text:
Bad first month in my PhD
I started my PhD in physics approximately a month ago. Now I am working on my first project with my advisor and a postdoc that follows me. I made several big mistakes for a little task that my advisor gave me, and now I feel really bad. They were stupid big mistakes that put me in a bad light, as if I didn't understand anything. It seems that I really didn't understand concepts.
I have the bad habit of always waiting for instructions, without taking initiative because in my past studies, professors usually told me what to do next as little exercises. I also have the bad habit of doing things mindlessly and not reviewing them, often resulting in errors.
I know that I am capable of completing this PhD and that I have the possibilities of doing very very well. I have the mental resources to do it(hardware) but the problem are my bad habits(software).
Now I am facing the problem that it will be harder for me to build trust with my advisor. What steps could I take to start building it again? Does a bad start affect things in the long run(like if my first two month are bad, but then I finish great my first year and do well on the other years, will my references for a possible postdoc be bad)?
I am slowly reading articles and concentrating on my little tasks, trying to understand everything I do. Apart from that I don't know what else to do.
Edit: Thank you very much! I will take all your advice and go ahead! Good luck also for the other PhDs

I am in my third year of Ph.D. in Physics and I faced similar problems too. Things will get better. The Ph.D. is for learning too and some issues you pointed out are usually faced by the majority of the Ph.D students. The important thing is that you are conscious of what you have to improve and you are willing to do that. I hope everything goes well to you.

Relax, phd students usually start to get actually good only around tenure :P

You might try bullet journaling or other forms of behavior tracking and organization to help make changes in your habits and help remind you to do certain tasks. Stuff like that can help provide structure for yourself and help you become more mindful.

What was the stupid error? Something like not turn cooling on? (resulting to 1 - 4 month repair of the system). In the department I studied at, we had a motto: "He who didn't burn the magnetron wasn't at the department". Relax, focus on making such mistakes fewer and if in doubt, flat out ask your colleague(s) - they were newbies too.

I had a bad first year in my PhD and hey, I got through.  The first year is for you to learn to be a researcher uniquely, so its absolutely fine.  Don't punish yourself!

First month.. well you probably aren't expected to even get up to speed in that time. Consider yourself lucky if you find a good formulation for a project together with your advisor during the first year even.

Yes relax and work hard.  The two are not antithetical. If you have enough talent it will work well.

Precious few of us wowed any faculty members in our first month as PhD students.

I think most (everybody>) has been saying pretty much the right thing - its normal at the start and you will make mistakes later on too. As a side note: Invariably dealing with complex problems all the time, may also make the simplest problems the hardest.

My department's policy is built around the assumption that the first year of the PhD is pretty much lost poking around and learning the field before you start actually doing something useful.

Start by inserting a " " before a "(".

Hey, at least you got a highly-voted question on academia.sx with 7 stars - that ought to count for something...

In my first month, I set up my computer, reordered stuff on my desk and went out to find some papers that interested me. In my second month, I read many of those papers and came up with a heap of stupid ideas (most of which never got or even could be used). In my third month, I had a death in the family and got kicked out of any stability in life I had built in the previous two months by that. I am now about to finish. In the end, it will all turn out fine. I have made mistakes all the time and some of those were even more valuable than those stupid second-month ideas.

The fact that you care enough to identify problems early and correct them speaks volumes more than how well you actually did.

I don't think the supervisors trust will be an issue.  You appear to have identified the underlying problems (paragraph 2), which is more that some manage!  As long as the supervisor sees that you are working on the underlying problems, they can't reasonably expect much more.  As Montaigne wrote: "‘to learn that we have said or done a stupid thing is nothing, we must learn a more ample and important lesson: that we are but blockheads…" that includes PhD supervisors (including me ;o).

It's your first month. You will be in the program for 3-5 years. Everyone knows this, and you will have the opportunity to redeem yourself. Be patient. Do better in the future. Everything will work out alright.
What's more important is that you understand your weaknesses. Work on them. Become a better person and scientist by figuring out how you can address your weaknesses by either addressing them directly, or working around them.

And remember to be patient with yourself. This is far from the last series of mistakes you'll make as a PhD student (or a researcher your entire career, for that matter). You'll be far more successful in the long run if you learn to forgive yourself and learn what you can each time you make a mistake or experience a failure.

This is applicable in real life too. In PhD, the timeframe is days and months. In real life, the timeframe can be as small as moments to days and as large as years to decades. Irrespective of what bad has happened, it's fine as long as the lesson from the mistake has been learned.

