability or potential;
◾(for Ed.D.) first class standing and first class standing in such prerequisite work as may have been required, and five years professional experience; or
◾(for D.M.A.) outstanding ability in performance or composition.

My point is, this may not come up very often, as their performance should be recognized prior to the completion of their program, leading to a transfer to the higher degree program.

If he switched to a PhD program, he was then enrolled in a PhD program.  So he didn't receive a different degree from the program he was enrolled in.

@ff524 enrolled in a Master's Program, was studying in a Master's Program, awarded a degree that was a higher level based on performance. The question didn't specify that they stayed in the same program, and this explains why it is unlikely to happen.

Not exactly: enrolled in a master's program, was studying in a master's program, then enrolled in a higher level based on performance. Then awarded the same degree as the program the student is enrolled in, after satisfying the requirements for that program.

I feel like the enrollment is more of a semantics issue, but I think this at least expands on the other answers. To reference the current top answer, if Luzin had done a similar thesis today, he should be recognized long before it was presented and recommended for a transfer to a higher program. If that's incorrect, or if that type of answer is inappropriate here, please let me know and I'll get rid of this.

This answer is highly pertinent. A Masters by research and PhD are much the same in some countries, with the only real difference being the standard of the research produced. I have known Maths PhD candidates produce all they need for a thesis in the first six months, and not able to complete formally until hitting the 2 year minimum. Had they been in a Masters course, they would have met the OPs "performance warranted a higher award", but for the sake of bureaucracy have been required to convert to get the PhD.

This is actually fairly common, in my experience.  There are substantial benefits to a research groups environment to flip a talented student from an MS to  PhD

I did this. They called it a joint Masters-PhD program but I was only awarded one diploma, for the PhD. This was at the University of Toronto. Still, I don't feel like I was minding my own business being an amazing Masters student when suddenly I was handed a PhD. I was told my topic as much as my ability was behind being offered this option. I also had to fulfill all the other PhD requirements (# of courses is more than a Masters, etc.)

In Russia there are two graduate degrees: Candidate of Sciences (an equivalent of PhD) and Doctor of Sciences (a higher degree). It is very rare but not exceptional to be awarded the Doctor degree if the committee recognizes one's Candidate thesis worthy. The most famous cases is Yuri Knozorov, who deciphered the Maya script (his defence was three and a half minutes long).
Such possibility is present in the rules, otherwise, there is no skip over a degree (say, getting Master's degree without Bachelor or Specialist), one can not even enroll.

I expect this isn't what you mean, but everyone who applies for and is awarded a Bachelor's degree (this may only be honours degrees, but even if so that's by far the majority) from Oxford or Cambridge University, is also eligible for a Master's degree 4 years after graduation. Or 7 years after they started studying, I forget the exact rule.
Examples of eligible students would include 3 of the last 4 (and 4 of the last 6) British Prime Ministers. One of the two people with me in the room as I type was awarded the MA, the other has never bothered taking it but is entitled.
Historically, this is because Oxford and Cambridge claimed that the performance of all their graduates merited the higher award. Now they just claim it's "because tradition, alright?!". So to anyone who knows the system, the bonus MA is of course completely worthless as a CV point. But it entitles you to wear a nicer gown, and to vote in elections for Chancellor.
Strictly speaking you do have to apply for the master's separately, but only in the sense of "this is which date I want to attend the ceremony", not in the sense of "enrolling and studying", or submitting any work for consideration.
I say this with no bitterness at all, as someone who studied for an undergraduate master's degree at Oxford and therefore never held a bachelor's degree and don't qualify for the additional master's. One of my mates from school did the same subject at the same time, but an undergraduate bachelor's and separate master's. Same number of years study (4) and he came out of it with a BA, an MSc, and an MA he could claim later, instead of my solitary MMath :-)

Historically merit had nothing to do with it: there wasn't a studied Master's degree to confuse it with. Rather it signified full status within the university: not just voting for Chancellor, but (among other things) voting for the university's Member of Parliament.

Nicolas Demorand, a french journalist, passed a contest for a preparatory class in order to integrate an university of political science, and was immediately proposed a teaching job instead :

sa copie de philo impressionne tant... qu'on l'embauche comme prof. (his philosophy paper impress so much... that he's hired as a professor)

Source in french

Not sure it's relevant to the question. According to the quoted source, He obtained a job not a degree, and wasn't even applying for a degree but preparatory classes.

True. I answered because I see that as a step further. He got a job that require a degree just by doing a contest.

