text:
Should a thesis advisor be an onlooker or somebody who struggles with the problem?
I am asking about research in a Math department, although I believe the question generalises to other departments.
I would like to know what a potential thesis advisor should be like. Should the advisor be somebody who is experienced, is quite famous but nowadays usually supervises the works of his students as an onlooker and does not really work on the same problem? Note, he still studies his area but does not publish anything by himself recently. Or should he be somebody who fights along with the PhD student on a problem, and they share ideas and attempts, and both are active in this?
In the first case, I have heard that the experience of the professor matters and his fame will help in getting a placement much more easily. Also he would want me to learn, and trying the same problem with me would tilt the scales towards him since he would come up with ideas more quickly than me due to his experience. As a result, there is a chance the work would become primarily his. But isn't this the thing to look out for? Why would I have somebody as my advisor who doesn't work on my problems, (but who has worked on these previously) and merely tells me references and guides me to papers or books when I get stuck? How exactly am I learning from him, then?
Personally, I would prefer somebody who may be young, but who is motivated enough and willing to spend hours with me discussing things and working together on a problem, rather than somebody whose aim is to "help" me do things by giving suggestions, most of which he hasn't read completely (which usually happens). He should be my friend and together we should explore the frontiers of human knowledge. But that's my opinion. If I manage to get my degrees, maybe I would try to be that kind of an advisor to my students, and if I cannot, I would tell them straight away.

Do you want a job afterwards, or do you just want a PhD?

Why should there be this choice? This is supposed to be a continuous process, right? And, I would want a job, but also through my 5 years I wouldn't want to feel alone, right?

If, by the time you graduate, your advisor can't say that you are the world's leading expert on some (possibly very narrow) topic, you will not get a research-oriented job.  (Yes this means you have to be more expert than your advisor.)  If you work too closely with your advisor, you won't develop your own expertise.

Is your supervisor working on a second phd (yours) how many do you think he or she needs? If they supervise 4 or 5 phd students where does the time come from?

My (prospective) supervisor spends his time reading a lot nowadays. He is wise, informed, experienced (has almost 12 students by now) but when I give presentations to him on problems I found interesting, he just listens and says, "You should pick the problem you find interesting." When I tell him about something, he directs me to papers to see if they are relevant. But I am missing the "togetherness" touch...

@LandonCarter you may find that once you pick one and stick to it you may get the togetherness you look for... until then he may just be waiting for you to get a grip...

For the purposes of the job market, you are much better off collaborating with people who are not your advisor.  Also, while there are many collaborations in math, most of the tend to be several people bringing their differing expertise to work on a problem, not people with similar knowledge working together on the same thing.

I am not sure which type of advisor is better. It probably depends on the individul or is a combination of both extremes. However, I think that, in the absence of finding all good qualities in one individual, a PhD student can build a team of mentors and coauthors.
Your advisor is one type of mentor in your team, but you should add others. Perhaps you can also do work with a postdoc or coauthor who would provide the togetherness/teamwork you are looking for. You might also want to add a junior person with a different research specialty but a great personal connection to you who can provide some career-focused advice rather than research-focused advice. And others as needed.
Personally, my advisor was like yours. I cultivated other relationships with more junior people to supplement his more 10,000-foot approach. It was good training for being an independent researcher.


text:
Cold feet about attending PhD program
So I currently have a job in software that I really enjoy, however I've always wanted to do research, so I applied to a PhD program in CS to study formal methods and security. I've accepted an offer from the school I wanted to go to and met my adviser who seems amazing and I have full funding for 4 years. Its a great situation to be in. I had accepted the offer after weighing all my options, however now that I've actually accepted the offer, I've been having cold feet. I was given a generous raise & bonus at my current job (that I didn't quite expect) and I really feel like I'll be giving up (or at least delaying) so many things in my life (housing, hobbies, traveling, etc.). Also, I'll be giving up the security that having a good salary affords (for example, I've had to take care of my mom a few times when she needed emergency surgery and being able to just fly out on a moments notice is really comforting and something I'll lose).
I feel like I made a mistake by not just pursuing the PhD after undergrad, but at the time I didn't know what I wanted to research so I felt it would be inappropriate to go without a clear goal/specific research field in mind.
So I guess, my main question is how should I go about making a career decision when it comes to the PhD? I was so sure I wanted to do this, but its felt wrong ever since I hit the button to accept the offer. I'd love to do research in formal methods, but I feel like I've borderline been spoiled by having a well paying job after living extremely frugally as an undergrad (had like 0 money & support structure during that time) and I don't know if I have the mental stamina to go back to that life. If you guys have gone from industry to a PhD program, how did you make that decision?

I don't know why you think this would be analogous to your frugal undergraduate experience.  Don't you have any savings built up from the well-paid job?  // Why would you not be able to make a short trip to care for a relative as a grad student? // I'm voting to close as too dependent on individual factors.  You could improve the question by asking what factors to consider when deciding whether to leave industry to purse a PhD.  (But this may have been answered already.)

I was in industry before returning for a PhD (in neuroscience). I don't know that I regret it, but I do often wonder what my life would have been like if I stayed in industry. For me, one determining factor in returning to school was that I didn't enjoy working on other people's questions. As a software developer, I was always solving the client's problems. As a scientist, I was working on things that interested me (and my advisors).
Factors you might want to consider:

If you decide not to attend, how upset will your future advisor and school be? Will you be burning bridges?
Could you work for a few more years (maybe saving some money) and then decide to get a PhD?
The salary for a CS PhD is generally not that bad. It is not the same as being a penniless undergrad.

I think you should talk to your advisor and let them know how your are feeling. That will give them a chance to provide advice, and also gives them a heads up that you are having 2nd thoughts (which seem totally reasonable to me). If they react badly (which they might do), that is a sign that this relationship might run into trouble anyway over the course of the degree.

I like this, but would strike #1 -- this is OP's life, the school will get over it. Perhaps a missing factor to consider is "what do you need this for (if anything)? The PhD should not be an end goal, it should be a tool that you can use to get your dream job."

last sentence: brilliant!

@cag51 The reason include #1 that is that the OP seemed unsure if he might eventually want to do a PhD. I'm not worried about the advisors/schools feelings except that those feelings may end up as closed doors for the OP.

Not sure what the answer is, for you.  I will say that the school will get over it.  They have people not show up periodically.  You don't need to go into detail, just send them a letter saying you have personal issues and need to defer/cancel.  You might burn that school, but it won't be an issue if you want to go elsewhere.
In terms of the human consideration and the road not followed, it is hard to say. You may find yourself regretting ditching the school if you pass on it!  Such is life.  Not sure how to give you the magic answer.
I would probably lean towards staying with the job.  I left 7 years post ug to do a Ph.D.  Did fine and had a little extra money and experience to make it easier.  But still not sure if it was right call.  And I had a little more personal motivation than you--getting over not marrying girl I should have, needed to leave the state.
Maybe try talking to some people at another school?  I think talking to the school itself will be a fiasco (or to your job).  If you talk face to face, they may be able to have an intuition if you "belong" more in research or job.
My bias would be to stick with the job unless you are stuck professionally.  If you are getting promoted, that is good sign.  But of course, you will never be able to follow each half of the fork in the road, such is life.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
How do I choose field of study for Phd in CS, more general or specific?
I was admitted to several Phd position and I am considering most interesting two labs. Their fields are similar and both interesting to me. The problem is, one lab has more general topic, but the other has more specific topic.
The 'A' lab is focusing on brain-inspired AI. It aims to develop deep learning model based on neuroscience. There is not much rooms for mathematics seeing the previous papers. The 'B' lab is more concentrated on machine learning itself and uses extensive mathematics.
After I get Phd in CS, I will probably go to industry or perhaps to academia and I should be able to apply my knowledge to new domains which is required by company. I think mathematics is important for this flexibility.
I am worrying that if I study brain-driven AI during Phd, I might lack flexibility since the topic is specific and it is not using math a lot. Yes, I know that as a Phd, I should study mathematics by myself required for machine learning but it is also true that student whose topic is more math oriented ML will relatively have better knowledge at the end of Phd.
Some give me advice that I should go to a lab having more broad field of study. And it is better to go to more specific fields as a post-doctor. Considering the fact that I should always study new things by myself after Phd, I think it would be better to be trained with extensive mathematics which is core baseline of ML.
What do you think?

There are two broad criteria for a PhD: it must advance the state of the art (novelty); and it must be your own work (independence). The novelty criterion tends to suggest that all research PhDs are 'narrow'. The more interesting question is whether the field is 'crowded' (too many researchers chasing few new questions).
Congratulations on your admission to multiple PhD positions. I'd suggest that you consider the following, with the understanding that you make your own decisions on this:

Is the topic of personal interest to you? This can be for the academic content or for job prospects or skills likely to be gained, etc.
Does the supervisor have a good track record of having doctoral candidates that graduate within a reasonable time?
Is there a reasonable expectation that you'd be able to settle on a research topic that is solvable and will satisfy the novelty aspect when you write up?