To further the above, I think it's important to remember just how much learning takes place over the course of a PhD. It's an educational process with a degree awarded at the end, and you should expect the usual ups and downs that come with learning and self-improvement. Don't beat yourself up; you found a way not to make a lightbulb.

Now I am facing the problem that it will be harder for me to build trust with my advisor. What steps could I take to start building it again?

Fix the problem.  If your advisor's getting a bad impression, that's a symptom; like a cough, you can try to suppress it, but the long-term solution is to fix the cause, i.e.:

It seems that I really didn't understand concepts.

So, sure, some damage control can help for now.  But the long-term priority needs to be personal improvement.
All that said, it sounds like you're beating yourself up a bit.  That's not necessarily a bad thing; being critical of oneself is a great way to avoid becoming complacent.  But at the same time, make sure that you don't overdo it and get depressed.  There'll need to be a healthy balance.
Like @WolfgangBangerth said, you'll be in the program for some years yet.  You probably have a bit of time to breath and figure things out.

There are occasional shakeups early on in a PhD. You may voluntarily or non-voluntarily switch groups. That may add time to your PhD. But it's going to be OK. I have friends with similar experiences who got kicked out of some hotshot's group, and they had very positive experiences with a different advisor. They have cool jobs now to boot.
The first year of a PhD can be brutal. You can go from the top of the undergrad class to the middle of the pack, or even the lower half. But don't fall into the cognitive trap of downward comparison: searching for someone above you and comparing yourself to him/her. This is virtually ALWAYS possible no matter how smart, rich, or strong you are. After all, even those achieving some maximum hold it only temporarily. We are simply points in a high-dimensional distribution of abilities and it's nonsensical, non-healthy, and immodest to consider yourself the absolute max or deserving of it.
It sounds like your anxiety and self-shaming up until now have helped motivate you to do better. And to some extent, that's a normal psyche in a PhD student and many over-achievers. But now you would do well to reign in those strategies and add balance to your life. There is more to learn than best coding practices in your PhD; there is also all the emotional management and self-care skills that will afford you the peace of mind you need to code well.
In terms of not taking the initiative, that sounds related to shame and anxiety as well - You may want to do "right" according to someone else's definition of what right is. Let this opportunity challenge that approach. So much of a PhD is about learning to think and do independently.
Go with confidence!

Your first month sounds a bit like mine. I completely misunderstood what my advisors wanted me to do, and kind of felt foolish. But that’s the fundamental nature of research: lots of failure punctuated by the occasional success.
The key, as you mentioned, is overcoming your bad habits, which takes a combination of willpower and willingness to reach out for help. Nobody reasonably expects somebody to completely independent in the first month of PhD studies, so it’s perfectly OK to say “I don’t quite understand what you want here: do you mean X or Y.” Asking for clarification early on helps you to become more independent later, which is your ultimate goal!
As the other commenters suggested, you should also speak with your advisor, to explain that you know things went poorly. If your advisor knows you want to do better, you’re more likely to smooth things over than if you say nothing. Your advisor may also have more specific ideas about how to help you with your project and your performance.
In the long run, your first few months as a PhD student are a lot like your first semester as an undergraduate: so long as you finish strongly, the impact of the first few months will be negligible.

Depending on your learning type, "slowly reading articles" may not be the most efficient way to get you up to speed (what you wrote gives me the impression that you do well in lectures and seminars).
Ask if they have seminars for doctoral students and attend all of them that are relevant to your topic and connect with the other PHD students. There may also be meetings on paper writing and reviewing. You can even attend relevant lectures for students if those topics weren't covered at your old university.
For the trust issue, everyone makes mistakes, you just need to learn from them and don't make the same ones again. For example, you said you made the mistake of not reviewing results, so review all results from now on. You said you don't show initiative on your own, so start doing things on your own initiative. You seem to be on the right track as you identified your mistakes, but you seem to expect some magical solution to your problems, but that doesn't exist, just learn from your mistakes, don't make them again and move on. Just treat mistakes as a learning opportunity and remember that the only way to not make mistakes in the first place is to not do anything :-) And for the first impression, you will have more than enough time to prove yourself, in the end, everything that counts are your published results.
If you do all this and it doesn't improve, make sure that there is no complete mismatch between your topic and your abilities. For example, if you never did any programming and you are expected to do programming as a large part of your work and research, you need to accept that it will take a while to learn that or change the topic, if possible.

Everyone makes mistakes. Be honest. Figure out WHY you made those mistakes, and learn from that. Talk to your advisor - tell them you know you made a mistake, why that mistake happened, and how you will stop it from happening again. Have they actually told you the mistakes 'put you in a bad light' or is that just your own embarasment making you feel bad?
If you learn from your mistakes (and don't blow the lab up), then that is the learning process!