It was historically common (and still is, at some universities) for recently hired professors to be granted a master's degree jure dignitatis by virtue of their appointment as professors. This may not have happened in this particular case but it could be plausible. In most cases nowadays, the degree just serves to co-opt them as alumni rather than granting them a higher qualification because virtually no incoming professors lack a graduate degree.

Srinavasa Ramanujan
Srinivasa Ramanujan (wiki) was an Indian mathematician notable for influential theories and proofs (…) and for being largely self-taught.

"Though he had almost no formal training in pure mathematics, he made substantial contributions to mathematical analysis, number theory, infinite series, and continued fractions, including solutions to mathematical problems considered to be unsolvable."

Early academic pursuits were not fruitful:

[…] [While enrolled at Pachaiyappa's College, Madras] he passed in mathematics, choosing only to attempt questions that appealed to him and leaving the rest unanswered, but performed poorly in other subjects […] Ramanujan failed his Fellow of Arts exam in December 1906 and again a year later. Without a FA degree, he left college and continued to pursue independent research in mathematics, living in extreme poverty and often on the brink of starvation.

His independent research continued until:

"In 1913 he began a postal partnership with the English mathematician G. H. Hardy at the University of Cambridge, England. Recognizing the extraordinary work sent to him as samples, Hardy arranged travel for Ramanujan to Cambridge…"
[In March 1916] Ramanujan was awarded a Bachelor of Science degree by research (this degree was later renamed PhD) for his work on highly composite numbers, the first part of which was published as a paper in the Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society.
On 6 December 1917, he was elected to the London Mathematical Society.
In 1918 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, the second Indian admitted to the Royal Society, following Ardaseer Cursetjee in 1841.
On 13 October 1918, he was the first Indian to be elected a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.

According to the Ramanujan Institute website:

On 16 March 1916 Ramanujan graduated from Cambridge with a Bachelor of Science by Research (the degree was called a Ph.D. from 1920). He had been allowed to enrol in June 1914 despite not having the proper qualifications. Ramanujan's dissertation was on Highly composite numbers and consisted of seven of his papers published in England.

The takeaway is this: Bachelor of Science by Research is a doctoral degree, which post-1920 at Cambridge was renamed to Ph.D; albeit nuanced a difference that Bachelor's degree is not analogue to what our current idea of a BA is; that is why I've included all the other qualifications and elections he earned prior to 1920.
Aubrey de Grey:
More recently (2000), Aubrey de Grey was awarded a Ph.D. for a book he published although he was not enrolled in a doctoral program or had worked towards a Ph.D. This is not an honorary degree.
This is known as a Ph.D. by Special Regulations. According to Cambridge University: "available only to Cambridge degree holders (of whatever discipline) permit the submission of "...a significant contribution to scholarship" instead. Though the awardee has not been registered as a Ph.D. student, the degree is not honorary; applicants are evaluated by the usual methods, with examiners appointed and an oral defense of the submitted work."

Great answer, but can you expand the part about Ramanujan so that readers don't have to read the whole wiki article to find the relevant part?

Done and done! sorry just this..!

It depends on the academic regulations of the respective institutions.  I don't think this is generally possible these days.  However, if you check this academic CV, you'll notice a conspicuous absence of a diploma which I know (due to personal knowledge) to be no accident.  This was in Germany in 1962, considerably later than some other examples here.  I should be surprised if this was a singular (even though rare) occurence to happen at that time even though I don't know personally of other examples.

Note the diference between "been awarded a degree that is higher than the one one is enrolled for" and "been awarded a degree without having been awarded the lesser one before". Until the 1990s, it used to be possible at German universities to enroll for something called "grundständige Promotion", i.e., a PhD without any bachelor, master, or diploma degree in advance. In the humanities, this was quite common, in the natural sciences less so. (The former German minister Annette Schavan is a prominent example – after she lost her PhD because of plagiarism, she had no academic degree at all.)


text:
Do I benefit my professors by publishing papers with them?
I am currently working towards a master’s degree in computer science, after which I’d like to pursue a PhD in mathematics. Talking to some professors, it sounds like: If I can get some things published, I’ll have a better shot at getting funding for my PhD.
I’m currently working on a research project that I plan to use for my thesis with one professor (Professor L), but I've recently received an e-mail from another professor (Professor K) with a research project in mind that sounds more publishable.
My question is: Would I be acting out of line asking Professor K to conduct this research with me with hopes of publishing a paper even though he won’t be my adviser and graduate me from my master’s program?
Are there any benefits for him from working with me, or am I just being selfish by wanting to do both projects? Note that he’s not yet tenured (will this help on his track?).