These questions help you deal with motivation, completion and realistic expectations.

That's a very difficult question to answer, and my suggestions below are speculative, but based on experience and observations.
Specific project: On the other hand, a more specific project will be easier to address, you will spend less time wandering around, and you will gain specific skills that you can apply and reapply. These skills are more likely what industry will want.
General project: I think any project that offers a more general topic will give you greater flexibility to make your mark on the world, if you have the capabilities and the luck to come up with the right ideas at the right time. Making your mark is beneficial  for subsequent academic positions, and essential if you want to be a big-shot celebrity.
The risk with general topics is that you have too much freedom and, without case studies or something to draw inspiration from, you may be forced to guess a lot of the time. That is fine, science is guessing, but given that you will be a PhD student you will likely lack the intuition to make your guesses worthwhile.
Short-term advice: a specific topic may be an easier path to industry, a general topic may be easier for academia, but you should make sure that the general topic is not too general.
Long-term advice: Working on a general and highly-speculative topic may lead to you becoming an expert in a new area of research, and hence demand from industry, but that would likely be many years after you PhD.

If your goal is to work in industry after the fact, I would look for a specific problem that is not well served by the prior art.  Doing general research on AI has some academic sex appeal but I don't think generic AI research will translate well to a position in industry.  I would look for professors in other fields (engineering, science, and math) who work on computational algorithms for industrial applications and solicit them for positions.
I did my undergrad in Software Engineering and Management and I found that I had a lot to offer a mechanical engineering PhD who works in reliability of machinery.

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


text:
How are travel expenses paid by conferences?
Is there a standard way they are paid?
We'll concern ourselves only with cases where it's stated that the conference will pay travel (up to a specific amount). However, does the speaker pay and then get compensated for receipts? Does the conference pay the tickets? Does it pay them in advance?...
If you need a concrete case - Black Hat https://www.blackhat.com/us-18/call-for-papers.html .

I've seen everything from checks to crisp cash.

In my experience, most times the person being compensated pays for their travel in advance, and then the conference recompenses them (save your receipts!).
Occasionally, however, the conference will arrange (and pay for) the dominant expenses (typically airfare and/or lodging).
The first is often actually preferable for speakers who can afford delayed recompense and trust the organization, since it gives more flexibility in making one's plans.  Usually, however, you don't get a choice.

Thank you. I don't have enough reputation to upvote.

For a small, local conference I've helped run, we invite a handful of speakers and can/have done either of your options. Often the speaker will combine coming to our conference with travel to other labs in the region, so we let them make their complex arrangements. Or, if just coming to us, we can book the air and hotel on our end. Usually the speaker will just go ahead and do it themselves (preferred airline/connection/whatnot) and we reimburse them.

@NajibIdrissi Good point, and clearly an example of my own privilege causing me to overlook something important.

@NajibIdrissi That's a good point. I think most institutions have both options (to pay for or to refund), but one option is the default, and the other one has to be asked for. When I was in the UK, the default was paying from your own pocket and being refunded, and in France it seems to be the other way around.

I am organising a workshop and we have chosen to a) reimburse air travel up to some amount after the invited speaker pays and books it and b) book and pay for accommodation directly ourselves. The reason is very simple. Handling a centralised hotel booking where all speakers are staying at the same hotel on the same dates is easy. Handling air travel where each speaker is coming from a different part of the world with a different company is complicated.


text:
Quit a postdoc?
I am afraid I am not capable to do this job and I am really struggling. I feel suffocated in the whole environment. I believe his intention is good (to communicate), though it might not be specific for me but for his project certainly (important).
As I don't have the background knowledge of the project, most of the night I would stay up to do research but it took me so long time to achieve very little. The stress and work overtime strongly affect me and my partner (she have many health issues, most of the time she is ok to look after herself but she is very fragile).
We both are struggling with our own issues. Apparently my work situation definitely not ideal (for us).
I have been seriously thinking to quit. My financial is ok. So far I can't think for the future. I know it won't be good for my CV (which will make me to have more than a year gap of unemployment after my PhD if I quit this job).
I worked in research areas only in my whole life. I tried to look for normal job but no success. I also don't know if postdoc is suitable for me.
Wow, I don't understand how other people can say it take them 4-5 months to settle in... I feel like I got throw into a pool and need to learn to swim immediately.

Have you brought up your concerns to your advisor? It's likely that he can help to adjust the situation. In particular, he could help you understand the background more efficiently (e.g., by answering questions) and adjust the frequency of meetings. They could even change the scope of your topic.

He knows I don't have any background of that project. He said he don't mind that and he wants that actually (bring up different points of view). He is quite intimidating to talk to sometimes, he speaks blunt and direct which is nothing wrong with it in his position. He also expressed I am wasting his time sometimes as I don't have any input to the project. I can't change the project as this is what he hired me for.

It often helps to share your concerns with a fellow postdoc at your institution. They may be able to provide another perspective to your situation, or they may have more knowledge about your supervisor. If you're unsure who you would be comfortable to trust discussing with, try someone unrelated to your supervisor (so no conflict of interest), but preferably in the same department so they're aware of your supervisor and how things generally work for postdocs in your department.

In what area did you do your PhD, and how many papers did you publish?
In what area are you working now?

Give it some more time. It took me 4-5 months to settle into the postdoc.

"quite intimidating to talk to",  "also expressed I am wasting his time sometime".  These sound like serious red flags from an abusive/toxic supervisor.

Feeling overwhelmed when adjusting to a new project and environment is not uncommon, and it takes time to adapt and gain expertise. However, considering the stress and impact on your personal life, it's important to assess if this postdoc aligns with your long-term goals.
Remember that a postdoc is often a steppingstone to a faculty position, providing an opportunity to work independently and demonstrate your abilities beyond your PhD advisor's influence. Completing a postdoc in a different research area is valuable for showcasing your adaptability and ability to publish outside your comfort zone.
Discuss your concerns with your supervisor, seeking their guidance and support. They may be able to provide clarity and assistance. Seeking advice from mentors and colleagues who have faced similar challenges can also provide valuable insights.
Finally, remember that quitting doesn't necessarily mean failure.  Prioritize your well-being and explore alternative options that better suit your needs and goals. Assess your situation carefully and make an informed decision will lead you to a more fulfilling path. Remember, it's important to prioritize your own growth and happiness.

Getting started on a postdoc in a different environment, with a different supervisor after a successful PhD can feel overwhelming and intimidating and it is certainly not uncommon to doubt yourself. I think many of us have been there. That being said, this shouldn't be so all consuming that you walk around with a knot in your stomach. That is a sign that other things are going on.
Don't give up and call it quits before you take a breath and try to break things down to see where your struggles are and try some things to improve the situation.
Clearly there's your situation at home which seems to be adding to the stresses of this new job in a new town. Try to craft some time in your life where you really are off work for real without feeling guilty for not working. Even if it's two evenings and a weekend morning or afternoon where you can be physically and mentally present with your partner 100%.
Then there's the job itself. You probably need to adjust to how your supervisor is communicating. In an ideal world they would also communicate with you in a way that works best for you, but even people who are really good at doing this may need some time to figure that out - and perhaps this is just what your supervisor is like. Can you talk to some other lab members to ask what the best approach is to communicate with him? Do you feel comfortable to tell your supervisor directly that you need to adjust to his direct way of communication? Can you ask what he thinks you need to focus on first to be successful in this project?
One way or another, you need to find a way to handle this. As long as you can hold on to the view that he has good intentions and both of your best interests in mind, that's a good point of departure and a place you can always return to. If you don't understand him, simply rephrase it at the end of a conversation: so if I can summarize then I need to do X? This is the best way to prevent misunderstandings.
Then there's you and this project. Good for you for changing topics. This can make you feel like a beginner all over again - not the best feeling in the world. Remind yourself of why you made this choice (hopefully there was a really good reason for picking this postdoc as this may be the incentive you need to keep going).
Ask yourself what you could do more or differently. I don't just mean 'work harder' but also 'work smarter' (i.e. are you putting your energy where it matters). It sounds like you are happy behind the bench, but make sure that you indeed take the time to focus on the larger theory and concepts - otherwise you may not be doing the right experiments.
Are you reading the right papers? Are you taking initiative to find out where the difficulties are that your PI things you are underestimating (maybe not the best motivational speech but useful information)? Are you asking enough questions and talking to other people who may have bits of useful information? Use the weekly meetings with your PI to ask questions, bounce ideas off of him and try to see where he sees this project going.
Hopefully in time, your confidence and mastery of the subject will grow and you can take this project your own direction. You have a PhD, so you should have the skills to master this topic as well. If not, well, then maybe this particular postdoc or an academic career is really not for you. But let's not jump to that conclusion just yet.

I would like to emphasis the find your own time. Even if your goal is to learn, trying to learn when you are stressed out means you won't be as creative and will make it harder to view the problems from another angle (which you probably need to understand the theory).