It is early in your PhD career.  Mistakes happen and they are often the best way to learn things.  I struggle with similar bad habits.  Sometime I make a game of trying to catch my own errors before others do.  If I catch errors then I let myself by a fancy coffee or go out for lunch.  Kind of simplistic idea, but it helps me.

From a university administrators point of view, speak with your advisor now before things get worse.  Tell him/her you have a plan to work harder and more independently and identify the items you would like to change, the items you would like to work on. If you have questions in the future, explain to the advisor the research you have done to solve the problem, what you think the answer is and why.  This will show initiative and critical thinking.  Professors mentor many students so they do expect their students at the PhD level to be much more independent and resourceful.

You will need to evaluate for yourself whether the following would work in your particular situation, as you know your advisor.
You seem to have a fairly solid self-awareness of what when wrong and why. I found, in a somewhat different doctoral situation, that if you explain to your advisor the basis of your failure - what it was about your misunderstanding that led you astray - it can generate a lot of respect.
That doesn't mean making excuses, but a brutally honest discussion of what when wrong and how you intend to correct it. Honesty, humility, and resolve to improve, including a plan for improvement.
The fact that you have the self awareness is only the first part. If your advisor doesn't recognize that you do then you may be paying a price needlessly.

My context was different. In an oral prelim exam with a few faculty members, but not my advisor, I was asked a question and started to answer. After a few minutes I realized that I'd gone wrong, so I said to the faculty, "I've gone wrong here and ... is where I went off the rails and this... is why my answer is wrong. I don't think I can find my way back now." I learned later that I'd become a sensation in the faculty for my ability to analyze an error and admit it. I passed the exam and went on to earn the doctorate.

You need to assess your advisor.  I have known senior people who would never forgive a bad first month and others who figure newbies make mistakes and need nurturing.  If your advisor is the first type you need to get out now and do better next time.  If your advisor is the second, don't worry about it.
You mention two different problems-wanting detailed instruction and making stupid mistakes.  For the second, you should look at the mistakes you have made and try to understand what you could have done to avoid them.  Are you making assumptions and not making sure you understand the direction you are given?  Do you understand the direction at the start but are sloppy in execution?  If you can find a common thread you can try to find a way to overcome it.  For the first, you are progressing in your career and you are expected to understand what needs to be done at a higher level.  You are still rather junior, so it is good to think about the direction you are given.  Do you really understand it?  If not, the best time to ask is when you are given the direction.  We used to have a sign on the wall "Don't be afraid to ask dumb questions.  They are a lot easier to handle than dumb mistakes."  Do you understand why you are given the direction you are?  This is important if you want to be more than a lab technician.  You hope to be giving the direction someday.  You need to understand what things are useful to do.

Your advisor should not have to tell you what to do. Presumably, you are now a scientist who needs some guidance. Eventually you are expected to guide others. As such, it is up to you to decide what needs to be done, and do it in the most academically professional manner. As this habit develops, your advisor not only trusts you, but also respects you as a "very junior" colleague.
Your advisor is there to get you out of the predicaments you will invariably fall into, due to academic naivete. But, certainly do not expect him/her to dictate each step you are taking

It is entirely normal to be disoriented when starting a PhD. First time you're in charge of yourself! It can take a bit of time to get into the right state of mind. It usually starts when you get into the depth of your subject. Focus on it, strive to understand it and make progress. A PhD is a window of time for really working hard on something, that's what you need to do. Be dedicated, you'll get something at some point, and confidence with your advisor will then develop no matter what happened before.

Friend,
I'm routing for you!  I had a bad first semester in my Ph.D.  Through no fault of my own.  I encountered health issues which had me confined to my bed for 8 weeks.  I couldn't recover from that, so I withdrew from the program and took a different direction professionally.
Enough of my story.  Here's my advice:
To reprogram yourself, you need to replace bad habits with discipline/regimen.  For example, a good discipline is to keep a check-list of things that you need to do and continually churn your check-list to make sure that things are getting done and add new items as they come up.  I have found this approach to be an exceptional way to get things done and to stay on track for both short-term and long-term goals.  You have to force yourself to do this on a regular basis or you will most certainly fail.  I would say that a very powerful regimen is to review and prioritize your check-list on at least a daily basis.  You may also consider having a separate check-list for daily objectives, another for weekly objectives, and a third for longer term objectives.


text:
Does the talk count as invited if my PI invited me?
I'm a just-graduated undergraduate in Biology/Bioinformatics.
In a month or so, I'll get to give a short (10-minute) talk at a major conference during one of a handful (5?) 50-minute workshops (I'm so excited!).
The other 4 speakers were invited to talk by my principal investigator. He also invited me to give a talk. My PI applied to give the workshop—it’s a competitive proposal-based thing, I think.
I'll be applying to graduate school in a couple of months and plan to list the talk on my CV.
I guess it's officially an invited talk (by the criteria here and here, at least), but that feels somewhat contrived since it's my PI who invited me.
Should I go ahead and list it as an "invited talk" on my CV, or would "contributing talk" be more honest?
Thanks!