Totally disagree with the assumptions of @LeonMeier.  That might be the case, but K might have perfectly good intentions and be planning to contribute actively.  I know of many cases where students have published with professors who weren't their advisor.

@Wrzlprmft sorry about the multiple questions here. I'm wondering if it's still best to modify the question although both questions are answered below? Would still like to oblige but wouldn't want to confuse the question's newcomers. Thanks!

No, given the answer, I think it’s better to leave the question as it is.

@LeonMeier, I agree the definition of "advisor" is someone who helps someone else do the real work, but that doesn't mean they put in so little effort they are taking advantage of a student.  Sorry you've had such bad experiences.

Would I be acting out of line asking Professor K to conduct this research with me with hopes of publishing a paper even though he won’t be my adviser and graduate me from my master’s program?

You wouldn't be out of line, but you should check that Professor L is OK with you working with K, too. L's biggest concern is most likely to be whether or not you have time to work on both projects as well as going to classes and doing whatever else is required of you as part of your studies.
If you're not already exceeding expectations on your first project, it's unlikely that you'll be able to make good contributions to two projects simultaneously.  Also, bear in mind that, as a master's student, you almost certainly haven't yet developed an accurate judgement of what would or would not be publishable.

Are there any benefits for him from working with me, or am I just being selfish by wanting to do both projects? Note that he’s not yet tenured (will this help on his track?).

Yes, there are benefits to everybody. Academics are primarily judged in terms of things like their research output, their ability to attract funding (which, in turn, depends on their research output), and their work with graduate students. Working with you directly helps him on two of those and indirectly on the third, so you're not being selfish at all.
And working with smart, enthusiastic, hard-working people is fun.

If you intend to do a PhD, you have to think long term, and forget about a short-term goal such as getting a single publication.
As a general rule, research groups work a bit like the mob: (1) everything is based on trust and you have to build a career within the group so the earlier you start the better, and (2) more often than not, there are shady stories between professors/research groups that you are not remotely aware of as a student (like that Professor X got a certain position over Professor Y in a really dirty way, Professor Z stole the idea of professor X, submitted a grant and got some funding, etc...).
Therefore, you can never be sure if choosing Professor X will prevent you from working with Professor Y later. As an extreme case, I have a friend whose PhD supervisor died and she could never finish the thesis in that University because no one else would continue supervising her just for having worked for him. Just saying.
So, to make the long story short, think long term. If you plan to do the PhD with Professor L, I suggest you accept the project of Professor L; same for Professor K.  If you are not sure or you are gonna do your PhD in another institution, choose the one you prefer.
Working with the same supervisor from beginning to end will certainly work in you own benefit. Working with different ones is an ultra-high risk endeavour.
I wish things were different, but this personal opinion/advice is based on what I have seen after having worked in 5 research institutions in 4 different countries.

You seem to be describing a system full of hatred, jealousy and grievances. I don't recognize that system at all. The departments I've been associated with for the last 20 years have been full of people whose primary motivation is the love of their subject and the desire to advance knowledge.

I am describing my experience across 5 institutions in 4 different countries, including the US and Europe, in the last 10 years. That you don't like it does not make my answer invalid or less helpful than yours. Actually, sticking to the same supervisor you want to do your PhD with is great advice.

Thanks for the reply. One thing, I plan on doing my PhD at a different university. The university I'm at now doesn't offer a Mathematics PhD since the school is somewhat small. As far as that goes, I've also done two bachelor's here and I don't see the grievances you've described. I only know of two professors that EVERYBODY knows don't really get along and even they have SOMETHING nice to say about each other from time to time. Thanks again!

You're welcome, TheRealKernel. Then I'd say it's an easy pick. Regarding the grievances described here, happy to read that's not the case in your University. However, be sure that as a student you really have no idea of what's going on behind the curtain in organizations / research groups / between professors, especially if they happened before you even joined that University. Professional courtesy and deference (even hypocrisy) are expected in any case, but that doesn't invalidate that other reality. Good luck!

I am describing my experience — My god, man, if your experience in academia was so toxic, why did you stay?

JeffE, who told you I stayed? Btw, this is not only my experience, but frequently discussed with many other people. They usually say truth hurts and comments like yours (focusing on me) only confirm it.