If you've reached a point where you have trouble communicating with your advisor, you might want to ask a third party to be present just to help the two of you understand each other.

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


text:
Not getting the prestigious papers
I work in a quite competitive sub-field of computer science. In computer science, we have the publication culture where people publish mostly in the proceedings of different conferences. As in other sub-fields, we have several conferences that are super selective and thus highly prestigious, and a few others that are OK but not so valuable. I am a mid-late PhD student, and I have an extremely poor record of getting into those top-tier venues. I've had at least five rejections in the last years. All my papers are published elsewhere and I am personally OK with that, I still believe that my work has value: it was cited, I got personal praises for the content and quality of my work. The problem is that the attitude of my adviser and some other people in the field is that only the papers from the prestigious venues count, and everything else is "meh" no matter what the actual content of the paper is. Moreover, it seems that one has no future in academia without those publications. This situation makes me quite depressed at times: it devalues all the hard work I have done in last six years of my life and makes me feel like I am wasting my time and should drop out. So questions:
1) Does my lack of ability to deliver those high profile publications at this stage really mean that my academic future is bleak?
2) If I decide to stay in (at least to finish the PhD), how can I deal with being my work massively devalued just to keep myself sane?
P.S. We even have a ranking based on those publications: http://csrankings.org/

Honestly, I am less and less convinced that the triage occurring through peer-review is that good. Certainly the most brilliant papers get to the most selective venues, ok, but that is easy to achieve. Then between the great-but-not-not-so-stellar that also get in and those who do not, I feel like the noise over signal ratio is pretty bad. You should continue to aim for the conferences that will help you get a job, and do your best, but try not to take those rejection too personally. I have little doubt what my best work is, and it got rejected 5 times and ended in a good-but-not-great venue.

I don't know the field that well -- to what degree is double-blind review practiced? There is a growing body of evidence that single-blind review leads to inequitable publication results in many fields. Here's one example. (The point being that you might find you have considerably more success submitting to double-blind venues.)

@BenoîtKloeckner, I agree. I don't like the current publication system. There are many issues with peer review, I witnessed them firsthand, both as an author and as a reviewer. They are exacerbated in compsci with its conference-style publication culture which brings its own unique problems. I also find the idea that only top-tier publications matter quite bizarre. But as a student I have zero influence on the system and have to somehow adapt to survive within it.

If you're thinking of dropping out of academia, and moving to industry, then still finish the PhD.  You will have a qualification that most of the other job candidates don't, and nobody will care where your papers were published.

From personal experience: if you are close to finishing and are able to do so, complete the PhD even if you have no intention of continuing in academia. The qualification is very valuable outside of academia, and it is not very likely that employers will judge your abilities by the particular place you have published. This is what I did: I got fed up with the publication requirements of academia, switched to commercial employment and never looked back.

First, congratulations! You've published papers, been cited, and gotten praise from colleagues! You've shown that you can publish, and I don't think your adviser and others would be pushing you if they thought you didn't have a shot at the top conferences and journals.

Are any of the people who have cited or praised you in a position that you could collaborate with them and/or pursue a postdoc? They have indicated that they know and value the quality of your work, and they might be able to help you raise your profile. That would be a promising path forward.

Academia is full of criticism and critics. It is easiest to give broad criticism, and it takes a lot of interpretation to make that constructive and to separate critical feedback on your work from your self worth.

One way to deal with the devaluation might be to try it your adviser's way. That is, since you know you can get your ideas published somewhere, see what it takes to aim at a higher publication. With your next research idea, plan to spend much more time on revision. Ask your adviser and anyone else who will comment what it would take to hone that into a top publication. Does it need a broader scope? Do you need to deal with more subcases? Is the idea itself too peripheral or incremental? Do you need to explicitly link it to more pressing issues in the field?
CS tends to have multiple-author papers. Can you collaborate on a paper that your adviser thinks has promise for getting into a top journal? (Either one that your adviser spearheads or one with a postdoc or fellow student?) You might learn more about the editing process they use, and the successful publication might help raise your profile.
Study how people present ideas in top proceedings and journals. You might not love their style--they may be more limited in length than in less selective venues, perhaps requiring them to be more opaque and more formulaic in order to pack in more results. But you, too, can write in that style if that's what it takes. What else do you see about the abstracts and papers that you can emulate?
Another way to survive is to think carefully about what you are proud of in your own work and what you value in others' work. This might give you a sense of who you want your closest colleagues and mentors to be.

Thanks for the encouragements. I am pretty sure I can get a reasonable postdoc (I could be wrong), but I don't if it is worth it. I see some students producing high-tier publications year after year, and when I imagine that I will have to compete with them on the job market it makes cringe.

I know that feeling. :) If it helps, having competitive work does not necessarily mean you have to act "competitive" (in the "petty" and "jealous" sense). I'd strongly suggest using this opportunity with your pushy adviser to explore how it feels to you to aim your work higher. You'll have fewer regrets about whatever choice you make if you can say, "I saw what it takes to get published in X, and what the rewards are, and for me it is [not] worth it."

1) Does my lack of ability to deliver those high profile publications
  really mean that my academic future is bleak?

In all honesty, within Computer Science it is quite important to have some top-level publications (caveat: I am/was also in a sub-discipline of Comp. Sci. and so I cannot speak for your specific area). Some people advise only going for top-level conferences, and this is why I instead question your premise.
Are you really unable to deliver high profile publications? I think, given the lottery of the reviewers we all get, combined with the quality of your publications in general, that is not likely. Are you resubmitting your papers to high-level venues, or do you soon after move it down a tier? Many people submit and resubmit until the stars align or the reviewers capitulate.
I think it's less likely that you're incapable and more likely bad luck (but there are also other factors orthogonal to the research quality, such as how you sell your work).

2) If I decide to stay in (at least to finish the PhD), how can I deal
  with being my work massively devalued just to keep myself sane?

Focus on the quality of research and your citations. If these are high-quality publications, just think about the future, as you stay within academia they'll be cited more and more. Particularly as you start getting those more-visible publications and your profile improves.

We have a few top conferences with the deadlines being close, if it is rejected by one, submit to another. If rejected again, go down a tier as holding the publication for a year for the next "season" is deemed unreasonable.
I don't know if I really lack the ability to generate high-profile papers. Sometimes I feel like we have a strong paper, but then it gets down multiple times. Quality standards are also confusing (I did my share of reviewing and seen things...) But you are probably right as the luck seems to matter a lot.

"go down a tier as holding the publication for a year for the next "season" is deemed unreasonable" - in my area, researchers are persistent enough to keep submitting the same paper to top venues from one season to the next. I wonder if some researchers in your area are like this too, and whether your approach may even be the exception (it might not, of course).

Not sure of the norms in this field: can you present similar work at multiple conferences? (I know a journal publication has to have X% new work vs. proceedings.) In fields without proceedings, people often "workshop" their work across different conferences.

That's a good point. Yes, conferences are important for Comp. Sci. But sometimes people collect publications from low-tiered venues and wrap them up for a top-tiered journal. That would look pretty good.

We have a mixture of conferences, at some people just present and don't publish, at the others people publish in the proceedings.

I have heard about people in our field holding their papers for a year to have a chance again, but it is also quite risky from my point of view.

First, I must commend you for bravely writing about your experiences and being so forthcoming about your, and others' ("environment"), perception of your standing in the field; especially as a woman, which I think cannot be discounted in this field (even though I am sure you would not want me to acknowledge your gender in this context, and for that I apologise).
Additionally, like others, I first must congratulate you on being able to publish in the area and you should take some solace in that. Your supervisor, and others', attitude towards non-prestigious publications is nothing new, but that hardly excuses it.
In order to better tailor our answer(s) to your needs, I think you should mention two things:

As a mid-late student, I assume you are not just "PhD student", but a "PhD Candidate", correct?

At this point in your PhD, you should be a candidate. Most supervisors I've known expect their students to be ready for candidacy within about 3 years of starting. If you are a candidate, I would not so-easily consider quitting.

What do you seek to get out of your PhD? "A job"? Tenure? Employment involving the area you're currently doing research?

If I was to use your assessment as the ground truth, I do not know of tenure is legitimately in the cards (who am I to say this, though?). It is possible, but it may take a lot of sycophancy that you may not find ideal. I think completing your PhD (if you're a candidate) would greatly improve your opportunities to do research in this area, and may even help with getting "a job" in said-area.
If you enjoy the research, maybe you could find a way to be a research assistant without feeling the pressure that is associated with completing your PhD? Surely there are positions available either in industry/academia that can fulfill this desire?

I know this is going to come off as cliché but "Forget what others think of your work". This is one thing I must give my supervisor a great deal of credit for. He cared about publications and their quality, rather than their venue (he always hoped our work could get in top venues, but always prepared the student to be rejected ["that's the way it goes"]). I feel like that is the same advice I should pass on to you, and to help reinforce it I wanted to share my own story:

In my area (also a subdiscipline of Computing Science), conferences are the predominant medium. However, I found much of my work was actually more journal-oriented. Thus, I naturally diverged from the "herd" even though I was fortunate to be at the opposite-end of the spectrum (if we are being blunt with self/environmental assessments of the student).
Humorously enough, much of my Master's Thesis (I wasn't allowed to "upgrade" to a PhD, even though my work had more than enough meat on the bone. Go figure!) was published in a venue that later-came-to-be-known as "predatory" (Frontiers). I had two publications on the eve of my convocation (both Frontiers). However, anyone who looks at the work-in-question will see the handling editor is an extremely reputable individual in the area, which was a saving grace. This is one way I wanted to demonstrate to you that the venue is not as-important as those who shepherd the work from submission to acceptance.
Indeed, I ended up getting another publication from work undertaken during my masters, in a top tier (applied) statistics journal without any previous work in the area. It turns out the editor did some behind-the-scenes "who is this person?" before deciding to send the work out for review, and when they made that decision it was made clear to me they will publish it if I meet the expectations. It took two reject-with-resubmissions, but it all worked out. So do not discount the words of praise with respect to the quality of your work. Sometimes they do (and in my case: did) help.
I hope this demonstrates that, when it comes to legitimate assessments from a reputable individual in the area, quality will always be the number one ingredient. I had no "prestigious" publications under my belt until they gave me my first (and only [hehe ;)] one.
I think your decision to remain/quit should not focus on "coping" with the denigration of your contributions, as I've unfortunately found this attitude to pervade many "intellectual" areas.  Quitting does not seem to be a reasonable option given that you're almost (2/3 in the worst case) done your PhD.
What I think your decision should be based on is: your path to graduation (6 years is what my supervisor TYPICALLY expected, though he himself took 9! [caveat: he is a Stanford PhD, Caltech BSc, and this was 30 years ago. it's a challenging area!]), your anticipated graduation date (have you spoken with your supervisor?), your desired role in the workforce with this education, and whether you enjoy your work in the absence of the prestigious publications.
From a personal perspective, I derive great pleasure from my contributions to the subdiscipline (Frontiers included) because it gave me a sense of belonging.
Some people can "save the field", but those people would probably say that the field saved their life. I know that being able to produce good research and being acknowledged for it (no matter what tier of publication venue), saved my life.
I would hope others in the discipline have a similar feeling. I know my inspirations in the field (two of whom passed far-before their time) felt the same way, and I guess it infected me. I think this should be the crucial ingredient in determining whether you finish your PhD.
Again I commend you for sharing your experience; it is not too different from others', and I hope the ensuing discussion will be helpful to all who come across your question.

PhD candidate = PhD student = PhD researcher - At least in the UK. There really is no difference. No matter where you are in your PhD, you are classed as a student until either you have passed or until the maximum duration of your PhD has been reached (4 years in the UK for many universities). - You could submit before the 4 year deadline and have your defence and final submission later.

What makes you think OP is a woman?

These days, asking students to complete a PhD in 4 years is "lofty" DetlevCM, but it is comforting to know the Motherland has it right. If not for the politics at my institution, I feel i would have finished a PhD an additional year (2 years for my masters, so an additional year to beef up the survey, and maybe add another angle analysis-wise to the datasets) for a total of 3 years. After your insightful remark, I am beginning to question the Daughterland's commitment to scholasticism (which wouldn't have happened 50 years ago). Standards need to be more in line with the norms back home.

@gagan It is actually a requirement in the UK. If you do not submit within 4 years in the UK, the university will consider you to have failed the PhD - for the ones that I know. (You may get a downgrade to an MPhil though.) In the past, Germany didn't use to have a time limit - though there may only be money to pay you for 3-4 years. So in the many people finished their PhD after starting work. Though for people on scholarships today at a research institute 3-4 years is again the target. In France, the target today is again 3-4 years, though some people take longer to write up.

@gagan Oh, and as an extra: In the UK it is also possible to take the direct route of BSc -> PhD without a Masters in between. In addition, while "European Masters" are (as far as I know always) 2 years, the UK Master (in many or most cases) is 1 year.


text:
How do academics deal with growing old?
Everyone grows old, grow less dexterous and energetic, lose cognitive ability, and so on. In most jobs these don't matter that much since one doesn't need to be the best, and "good enough" is good enough. However, academia is unique because it lives and dies on ideas. Without ideas, there is no funding proposal, and with no funding proposal, there is no money, no students, and no job.
This sounds like a very difficult situation for academics: they grow less and less able to come up with good ideas, but still have to compete with the legion of younger researchers at the peak of their mental capabilities all coming up with ideas. Furthermore, younger researchers are also in better shape physically, and can put more energy into their work.
How do academics deal with growing old in a job where growing old directly impacts one's ability to perform?

in short I would say: experience over-compensates lack of physical and mental abilities.

I certainly can't agree that "most" jobs have no particular need for cognitive ability. This sounds a whole lot like academic arrogance.

Ideas are cheap, realising them is hard. 2. You don't have to be the best in academia. 3. You do not lose your job without ideas. 4. Some people stay sharp when they get old - I just hope that I will be one of them.

@user1751825 I meant that in most jobs, being average is good enough, but to succeed in academia one needs to be near the top of the Bell curve. I don't know if this qualifies as arrogance, but the fact that professorships generally have PhDs as a requirement while most jobs requires degrees, if at all, should be illustrative of the differences.

@Allure And yet there are plenty of people who, on a daily basis, are solving engineering, and IT related challenges, for example, which would be beyond the capabilities of most academics. Perhaps some jobs don't require intellect, but many do. Outside academia, people still need to adjust to ageing, by taking on less demanding roles, delegating complex tasks etc.

@user1751825 "Currently" beyond the capabilities of most academics I can agree with, but "permanently" beyond I wouldn't. Given enough time I'd expect academics to be able to solve those problems too, but not vice versa, at least for most jobs. Also, in my last (non-academic) job, people ages 60+ were often just as effective, if not more effective, than people ages 20+, because of superior experience.

@Dirk AMEN!!! before I was so afraid that someone will still my ideas, now I am happy if someone will listen to me at all. Academia related

FWIW, I'm 49 and I've yet to find younger researchers in my field that can keep my pace ;-) So, for the moment, I'm not that worried :-)

Not an answer to the question, but I retired from teaching because of administrative complexity.  Got the Dean to allow me to volunteer for K-12 outreach.  Now I'm teaching younger kids, one lesson at a time.  Tomorrow it's binary numbers at an elementary school.  The university is even paying me a little bit for this work.

One could run the premises of the question in the opposite direction, and ask how young people manage to make any research contributions, considering that it will take decades for them to mature psychologically, intellectually, and learn how to focus on long-term project. :)

All people deal with getting old(er) in some way, but I can think of a few aspects that are unique to academics.
One way to keep up the performance is to gradually shift from hands-on work to advisory work. It is clear that an aging professor can't keep up with the hours invested, enthusiasm, desire to prove oneself, etc. of a PhD student or junior faculty. However, our older guy has participated in a lot of academic craft (writing papers/grants, advising, doing research, reviewing, etc.) over the years, which can give a significant edge to junior people around him. Guiding others can and does produce scientific breakthroughs even though the senior professor didn't think it all up by himself. Further, it also educates the next generation of researches which also an important and challenging job.
People outside of academia are usually obligated (with exceptions, of course) to retire at a given age. On the other hand, a professor has the possibility to attain the emeritus rank, which lets him be an active member of the academic community theoretically until the end of his life. This partially offsets the time investment of PhD studies, postdocs, etc., if the argument is that people in academia have fewer "productive years" as opposed to people who start off right after undergraduate.
Finally, professors are usually respected members of their communities, so even if some of them perform less in their later career, there are always other duties they can excel at. For example, focus on teaching or department duties or writing books.
In my opinion, none of these options is inferior to the "pure research" track and I feel that many come naturally as personal development. In other words, I don't think aging professors find it necessary to outright compete with their younger colleagues, but rather mature into other roles that benefit the academic community.

People outside of academia are usually obligated (with exceptions, of course) --- I'm having trouble even thinking of examples, so the use of "usually" might be a bit overstated. I'm not talking about being laid off or being dismissed or other such general terminations that might be a result of poor performance due to age, by the way, but rather with age-specific retirement limits that apply regardless of one's performance.

It should be mentioned that in the US there is no mandatory retirement age for tenured faculty- it's possible to continue as a tenured professor long past a "normal" retirement age.

@DaveLRenfro Some examples that come to mind are company owners and elective positions (e.g. board members) and that also might wary by country (although I can't think of any).

@DaveLRenfro Now there are age discrimination laws in the U.S., but previously there were strong "expectations" of retirement in certain fields. There still is a mandatory retirement age for commercial pilots.

@cactus_pardner - commercial pilots -- how is that data point relevant to Academia?