While there are a lot of words in this post, the main message to get out of it is answered better by @DavidRicherby with the suggestions 1) make sure to clear it with the first Professor (Prof L) and its impicit assumption for OP and L to come to agreement on whether to try to make it work or not (typically the primary concern will be if student is going to have too many things going on)  but there could be some background old-stories between professor L and K that might also makes it difficult). But the point is to clear it first with L (OP sounds as if that project is already in progress).

So you didn't stay and yet somehow ended up at 5 different institutions across 4 countries? As already pointed out by @JeffE something here is not adding up.

Masters in a university, PhD in another, several long research stays, and 2 postdocs, and then I left. What exactly does not add up? The more you question my answer and credentials, and focus on me, the more you confirm the truth that hurts.

How is asking critical questions about the merits on which you base your answer in any way a confirmation that said answer has any merit? If the environment was as toxic as you describe, why would you do not just one, but two postdocs following your PhD, when that is the low-paying option (usually people accept the lower pay because they actually find the environment stimulating).

That depends on the country Tobias. Postdocs in many European countries are really well paid, unlike in the US. Why I continued? Because... I believed in academia, surprise! I always thought the problem was the specific group I was in and changed to see if the next one was better. After several tries and seeing too many things I didn't like and talking to people I really appreciated, I just saw a pattern, so I gave up. Actually, the colleagues I respected the most also left. Note that I am talking mainly about Europe. My stay at a US university was quite different and positive.

"Postdocs in many European countries are really well paid, unlike in the US" - I was well compensated as a postdoc in the US.

I'm not questioning your experience at all. I'm quite aware that toxic environments exist in academia, just as they do in every other profession.  But my few decades of experience (undergrad, masters, PhD, postdoc, faculty, multiple sabbaticals, dozens of research visits, former students and dozens of coauthors in their own academic positions, in multiple countries) suggests that those environments are the exception rather than the rule.  Hence my well-worn response to anyone finding themselves in such an environment: Don't walk. Run. Wherever you run to is likely to be better.

Exactly JeffE. The question is... where do you run to? To the next research group, or simply out of academia? How many times should you try? Is someone facing the environment I depicted in my answer 3-4 times in a row an outlier? Cause I have met MANY people in this situation and I have even received letters from students. Of course the opinion about the system varies depending on your rank: it's no wonder I have witnessed and heard the biggest horror stories coming from PhD students, and I have often seen Faculty justifying or minimizing terrible ethics or behavior.


text:
As a teaching-assistant, how can I avoid repetitive teaching?
As a teacher assistant, I am always thinking about preparing my students with up-to-dated teaching materials and examples; however, I can see many TAs in my department who teach the content they used to teach in the past semesters and now it is obvious that because the students have access to the previous year's pamphlets and handouts, they are not encouraged to attend these TAs classes. Even some of these students just copy and paste the problems and assignments from the past homeworks.

As a teacher assistant, how can I avoid being stuck in repetitive
  teaching?

However, changing the problems each semester seems really a hard work and is almost impossible because the TA has to revise more than a hundred question or even find such quantity of new problems.

What are the techniques you use to keep your teaching material up-to-dated and
  alluring to the interested student; also to avoid lazy student to copy
  the paste semester materials?

As asked in one of the comments,
The courses I do teaching assistantship is engineering mathematics for masters students consisting solution of partial differential equations and also ordinary differential equations for bachelors students of engineering or one or two other subjects related to my major; (each semester I may have only one of these classes, I don't take simultaneous teaching assistantship classes).
I have regular classes each week for instance having two hours a week teaching assistant class.
I usually prepare some problems and after a brief review on the methods, formulas and concept; I solve those problems for students. I usually photocopy my problems for my students. Also, at the end of each topic, I assign them some problems to solve and ask their questions if they have any. Also, I give them two exams, one at the middle of the term and one at the end of each term.

An answer looking at the bigger picture:
Stop teaching the same class all the time!
If you've taught the same class so often that you can reuse your material without thinking about it much, then it's time to branch out next semester and teach something else.  Teaching a variety of classes is more fun and rewarding (as they say, the best way to learn a subject is to teach it, so this way you learn more subjects).  It is valuable experience for an academic or teaching career, and showing a breadth of teaching experience can be helpful in a job search.
Maybe your department just keeps assigning you this course and you assume you have no choice.  Try just asking to be assigned something else - contact whoever is in charge of those assignments and ask what else might be available.  Of course you might not get what you want, since making teaching assignments is always complicated and requires many constraints to be satisfied, but there's a good chance of having your preferences at least taken into account.  If you don't get what you want this semester, you might have a better chance in a future semester as they try to make it up to you.


text:
How/when to become independent in research as a graduate student?
I am in the last months of my MSc and I have done my thesis. I have published some conference papers but most of them were literature reviews.  My MSc thesis is about solving wave equations by means of method of potentials and boundary elements. I am interested in pursuing research in another field (differential equations) but I have no idea how to start any topic that may lead to a journal publication.
By asking this question, I want to understand how a research student, whether a recently graduated MSc student or a PhD student, can start searching for a new research topic and develop some researches based on his own interests. Specially, I would like to know:

To what extent should a graduate student be dependent on faculty members? How can he be more independent and start his own research activities?
Is it a good idea that the graduate work on another topic with the faculty member or work independently on a more recent research topic?
If the person is in a research group or at the university, is it a good idea or is it ethical that he develop his own research interests, besides to the topics which are being developed in that institute?
How should a graduate student manage this and make some progress in the research fields of his own interest? (In particular, sometimes the faculty members are not interested in the topics you are interested in and the person has to start his own research activity.)

And also, if this research is part of his independent research, at the time of publishing what affiliation should be used in the publications. Should it be "Independent Scholar" as mentioned in this link or something else? This is important in academic publications, because sometimes, the person is in a research group, but he is publishing a paper as part of his own researches not the things he is doing in that institute; in this case, has he mention that institute's affiliation or use his own one? So please make it clear that how the affiliation would be when the person does research independently in the cases like when he is not working in a research group or he is working with a professor or research group but his publication is output of his own research activities? It is a little unclear.

Have you seen When should a student attempt unsupervised research?? does this answer your question?

I'd say, start your own research project as soon as you can do that without antagonizing your advisor (if you already have one).

Context: I'm an older PhD student (mid-50s) and had a couple of publications before entering the PhD program. I'm in an interdisciplinary field where there are few well-established research programs. It's very common for PhD students to embark on their own research interests that are different from their advisers.  Myself, I started submitting papers after my first semester based on class projects and side projects. I even developed a paper that started as my answer to a question on our Candidacy Exam. I was a research assistant for three years with sole responsibility for a very complex Agent-based Modeling simulation.

To what extent should a graduate student be dependent on faculty members? How can he be more independent and start his own research activities?

Start as soon as possible to develop your own intellectual curiosity. This involves thinking hard about the research in your field relative to the fundamental questions in the field. This is more than "picking sides" in intellectual debates. It involves developing mental models of your field, the various research methods, research questions, and research results.  What's important?  What is not?
You might start with a single important paper.  Look at the section of the paper where they describe opportunities for further research, or maybe limitations. Read other papers that critique this important paper.  All the time, you should be asking yourself: "What do I think should be done to improve/extend/solidify this research?"
You could also start with a survey paper, which often include extensive discussions of future research directions.
As soon as possible, you should put your intellectual curiosity into action.  I'm fond of class projects and papers for that but not all disciplines have courses that support project work.  Either way, "directed reading" courses are ideal settings to write conference or journal papers of your choice under the supervision of a professor (not necessarily your adviser).

Is it a good idea [to do] the graduate work on another topic with the faculty member or work independently on a more recent research topic?

If your intellectual curiosity leads you to research questions/methods that can be successfully done in collaboration with a faculty member, then approach them and suggest a collaboration.  If, like me, your interests and ideas lead elsewhere, then do your research independently.

If the person is in a research group or at the university, is it a good idea or is it ethical that he develop his own research interests, besides to the topics which are being developed in that institute?

It's a good idea to develop and invest in your own research interests if they diverge from your research group.  There is no problem with ethics if you are open and forthcoming about what you are doing and why.  This might go against the cultural norms of the university or research group, but you should make decisions you feel good about in terms of your ethics and values.  If other people aren't happy with them or push back, then my view is that is their problem. If they have power, you may suffer negative consequences.  So be it.  Don't bow before people in power just because they are in power.

How should a graduate student manage this and make some progress in the research fields of his own interest? (In particular, sometimes the faculty members are not interested in the topics you are interested in and the person has to start his own research activity.)

Make a work plan.  What is your output (results, papers, articles)?  Where will you submit it?  In what sequence?  How much time will it take -- daily, weekly, monthly?  If you can't make a plan that answers these questions, recruit a mentor.  It could be anyone who you respect and who knows your field, maybe faculty at your university or maybe someone far distant.
In general, the more you can weave your independent research into your other activities and projects, the better off you will be.  That's why I like class projects.  But same goes for research assistant work, industry work, or other work.  Look for as much synergy between all these activities as you can.