@aparente001 Perhaps the comment got too much into the weeds, but user3209815 wrote that "People outside of academia are usually obligated (with exceptions, of course) to retire at a given age," which was being questioned by the other commenters. Commercial pilots was a major example where that still happens, despite age discrimination laws in the US.

"One way to keep up the performance is to gradually shift from hands-on work to advisory work." I think that is (for me at least) the major problem with ageing in academia.  There is an expectation that you will move from a hands-one role to a management role ( and e.g. promotions will depend on that ).  However being a good researcher does not mean in any way that you will be a good research manager, and growing older does not in itself mean you will be less productive hands-on - quite the reverse!

There are a number of ways senior academics have their careers shift, and some assumptions in your question aren't necessarily valid.

In most jobs these don't matter that much since one doesn't need to be
  the best, and "good enough" is good enough.

You're asserting this isn't true for academia without much evidence. There are plenty of professors who settle into modest but respectable careers, teaching a few courses, having one or two long-term grants, etc.

However, academia is unique because it lives and dies on ideas.

I don't think this is unique to academia, and you don't just need a volume of ideas. You need the ability to execute on those ideas, and experience helps with this - indeed, experience may help filter ideas that seem promising but are likely dead ends, unproductive, etc.
Even if your volume of ideas declines with age, as long as you still have some over a threshold of "I have nothing to work on now", it might not matter.

Without ideas, there is no funding proposal, and with no funding
  proposal, there is no money, no students, and no job.

Senior researchers, with established labs and track records, have an easier time getting funded, not a harder time.

This sounds like a very difficult situation for academics: they grow
  less and less able to come up with good ideas, but still have to
  compete with the legion of younger researchers at the peak of their
  mental capabilities all coming up with ideas. Furthermore, younger
  researchers are also in better shape physically, and can put more
  energy into their work.
How do academics deal with growing old in a job where growing old
  directly impacts one's ability to perform?

Even if all your assertions are true, their careers aren't over. They may become chairs or deans, identifying, recruiting and mentoring those "legions of younger researchers". They may use their prestige and reputation to bring those younger voices into their projects, either as members of their labs, collaborators, etc. Or, in many cases, they take a step back and focus more on the trajectory of the field as a whole, thinking about slightly broader and grander ideas where the perspective of someone who has been working on the same thing for decades is valuable.

+1. Even when you can no longer get research grants, you can do other things.  Perhaps you are still useful as a co-author to others.  Teaching.  Administration:  How many deans, provosts, vice presidents, and presidents of universities do you know who keep their labs going?  Very few.  Mathematician G. H. Hardy described his ideal for a mathematics professor: for the first half of your career, do research.  For the second half, write books to pass on your knowledge to the next generation.

@GEdgar And one could argue that Hardy's assessment of the productivity of youth was overly impacted by the genius and early death of Ramanujan. (I've heard more recent mathematicians say that your first 5 years of working on a problem are when breakthroughs are most likely, but that means that you can productively move to another question five years later.)

Thanks for answer. To clarify: I assumed that academics need to be the best because the job is in such high demand. If there're lots of people applying for the same job, clearly (?) one has to be really good indeed to get it. I don't mean literally the best in the world, but rather the best as a group.

Your question sits on a very flaky premise, namely that professors tend to get worse at their job as they grow older. You write:

they grow less and less able to come up with good ideas, but still have to compete with the legion of younger researchers at the peak of their mental capabilities all coming up with ideas. Furthermore, younger researchers are also in better shape physically, and can put more energy into their work.

Physical energy isn't very important in most fields. Being able to work many long hours at a desk job is more a function of family commitments, hobbies, stress resilience, and how long you have already been doing this than of physical fitness. If you see some older professors work less than their pre-tenure colleagues, physical fitness is likely a tiny aspect of why this is the case. More importantly, there are also plenty of tenured professors who still work their behinds off, so it certainly can be done if a senior faculty member still feels the drive.
That older colleagues have less good ideas than younger ones is a very questionable premise. I argue that people's ideas tend to get better as they get older, as they have seen more research projects (failed and succeeded ones) and generally have more experience in the field to draw upon. Personally I have certainly observed my ideas to get better (as in: more out of the box, and at the same time more feasible) over time, but I am also not exactly reaching retiring age yet.

Without ideas, there is no funding proposal, and with no funding proposal, there is no money, no students, and no job.

Again, I think the premise that younger people have an easier time accessing grants is flawed. In my experience the inverse is true: it is awfully hard to get funds and students when you are still young, unexperienced, unknown, and generally a wildcard for most funding evaluators;; once you get older, more well-known, and more experienced in writing grant proposals, getting access to grants becomes much easier. That you sometimes see older professors have less grants than younger ones is not because they wouldn't get one anymore, but rather that they don't necessarily have the need for a grant. If you have reached a career stage where you primarily focus on teaching, writing books, or other outreach activities, you probably don't need nor necessarily want a big grant that funds a bunch of PhD students that need advising.
So, to answer your question:

How do academics deal with growing old in a job where growing old directly impacts one's ability to perform?

Very well in general, as getting older (more senior) typically influences job performance positively if at all. It's no wonder you often see even retired professors still hang around in the office. They like the job and are often highly valued in their team.

Wow, and if I speak to an old professor and am impressed, a part of me would wonder "can you imagine what it would've been like to talk to her while she was young?"

As (not entirely facetious, at all!) counterpoint to the other answers and comments:
Clearly, "getting older" (whatever this means precisely) is construed as a bad thing, with mostly bad side-effects, by the question, and as an under-current in the answers, even if they push back slightly.
As in my earlier comment, it might be interesting to reflect on the reversed assumptions and corresponding question: "How can young people have any hope of doing meaningful research, being adequate scholars, and competing in the academic marketplace, when they are so immature, inexperienced, ignorant, and naive?"
(I would seriously claim that, although the previous is presently a rhetorical question, it reflects enough reality to bring the question above to more-or-less a "dead heat", I think.)
That is, population X may reasonably imagine (if they are optimistic) that the traits they imagine that they have are exactly what makes them superior (in some useful sense) to other tribes/populations/clans, and can have discussions about how those other populations (purportedly lacking these signal distinctions) can bear their own existence, survive at all, etc.
I've heard all too many times the idea that (in math) "well, when you get old-and-tired and can't do research any more, you can always teach". Toooo many assumptions here, especially that people who lack the energy or interest to continue research "can always" teach. E.g., I'd claim that if they were not good teachers before, loss of energy and interest wouldn't help... (Of course, such comments are in a mythological context where "anyone can teach", but "only the special ones can do research"...)
It is true that in current contexts there is an aggressive identification of "research" with "funding" and "entrepreneurial spin-offs" and "technology transfer". I cannot speak for engineering departments and such, but this is clearly not the model of all departments in universities. Some departments are caught in the middle, e.g., mathematics, where there is a seductive possibility of playing short-term, big-money games (as opposed to small-money, quiet, long-term scholarly games).
I do not claim to understand the arc of personal scholarship, nor the gamut of "economies" of grants and such across disciplines, but it is relatively clear in my experience that there are many scenarios where I'd be very much more interested in hearing a scholarly opinion from a decades-long experience than from a glib newcomer. Sure, newcomer rebels can be interesting, but the context is complicated.
So, my facetious-rhetorical response is "What? I'm getting older?" (Sincere!) And, then, "Wait, what, all this time I thought I was finally figuring out how to do stuff, I'm being declared ever-more-incompetent?!?!"
:)

exactly, we have people in 60, 70ties at our departments and they produce solid and good work, I dont understand why OP thinks getting old is bad thing.

How do academics deal with growing old?

I will answer based on my observation of one researcher maturing over the last 25 years, and of several researchers who are in their 70s.
Contrary to the attitude you expressed in the question, in fact the creativity, skills and engagement are still there.  I think the keys to a successful transition are

make sure to pace yourself
avoid situations where you won't be able to hear well
don't get stuck in certain ways of communicating and collaborating -- be open to others' preferences, even if it means learning to use a new tool
learn to cope with degrading memory skills -- for example, develop organized ways of making and retrieving notes
be honest with others about your limitations and any health issues you may have
make more of an effort than you used to with personal hygiene and keeping your wardrobe reasonably up to date (this refers to both condition of clothing and stylishness)
keep in mind that as people age, they tend to become more sensory avoiding; so, push yourself to expand your sensory world.  Example: if noise or bright light bother you, force yourself to be in them sometimes, because an avoidance policy will just make you even more sensory averse.

Staying involved in research, at a pace that feels right to the individual, is one of the main things that seems to make life fun for the older researchers I know.

older professor are much more patience, and much less horny. I dont know how OP get to conclusion that older professor degradate in memory skills?

@SSimon - I'm not the Original Poster (OP).  I spoke of "degrading memory skills" because this is a well-documented fact.

yes I know..................................

Other answers do a good job of challenging the premise of the question, and highlighting things that aren't negative about aging, but I think yours does the best job of answering the question in the title. I can see these tips actually helping people when they come to the discussion from outside, unlike the ones that mostly address the OP's hangup about losing one's youthful edge.