[...] if this research is part of his independent research, [...] what affiliation should be used in the publications? Should it be "Independent Scholar" as mentioned in this link or something else?

No, you shouldn't use "Independent Scholar" as affiliation as long as you have an official affiliation as a graduate student, post-doc, or other. You should always use your primary affiliation, even if it is Physics and your paper is in Art History.  The exception is if you have multiple official affiliations (e.g. Visiting Researcher) and your research was done at or was supported by these other affiliated institutions.

@Parsa, it sounds as if you are approaching this from the wrong perspective. You should not expect to spend "a few days of the week" working on other projects and not on your dissertation. Yes, you are allowed to work on other projects - how could anyone stop you from thinking about whatever you want? But you should expect that the research group will be a full time job. Taking off "a few days" each week is almost certainly a bad idea.

As a graduate student, you are not yet expected to conduct research that is completely independent of an advisor or mentor. The fundamental goal of (doctoral) graduate education is to develop your research ability so that you have the ability work completely independently after you graduate. There is nothing wrong with being "dependent" on your advisor, in a certain sense, when you are still in graduate school. Of course, you will have to do your own work to earn the degree.
You should start thinking about your own research interests, but budget your time and prioritize your projects appropriately. If you have the time, energy, and ability to work on independent research while also working on your dissertation, that's fine.
But be careful: it is easy to underestimate the amount of effort required to finish the dissertation. And, in general, you want to have an excellent dissertation if you are planning to continue in academia.  So a certain amount of focus and single-mindedness is needed to complete your degree well.  Don't spread your effort too thin.
You should also make sure that your advisor is aware if you are making any serious progress on other research - at the least, so that they know you are also still serious about your dissertation.  It would be risky to keep your advisor in the dark, if only because they may feel you are not dedicating sufficient time to your dissertation.   And be ready to sell your project to your advisor, as described by Yuichiro Fujiwara.
Finally, if you are a graduate student at a university or research group, then your affiliation is that university or research group. This is no different than for a faculty member at the university.

As a graduate student, you are not expected to conduct independent research. — [citation needed]!!!!!!      I certainly expect my graduate students to conduct independent research, just as my advisor did.

@JeffE: hmm. Perhaps "independent" is not the perfect word. You mention "your" graduate students - surely they are not working completely independently of you, because otherwise your role as their advisor would be meaningless. What I meant by "independent" was what I took the OP to be asking about, which is working without the guidance of an advisor.

I mention "my" graduate students because "graduate students for whom I have agreed to be an advisor" takes too long to type. I stand by my comment. I expect "my" students to work independently, without my guidance, before they finish their degree: At least one publication without me is an ironclad PhD requirement.

@JeffE: that's an admirable standard, but it is far from typical to expect every graduate student in my own field (math) to publish an independent paper before getting their PhD. I obtained my own degree from a top-20 school and very few of my fellow graduate students would have graduated if they needed to meet that requirement. Indeed they say that the median number of papers per author in MathSciNet is 1 (one), and that one is typically a write up of the main results of the thesis.

@Parsa: the question is whether you are supported by the institute, not whether they have a separate budget for each of your projects. As a student at a school, your affiliation is that school. There are some reasons to pick "independent scholar" if you have a non-academic job and need to separate your research from your employment, but as a student those reasons don't apply. Personally, I would view it as slightly misleading for a student to list "independent scholar" as an affiliation.

@Parsa: in the very hypothetical situation that you end up in a university graduate program where you are not allowed to mention the name of your university as your affiliation on papers that you publish, they will tell you. What you are talking about sounds more like private research labs or R&D divisions of companies (and would not even apply to all of these). Universities, by and large, want to get their name on as many good papers as possible.


text:
Getting a Lecturer Position in the UK
I am an electrical engineer working in the industry for some time. I have completed my PhD from Oxbridge comparatively recently. During my PhD, I have published two IEEE journal papers. Although, I did not do any postdoc but I am involved with voluntary research (collaborative) and I have published a conference from that endeavour. Also, I am gaining some online teaching experince at the undergraduate level. I have been trying to get a lecturer position in the UK for over the last two years, mainly in mid to lower ranked institutions (but also in some top ranked institutions). To date, I have attended 8 interviews but without any luck. I am a bit frustrated not only for my failure but also for the pretty generic feedback I receive most of the time after the interviews. Therefore, I am struggling to understand where my faults are. I have tried to improve my presentation, practiced the typical questions and what not. I am not quite sure what to do differently actually to improve my chance.
I am not quite sure whether this is very normal or this is something which is happening to me only. If someone can help or provide me some guidance, that would be much appreciated.