"and keeping your wardrobe reasonably up to date" why on Earth would that be necessary?  If any line of work was resistant to judging books by their covers it should be academia!   " Example: if noise or bright light bother you, force yourself to be in them sometimes, because an avoidance policy will just make you even more sensory averse." or it may be you have an undiagnosted autistic spectrum disorder, in which case that would be incredibly bad advice.

I want to point out for other readers of @SSimon's comment that in French, "horny" is excité (i.e. "excited", in the sense of arousal rather than the more innocent excitement). So perhaps there's some mistranslation happening here...

While older colleagues may not be able to work longer hours, as their graduate students do, productivity, in general, does not show much difference based on age.
There is also a distinction between conceptual and experimental creativity. The former peaks young (la30-40) and later peaks much later (50-60).

But note that such statistical results don't apply to every individual. There are outliers.

The main problem with growing older in academia is the expectation that you will move from active research to a research management role, and e.g. promotions criteria (mostly based on grant income) are likely to mean it is a career limiting step not to do so. Unfortunately being a good researcher does not mean you will be a good research manager, so this may result in you becoming less productive and having far less job satisfaction as you spend a lot of time and effort getting other people to do work that you would have enjoyed doing yourself (and in more extreme cases, could have done with less effort than would be required to supervise someone else).  This is sometimes an example of the "Peter Principle", where people get promoted out of a role in which they are competent to one where their competence is marginal.
I personally don't think that growing older makes you less effective as an active researcher.  I'd be interested to see peer-reviewed research on the topic, however I suspect that there will be a selection bias involved because of the expected career progression of academics towards management/administrative roles.
"This sounds like a very difficult situation for academics: they grow less and less able to come up with good ideas,"
citation definitely required!
I think this is unlikely to be true.  Most ideas come from combining ideas from diverse fields, so it becomes easier to come up with good ideas as you become more experienced, and you waste less time on the dead-ends because you can spot the signs that it isn't going to be a productive line of research rather earlier.  The successful research managers tend to be the ones coming up with the ideas for their group to work on (as well as having the admin/management skills to make the group productive).
BTW I was in my early forties when I wrote my most cited paper.  Hardly a young whippersnapper!

Taking that "diverse fields" point a little further: a lot of good research comes out of collaboration, and older researchers have had longer to build contacts that might lead to collabs.


text:
What happens if another PI puts me on their payroll?
I’m fairly new to the research world and currently working with a university research institute. My PI put me on a project for a lab he is collaborating with from another research institute. The work I’m doing is going on her grant that she is working on, and my PI is writing a portion of it. He told me I was going to be on her grant and payroll for my contribution. He also said she will be paying 20% of my salary when her grant gets approved.
I’m confused about what this means and how grant salaries work in regards to collaborations. Do they just pay a percentage of my institutional base salary (IBS) to make up for the total salary? Or is this in addition to my current IBS that I get from my PI?
I have asked him to clarify, but perhaps I’m still not understanding how this works, and I don’t think I got a clear answer.

I'm afraid I highly doubt you are getting more money. I just think it's an accounting device to say where your salary is coming from.

Are you an employee or a student?

It's most likely that you will be working 80% on your advisor's grant and 20% on the collaborator's grant and that your salary won't change.
There are pros and cons to such an arrangement for the student:
Pro:

You'll get to work with and learn from another researcher.

You may get additional opportunities to publish.

Con:

You'll be working for two different bosses who may have different expectations.

Working on two different projects at the same time will require more mental effort to keep track of both projects.  For example, you might have to read and absorb twice as many journal articles as before.

I've had some advisees work 10 hours per week as TAs and 10 hours per week as RAs, but I'd avoid asking a student to work on two different research projects for 10 hours per week because of the difficulty of keeping track of two separate projects.

This professor is not saying that the other PI will be putting you on their payroll. When collaborators receive a grant, there is often a primary PI (seems to be the person from the other institute) and co-PIs or secondary PIs. These folks typically receive sub-grants or secondary grants. This could be from the primary PI's institution or directly from the grantmaker - in this case it seems that the former is happening, so your professor is saying that the other PI is "paying your salary." This is true in some sense, but, the important point is that the funds end up in your PI's account and from your perspective you are paid as usual.
The point the professor was probably trying to make with the comment is that you will be spending 20 percent of your time on the project in this proposal if it gets funding.


text:
How can I find guest lecturer gigs?
I am an established lecturer, with my own niche area of research. My area should be of interest to lots of Master of Arts (MA) courses in my field—I get good student feedback and it's an interesting topic.
What are good ways of letting organisers of Masters courses in my field know that I am able to provide one-off guest lectures on their courses?

As a starting point, I would recommend you write directly to the lecturers in the relevant courses.  They are the ones that will make the content decisions for their own courses.  Some may see your offer as a good way to get some valuable content and presentation in their courses while easing their own workload.

I can think of two ways, but both are long term solutions.
First, you could work to achieve a large (large) circle of collaboration in your field, so that people think of you and, perhaps, invite you for a visit. You might be asked to talk to students as part of a collaborative visit. Some of those might be paid, but not likely very many. Conferences are good for finding people with similar interests. And, with collaborators, you can think in terms of mutual invitations to speak, or even exchanges.
Second, you could work to become so dominant in your field's knowledge base that people you don't know think of you. That could be in academic publications or in the popular literature.  Linus Pauling got a lot of such invitations, for example, as did Paul Erdős. Everyone knows about your accomplishments and wants to hear what you have to say. Carl Sagan was another example.


text:
Slightly incorrect information in recommendation letter. Will it get my applications rejected?
I was in professor's Data Structures lab class 3 years ago. Later I co-authored a paper with him. He wrote a very good recommmendation letter for me. However, he stated the course name as ' data structures and algorithms' rather than just ' data structures'.
This seems like a minor mistake and was due to the fact that he left the college long time ago to work in another. And might have mixed up course names. But the letter is very genuine otherwise.

Did your data structure course contain algorithms to manipulate the data structures? If yes, what are you worried about? Inconsistency between your transcript and the rec.  letter? If yes, why would anyone care about this minor typo (extra info)? Do you have other reasons to worry about this?

Its just the slight discrepancy in course names I was worried about.  In the transcript it just says data structures.

No it should not be a problem.

I am not even sure if anyone would notice this. And if they do - course titles are not set in stone and can change between the time the transcript was made and the letter was written.

I suggest not to worry about it. Your transcript probably is an auto-generated document with the official course title. On the other hand, the letter is written by a human who might have worked from memory, or, as @Pikachu피카츄 points out in a comment, might have tried to make the title more descriptive. In any case, the letter will be read by humans who certainly will be able to understand how such a minor inconsistency occurs.

The official titles of the courses are sometimes not so informative (e.g Maths I, Maths II, Maths III) that my professors decided to use other titles such as Real Analysis, Differential Calculus, ... instead. Still, there's no problem. Maybe it's even better to do it this way.

@Pikachu피카츄, right, I added your point to the answer.

I somehow by mistake downvoted your answer. Had to edit it to upvote.


text:
Conference paper collaboration problem, course of action
A while ago I presented at a conference where a recent PhD gave a presentation co-authored with his professor. The talk, which was about a topic similar to that of my own talk, was good. The presenter had to leave the conference early due to some other commitment, so I didn't speak with him. His professor approached me and said he liked my talk and that as we were working on similar things, maybe a collaboration could be possible. I said sure.
A few weeks later, the professor emailed me and suggested a Zoom call to discuss a potential collaborative conference paper (him, his recent PhD student, and me). In the call, we agreed to submit a paper. The recent PhD said very little in the call. The professor had a few ideas for analyses which seemed to me to be impractical/difficult to conduct. I said "I can do XYZ on the paper, but if you want to do those additional analyses, that is fine with me". He said he would. If the paper would be accepted, the professor would attend and present. The conference is far away from where I am and I don't have funding to travel there.
The professor then set up a shared document outline which stated who would write what part of the paper. It looked like this, more or less:

Introduction (Professor)
Review of literature (Professor)
Analysis A (recent PhD grad)
Analysis B (me)
New analysis (Professor)
Possible additional new analysis (Professor)
Discussion (Professor)

At this time it was 2 months before submission deadline. I wrote Section 4 and added my references approximately a month prior to the deadline. 8 days before the submission deadline, nothing else had been added. I emailed the two and asked them what was going on. The PhD grad added his section, which was good, in the next few days. The professor added some content which was a mess - it contained many errors and was largely irrelevant. Upon seeing this, it became clear to me that the recent PhD knew about this topic, but the professor did not. The professor wrote he had been ill and would add additional content in the next few days. A day before the deadline, the professor had added nothing more. I very hastily wrote an introduction, literature review, and discussion (omitting Sections 5 and 6). I removed the irrelevant and error-filled paragraphs that had been added by the professor. I wrote an email stating that I was surprised that he had done nothing, but we could submit the content as a short paper, if necessary.
The next day the deadline for submissions was pushed back. The professor wrote "I'm sorry they didn't announce the change in the deadline, which I knew was coming, earlier. I will add my content in the next few days. I would like the authorship order to be PhD grad, you, me". I wrote back okay.
Now, with 2 days until the deadline, the professor has added nothing. I have decided I don't want to pursue any further collaboration with the professor. Which would be the best option for me?