At my school, we shortlist candidates based on their research record.  Hence, when it comes to the interview, we no longer focus on their research track record.  We want to see whether you are able to teach and whether your personality fits within the school's culture.  I've interviewed many candidates with excellent research profile, but will never in a million year put them in front of students.

@VitaminE, Does it mean that all the candidates are at the same level during the interview ? During the interview process, you only evaluate the performance of the candidates ? Also, how do you understand that my personality fits within the school's culture ?

Unfortunately, in practice, at least in my discipline (engineering), nobody is at the same level, research wise. For example, we have people who have completed multiple prestigious post-docs applying for a lecturer position, and some apply with unbelievable number of top journals. On the culture, I don't think I can give a definitive answer as it is quite subjective. This is the same regardless of whether you are interviewing for a company or university.

I am sorry to hear that you are struggling to establish yourself as a Lecturer.
I have to say that I am not completely surprised. Lecturers in the UK are "tenured" (permanent) posts, following a probation period which is relatively straightforward to complete compared to competitive and exhausting tenure process in the US. As such, Lecturer posts are not easy to obtain, even though they do not pay much compared to an average occupation in industry.
The entry requirements for a Lecturer may be quite demanding. Depending on the field and a specific University, a newly starting Lecturer may be expected to already have a strong publication track (10+ papers in high-tier academic journals), and some teaching experience acquired during PhD or postdoc years. You have what is often called an "alternative" career route --- coming to academic occupation after some years in industry. This always attracts interests and this is probably why you are shortlisted for the posts and invited to the interviews even though you do not have a strong publication record etc.
It is difficult to say why exactly you are not successful after the 8 interviews. Perhaps, instead of trying to play on your existing voluntary research and past teaching experience, you can emphasize your experience in industry and clearly explain how this is transferable into academic setting. Can you run an exciting lab for students? a practice-based course? something project-oriented? Have you read educational literature and did you get some ideas from it on how your industry experience can inform and enhance your teaching practice? What are your research plans and do you know how to get funding to get it going?
You need to use interview as an opportunity to convince your future colleagues that you know what you are doing and you won't need much coaching in your new role. Being a Lecturer is a tough work, and the panel members want to see that candidates are ready and prepared for it. This is not only about the formal track, but more about the clear plan and mental picture of what you are going to do in your new role and how you will build on your existing skills to move forward and succeed.
Good luck.

Note on publications - I needed 22 papers (and 2+ years teaching experience) to get my first lectureship in the uk.


text:
Publication- rejection with advising to resubmit
I have received a decision letter from a Q1 journal with following remarks:

Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received.  You will see
  that they are advising against publication of your work.  Therefore I
  must reject it.
However, you may submit in the future better revision after resolving
  all these drawbacks mentioned by the reviewers, and as new revision

While a reviewer has mentioned "major revision", is this decision advising for resubmit after revising the paper? Does this mean "Reject and resubmit"?

Welcome to Academia SE. Can you please [edit] your question to clarify what exactly your problem is? The decision letter seems pretty clear and you seem to have understood it. Where and why are you doubting your interpretation?

While a reviewer has mentioned "major revision", is this decision advising for resubmit after revising the paper? Does this mean "Reject and resubmit"?

Yes, this means your manuscript is rejected, but you are free to submit a new version once you addressed the mentioned problems.
Note that whether one of the reviewers voted for Major Revision rather than Reject is completely irrelevant - it's the editor's decision that counts.

To add to your answer. R&R many times means something along these lines: "your paper is interesting and could potentially be published in our journal, but there are many issues to be taken care off". In otehr words, it is not a bad work, and we could see it published in our journal, given that you work more hard on the manuscript.

I don't know if I'd say it's as encouraging as that, but more that it's making explicit the otherwise ambiguous question of whether the journal would permit a new submission of the same article. Some rejections are with prejudice: don't try again, you're wasting your time.

That is to say, I don't read this as advising in favor of resubmission.  It is explicitly not rejecting the possibility.

No, I would never assume that a Reject & Resubmit is advising resubmission. It's a reject. They don't like it. If they would like it, they would probably have asked for a Major Revision.