Let the professor do whatever he wants. If he adds something, fine. If not, also fine. Don't contact them again.
Ask the professor not to add anything additionally, stating that it is enough to have a short paper. Otherwise, let him do what he wants and don't contact them again. My concern here is he would again add low quality content that I would have to change.
Tell the professor that the authorship should be PhD grad, me. We can mention his name in an acknowledgement.
Tell them I've changed my mind, remove all of my content from the paper and ask to be removed as co-author. Don't contact them again.

If possible, talk to one or both of them on Zoom again in the next day, and figure out what is happening.  If that is not possible, try to talk to just one of them.

How is this gaslighting?

Have you asked recent PhD how they want to handle this?

@observer your post is super long, I tried to shorten it to make it easier to read and understand, and subsequently increase the chance of a good answer. I don't know why you changed it back. The post would profit greatly from being only half as long and much more concise.

Sursula you changed the text significantly and made it grammatically incoherent. If it's too hard for you to read more than a few lines, maybe just move on to a different post?

Lol, from someone asking others for guidance.

Collaboration often poses challenges when individuals do not engage as anticipated. it is important to approach the conclusion of such projects with a positive and constructive mindset. The matter of authorship and the sequence of authors can become ambiguous, particularly in inter-institutional collaborations.
Science fiction author Larry Niven once said at a convention panel:

"A collaboration is a case where two authors each do 90% of the work." (see https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/191158/how-to-sustain-and-realize-a-collaboration#:~:text=SF%20author%20Larry%20Niven%20said,do%2090%25%20of%20the%20work.)

Given this perspective, my recommendation (though it is more of a suggestion than a definitive answer, as it might be subjective) is to wrap up the paper without further waiting for co-author input. Submit it with all three of your names, and if your contribution was significant, you could rightfully claim the position of the first author.


text:
Chasing up response to PhD offer
I'm asking this from the perspective of the future supervisor. After a round of interviews I approached the highest ranked candidate. My error was not including a deadline in the initial email.
Now a week has passed from the last response I got from the candidate. I have sent another reminder recently. However, my patience is running out. I understand that of course the candidate might be trying to buy some time to make up their mind, and probably waiting for other offers.
Are there any other options apart from sending an ultimatum? If so, how much longer should I wait to filter out external reasons for the lack of responses? I.e. sickness, unforeseen events, etc.? This is in Europe.

Maybe just send another polite email with a deadline?

What about writing an email asking for a working phone number?

Let's imagine the original offer letter with a deadline included, with the deadline coming x days after the date of the offer.  Perhaps x was five business days.  Whatever it would have been, just use the same value now, as a deadline for a decision, in a formal follow-up communication.
Leave a voicemail alerting the candidate to the deadline sent via email.  Don't duplicate everything you said in the letter -- just mention the basics.
Build in one day of buffer.  That is, if you say in the letter that the deadline is Tuesday, May 15, at noon, then wait until the next morning before you contact the next person.
In choosing a value for x, I would never go less than three.  That would be unreasonable.

Thanks, that is what I ended up doing. It turned out the person was merely ignoring our emails.

@TheWanderer - Thanks for the update.  Irresponsible!  But at least now you know and can proceed accordingly.  // Thanks for the checkmark; funny that you accepted without upvoting....

Do you have a phone number for the candidate?
If you contact them by phone you will know whether or not they received your communication, rather than email where, as you say, you don't know if they may have experienced extenuating circumstances preventing them from responding.
If they are indeed waiting for other responses, they might be more likely to mention this on the phone rather than in an email.

I tried that, but it goes to voicemail.

Maybe try at different times? Could be they're working at the times you've tried calling and can't access their phone?

I'll try that. I'm afraid that the person is not using that number anymore, since they are in a country different from the country code of the number they listed.


text:
What to do when the reviewer of a conference submission provides very negative ratings and almost no comments?
I submitted a paper to an international conference and some strange things happened along the way. First, the reviews did not meet the date in which they were supposed to be send to the authors. After like four days, I saw a message in the submission site that said that my paper was rejected. So I waited for the notification to be sent to me my email, because I wanted to know the reviews to improve my paper and maybe resend it to another conference.
I did not get any reviews by email, but after like 4 days more after the notice that my paper was rejected they appeared on the submission site. When I saw the reviews, they were very harsh, and nearly non-existent, with the following characteristics:

It appears that there was only one reviewer.
In the marked items about Originality, Readability and so on; all was marked with 0.
No reviews about what was wrong, just a very harsh comment that the paper was not focused and that does not seem to be a credible research.

Is it normal to get this type of reviews? I remember that even when I got rejected from other conferences, there were like three reviewers, and each of one put their qualification and make some good comments for improvement. I have just checked the paper with my colleagues and they do not find it like is an unreadable paper or that the paper is unfocused.
What could have happened in this situation?

The review is certainly not normal. You may want to contact the program committee chair with your concerns.

"I saw a message in the submission site that said that my paper was rejected". That is strange indeed. Is this a well-known CS conference?

@Alexandros, well they are sponsored by IEEE and a couple of prestigious universities. The papers were going to be included in the LNCS from Springer; now I am traumatized to submit anything to Springer if this is going to happen again

Neither IEEE nor Springer are absolute guarantees of quality, or even sanity.

Was 0 the lowest ranking for originality, readability, etc.? The question isn't as silly as it might sound. I've been on program committees of computer science conferences where the scale for overall quality of the paper was from -3 ("strong reject") to +3 ("strong accept"), with 0 being "neutral".

Lack of meaningful review feedback is absolutely abnormal and inappropriate behavior for a good computer science conference (I am guessing computer science based on your prior posts).  The late response and lack of email are within normal variance, though.
Unfortunately, what this probably means is that the conference you submitted to is actually a crap conference.  Re-investigate the conference, and evaluate its quality again: just because something is international doesn't mean it is good.  Even being sponsored by a major society like IEEE may not ensure quality.  Look at who is involved and the level of citation of past work, etc.  If the conference is a crap conference, you should feel thankful that they rejected your paper and you have an opportunity to submit to a better conference instead.
If, on the other hand, despite all expectation it is actually a good conference, then you should write to the program chairs and ask to receive a real peer review.  Every author deserves meaningful feedback on your paper, no matter how bad the paper may be (and I speak as one who has even given a serious review to a submission from a clearly insane individual).

you are right @jakebeal, also when sometimes I have submitted a paper that was not truly related to the main conference topics I got like three different reviews, but in this case only a comment for one reviewer is too bad; or maybe they have the schema that when the first reviewer says everything is wrong then they don't pass it to the next reviewer.

@jakebeal: Good answer.  "Every author deserves meaningful feedback on your paper, no matter how bad the paper may be (and I speak as one who has even given a serious review to a submission from a clearly insane individual)." That's a very generous position and I agree with it (and I never reject a paper without giving detailed feedback).  But not everyone does, and sometimes our publications are treated in ways that we do not deserve (yet more often, in ways we feel we do not deserve!).  In my experience go elsewhere is usually the easier, more profitable path than seek restitution.

@PeteL.Clark I agree.  And to clarify: my review won't always be detailed, but it will be very clear on the basis of judgement.  To quote almost the entirety of a recent review: "This paper is largely plagiarized from its first two citations, [REDACTED].  In most cases the text is paraphrased, but the experimental results are identical and the other figures are either copied or minor variants on the pre-existing work."

That's sufficiently detailed in my book.  (Yikes!)


text:
To what extent will your choice of PhD topic restrict your career?
Obviously, if you choose to either do a PhD in English literature, or in mathematics, this choice will heavily determine the possible career paths you can later take.
But to what extent does the choice between two different topics within the same discipline influence your career possibilities?

Physics: Quantum computing vs high energy particle physics
Math: differential topology vs abstract algebra
Economics: business cycle theory vs industrial organization.
Psychology: Evolutionary psychology vs Neuro-psychology

Would such a choice significantly affect your future career, or is there generally such an overlap in the skills you learn doing different topics that you will be able to easily switch between these topics within the same discipline?

I'm generally frustrated by PhD students who think they will spend the next 30 years of their life working on the same thing they did their PhD on. As one example (perhaps extreme) of changing paths, I know a professor who went from low temperature physics of superconductivity to winning the APS prize in polymer physics. The point of a PhD is that you know how to learn and apply relevant techniques to interesting questions and get an answer.

@JonCuster Amen!!! but generally this is also advisor fault. They r not more open minded

I've heard people at undergrad, grad, postdoc and faculty positions all worry that it is too late to change fields. You can always change if you have the motivation.