(Edit: I just realized that DSVA already mentioned this as a comment to an answer; in any case I think it deserved to be made an answer)
Your question is important, because interpreting this editorial decision can shape your choice of resubmission, as mentioned in Nicole Ruggiano's answer.
It is therefore important to realize that "reject with invitation to resubmit" currently may really mean "major revision needed".
Of course, one wonders why an editor would not tell "major revision" if it is what he or she means; the point is that major revisions may take a long time to be implemented, so that the paper could end up being accepted, and published, very long after submission. But average time from submission to acceptance is now used by some authors when choosing where to submit, so to attract more submissions journals have an interest on making this number as small as possible. One way of doing that with little cost is to reject and invite to resubmit instead of asking for a major revision before reassessment: the official submission date will then be the second submission, not the first.
I think such a practice is unethical, of course, but that does not make it less real and one needs to be aware of it.

In my opinion both as author and reviewer, "Major revision" should only be used if the editor/reviewers are quite confident that the paper will indeed reach the required level for publication if the suggested revisions are made.
I have seen editors recommend "Major revision" and, after a protracted multi-round process, reject the paper because it wasn't that good after all or the results of the new experiments weren't great. This is a miserable waste of time for everyone.
In case of doubt, erring towards "Reject" is better. The possibility to resubmit is always there after all.

I think there's a bit more difference between "major revision" and "reject and resubmit". In a major revision, there are standard deadlines (e.g. your revision is expected in 2 months) which don't apply to reject & resubmit. The editorial management system continues to track a major revision paper, but not a r&r one; a r&r paper is more likely to be reviewed by different reviewers as a result. Finally, a major revision decision means the first journal still expects a revision; r&r means you can submit elsewhere without having to withdraw.

Without additional information, I would take this response as a full rejection. It is possible that the editor finds your topic relevant, but that the comments from the reviewers warrant an entirely different paper, rather than revising parts of the manuscript you submitted. Typically, there would be a designation of "Major revision" if the editor felt as if the reviewers would be satisfied with changes to areas of the current manuscript. As for the re-submission comment, it may be that the editor feels that once the paper is rewritten, it could be submitted as a new, original manuscript. However, I typically incorporate the reviewer feedback in cases like this and submit it somewhere else after making edits - I rather have it published in a journal that isn't Q1 than wait month after month for more rejections at a top-tiered journal. You can always submit something else there at a later time. Good luck!

I am sharing my experience here so that it could be informative for others.
As my paper was rejected from a Q1 journal, I addressed all the reviewer's comments and resubmitted to the same journal. After a week, I received rejection again from the editor with the following comments:

The article is rejected on mid April and resubmitted after a week or so,  Still the issues stated by reviewers are not clearly resolved,  This is not revised paper, and sending again to reviewers in this fashion is not recommended.  You have to make considerable efforts to revise the paper and make it in the journal potential.

After this rejection, I immediately submitted the article to another Q1 journal having the similar reputation. After almost a month, I have received the minor revision and after one revision my manuscript was accepted.


text:
Career choice: another postdoc in a strong University, or Faculty in a weaker one?
It is probably a very "soft" question, but let me try.
It is customary to believe, that after a certain period of postdoctoral research a person should either establish him/her-self as a (permanent or tenure track) Faculty member, or leave academia for good, seeking employment elsewhere. The maximum "postdoc period" is of course not specified, and very country-- and area--dependent, but arguably it is around 8 years — for example, many fellowship programs invite applications from candidates with no more than 7-8 years of postdoc experience.
Consider a person with almost that many years of postdoc experience given a choice: either to pursue another postdoc position in a strong internationally recognized University (say, top-20 THE rating), or go for an independent Faculty position in a less recognized place (say, top-200 THE rating).
If you think that the choice here is obvious, I would very much like to hear your pro / contra arguments. The area is computational mathematics.

I don't think it's a bad question, but we had pretty much exactly the same discussion already.

The right thing to do is definitely going to be person-dependent. Imagine that the top 200 position is in an area you would love to live in and you have a significant other who would get a great job there too. Depending on how you valued this sort of thing, the choice might be obvious.

@gammapoint The things you mentioned are of great importance indeed, but let us assume that they are equally good or bad for all options.

Yesterday, I saw crawfish in a store. Big ones. For $ 5 a piece. Very big. And today, I saw small crawfish. $ 3 a piece. Really small. But for 3. But today. ... The yesterday ones were really big. Extremely. But for 5. And today ...- small ones. Almost nothing. But, only for 3.... Now, what is better - yesterday, but for 5, or today, but for 3? ... The ones yesterday were really big. If I only had $ 5 yesterday... Not that I have $ 3 today...