Very few people are static in their careers, in and out of academia. My PhD was in the area of molecular simulations in chemical engineering. My post doc was with a physicist working in computational materials, then I took a staff position in environmental engineering doing fluid flow and geochemistry studies, I have since moved into renewable energy applications and biomedical, with side work in algorithm development and kinetics.
All of this is to say, any limits on what direction your career can take are placed by the researcher, not the field of study. If you’re not willing to branch out, your choice of jobs will be limited. If you’re willing to explore, the options are as infinite as your curiosity and salesmanship will allow.

I think the one overarching limitation is some jobs need that extra hard qualification. For example, you can go out and get a Ph.D. in Chemistry and have a fulfilling career as general counsel to large pharmaceutical corporations so long as you also get a law degree.

True. But the question is asking about choice of topic within a field. If you have a chem PhD, it probably doesn’t matter if it’s in synthesis or q-chem.

generally what it seems to be important for chemistry fundraising skills. topic is irrelevant

In the humanities, you may find yourself slightly limited — initially.
For example, if a Shakespeare scholar leaves an English department, depending on how large the department is and its make up, they may look to replace him with another Shakespeare person, a British literature person, an early modernist, or any one in English. If an applied linguist leaves, they will probably try to hire another applied linguist, or if it's a smaller department, just a linguist of the applied or theoretical flavor. (This assumes a department isn't trying to change directions, but in that case they will still have a [sub]field in mind).
If an art department wants a Far East modern art historian, and you are a European modern art historian, you can try to get the position, but may not pass the initial cull of applications, depending on whether the European or modern part is more important. But someone who does specialize in that and gets the job, may begin transitioning towards being a modern Latin American art historian. Then they could justifiably apply for jobs looking for specialists in that but in the meantime would likely be expected to continue teaching courses that they were hired for (and even then things can change).

Picking a Ph.D topic restricts your career choices about as much as picking an airport restricts which countries you can visit.
As Jon Custer notes, having a Ph.D (by research, that is - I've heard of Ph.D by coursework but don't have experience there) is in a sense a certification as an independent thinker. Your work has been reviewed by experts in the field, and they agree that your work is an original and independent advance in your field. Naturally, this gives you a head start in your own field.
Ph.D work tends to be deep and narrow, and somewhat ahead of the curve. Will people be advertising for work based on your specific thesis? It's possible, but very unlikely. So even if you remain in the general field, you should be prepared to work on something different from your thesis anyway.
As an employer working in a tech R&D setting, if I'm looking at prospective staff with a Ph.D, I'd probably want it to be in a maths-based discipline, but the specifics aren't likely to matter too much unless I'm chasing a narrow requirement. Cultural fit and other personal qualities are likely to be more important - including, after a few projects, your track record.

To some extent, if you get a PhD in a field, then that's probably sufficient for a lot of purposes.  In some contexts, even the precise field that you got your PhD in isn't a huge issue.
However, yeah, the choice of dissertation project can matter a lot.  If you spend years working on a dissertation project, then it's a golden opportunity to get to know that field's community and gain recognition as an expert.  You might engage in collaborations that'll eventually define your career, including getting you a job or clients.
It'd seem ideal if you could start on that process from Day 1, doing a dissertation project in something that you'd like to pursue in your later career.  However, many PhD students don't know precisely what they want to do long-term, or else they can't find support for such a project, so it's pretty common for PhD students to do projects different from what they'd later pursue.
So it's probably best to say that a PhD's career isn't really restricted by their choice of dissertation project, but rather than a PhD's career can be greatly served by selecting a dissertation project that they'll want to build their career from.

Your choice of PhD topic can give you a slight head-start in a particular career path if it matches well to the work done in that position.  However, choosing a topic (as opposed to a discipline) that does not match your later career path does not harm you, except to the extent that it forfeits this small advantage.  If you undertake a PhD in a particular discipline (physics, maths, economics, psychology, etc.) you should acquire the ability to learn new topics in that discipline within a shorter time than it would take you to do another PhD in that topic.  Hence, once you have completed your PhD in a particular discipline, it is usual that you can move around with reasonable ease, so long as you are willing to put in some time to learn a new topic.
For the most part, your PhD is an accreditation that signals high-level knowledge of a subject area and the ability to undertake research at a level that can be published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals.  Most PhD graduates go on to publish papers in scholarly journals and this gives them some claim to expert knowledge in particular topics, but also a high-level of general knowledge in their chosen discipline.  Most employers of specialists see it this way, and in my experience it rarely matters what your particular dissertation topic was, though it may matter what topics you have published in.  (Besides which, in most cases your dissertation is sufficiently abstruse that eyes glaze over when you try to explain it.)
Choosing a discipline for your PhD study is important, but it is not a huge problem if your topic turns out to be substantially different from what you want to practice later.  Your program should give you a good enough knowledge of the discipline that learning a new topic becomes easier and easier, and up-skilling into a new topic area is not too onerous.

I did a PhD in biomedical engineering; after a few years that career fell apart, and I ended up moving into statistics. Currently I'm working in econometrics, which is quite a long way from any of my formal quals.
In my experience, mathematics is mathematics, and if you can handle one mathematical field you can probably adjust to another. For me the toughest part was convincing potential employers that I could make that shift.


text:
Switching from Economics to Computer Science?
I just graduated undergrad with a Bachelor in Science in Economics with a Minor in Business. I hope one day to get a Masters in Computer Science as throughout undergrad I self taught myself programming and got a job in finance at a very respected hedge fund where I'll be combining my finance and coding knowledge (essentially an analyst position where I'll be doing data analysis to support traders at the firm.)
The job will 100% pay for grad school after 1 year and I want to go for a program in Computer Science or Data Science. I'm wondering what I need to do to prepare for this and what programs are available to me given that my undergraduate degree is in a unrelated subject.
I have an overall GPA of 3.3 due to a particularly poor performance freshman and sophomore year and doing especially poorly in Spanish but I received a GPA of 3.7-3.8 my Junior and Senior years while taking a more advanced and quantitative course load.
I've taken 2 elective classes in computer science and received As in both of them although neither class is a core class for a comp sci curriculum.
I also have around 4 years of self-taught coding experience both in my private life and through several internships that I participated in while at college. I'm proficient in several languages (Python, VBA, Java, and SAS).
What type of programs can I expect to be accepted to and what can I do to increase my chances of success? I've heard that I should take ad-hoc core programming classes and study hard for the GRE but apart from that I'm lost.

Welcome to Academia SE! Some of the answers, e.g. about lower grades, will be found in a previous question, about admissions to U.S. Ph.D programs. A lot of your question is pretty subjective, though the key question of what to expect from a masters degree in CS vs. Data Science, and flexibility of prereqs for CS masters programs, may be relevant.

And for what it's worth, depending on how solid your econometrics background is, you may be ahead of the curve on some of the data science concepts, but you may especially want to learn machine learning (probably in Data Science and CS courses) and either theory about how calculations are best done, architecture for databases, etc. (CS) or more about hacking together workflows (Data Science). Finally, you'll probably want to learn R ahead of time (annoying syntax switch from SAS) in either case.

Thank you for the valuable advice. The link you sent was very useful. Not sure if you have experience coding but do you recommend learning R on top of Python for datascience? I've heard R is better in certain scenarios but from what I can tell they are similar languages.

I would guess that most curricula would use both R and Python, especially for R's graphing tools. However, I think R vs. Python is probably a way off-topic debate for this SE. :)

http://norvig.com/21-days.html is useful to read.

@Basile Definitely an interesting article although I'm not sure if it is relevant to my situation. I've worked on several programming projects with programmers at internships and am entering the industry in a programming role. I've done much more than just read a "programming for dummies book".

This should be a comment but I need a little more space.  Also, the question should be closed as duplicate of who knows what.  I know I've written this before but I still need to find some system for keeping track of the common answers I've written.
Step one is to look around and pick one or more subfields that appeal to you.  Then, pick a couple of specific programs (a program means a department in a particular university) that make your mouth water.  Do this by reading some of the professors' bios and research program descriptions.  You can also look at grad student bios and perhaps also some of the professors' publications.
Once you've got your eye on a particular program, look at their program of studies (requirements for the degree) and the course descriptions in the catalog.  Make sure you understand what's a prerequisite for what.  You may need to go backwards a bit in your reading, to trace through the undergraduate prerequisites as well.  (Check the schedule of classes too, because some departments list phantom courses in their catalog which are never actually offered, and you should ignore those in your analysis.)
Compare what you see with what you already learned in coursework, on the job, in internships, and in self-study.  Now you have a list of what it would be good to cover prior to stepping into the classroom in your new field as an incoming grad student.
If you discover some question during this analysis, do not hesitate to contact the department.
Once you know what you are missing, you can of course do some self-study, but I would actually recommend that you take at least one course formally, if only online.  You can enroll as a non-matriculated student.
When you are applying you can present as many transcripts as you have.