Since you have graduated already I would say that it is perfectly fine to list it as "invited". If the other speakers are able to do so, then you should also. This is especially the case since your use of the CV is for graduate school admission, not some later career stage purpose.
It might be a bit presumptuous to list a ten minute talk as an invited talk if you had just earned a doctorate with this professor, but for someone in your position it is an honor to be asked, even for such a short talk. I'll guess that few such BA/BS students are in a similar position.
However, while the "invited" part seems fine to me, you might want to take care about how you state the rest of the description. "Invited talk" might imply more than you intend. "Invited short talk" or "Invited workshop presentation" might be more accurate. I assume you don't have a lot of these requiring a general description for a section of your CV.
Your advisor had options about who to invite. He wasn't obligated to invite you and trusts that you have something to offer.
However, since he will be writing you letters of recommendation for grad school, I assume, you can ask him what is best here.

In principle, an invited speaker at a conference or workshop is a researcher who has significant experience in the field: it is assumed that their talk is valuable for the participants, that's why they are "invited".
Although you are technically "invited", I would recommend not listing this as an "invited talk" because academics are likely to think that it's an abuse of the term in this case or worse, that it's a lie. To be safe I would just list it as a regular talk.

First off, congrats on your upcoming talk!
I would not consider this an invited talk unless you were invited by the conference organizers. It is common for PI's to encourage their mentees to give talks and this does not quite fit into the definition of an invited talk.
ETA: I missed the part about the PI being the workshop organizer. I would still be hesitant about listing this as such.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Advice for postdoc after bad PhD
I would like to ask for advice regarding the search for postdoc.
First a bit of background. I got my 3-years PhD in February in mathematics (applied math + numerical analysis). I am disappointed because I did not do anything important: I studied a specific numerical method with a code that was already developed (a very complex fluid code) before and then I used the method to study a physical problem (actually running a lot of simulations and analyzing the results). For that last part, I also used some ideas from dynamical systems but again nothing new. The approach however was new but it was not even mine. It was my supervisors. In the end, my thesis was in computational fluid dynamics. I got 2 publications plus 1 procceeding from this thesis, but they were all in engineering-like journals.
Back to the present. After the above experience I had a change of heart. I want to find a postdoc in applied math where I can study a problem more rigorously, but I love working in interdisciplinary subjects like biology, neuroscience, physics, fluid dynamics. The problem is I am too much of an engineer for the mathematicians. I applied to three postdoc positions and was rejected at all three.
My actual fear here is that I cannot undo the mistake I did during my PhD. How can I persuade someone to take me as a postdoc in another area/field without strong publication record? Even if I have failed I really want to continue working in research. I love science and the learning process.

Did you have interviews for any of the three positions? If not, you need to improve your CV, research statement etc. If you did, focus on interview technique. By the way, applying for only three jobs is setting yourself up to fail. In some (all?) fields, applying to 20+ would not be uncommon.

@astronat no interview, they just rejected me through e-mail. I think my documents where actually good ( I gave then to another person to check them too) but in any case I always customize them for each post-doc. I do plan to apply for more positions.

It's a numbers game, as @astronat suggests, get those applications out. Have a colleague be a critical second set of eyes for what you're sending. You don't want to sell yourself short. Also, if you're by nature interdisciplinary-minded, hint at some ideas to explore that a potential program might benefit from. Regarding a "bad PhD," you make of it what you can, that was your responsibility.

Are you happy to continue researching in the same area? If so, you should probably check out the academics who publish papers close to your own. See if they have any positions or whether there are opportunities to apply for grants with them.

Update: I finally got a position for 1,5 years on a quite different topic.

I applied to three postdoc positions and was rejected at all three.

This is probably the heart of the problem. It's not uncommon to make 30-50 applications. A friend of mine doing physics got an offer after about 35 applications (and about 10 of those interviewed her). She was a theoretical physicist.
I would also speculate that you may be better off applying for postdocs that match your current publications, (fluid dynamics?), and voicing your interest in pursuing some more rigorous applied maths work at interview. If they offer you the place they will likely be happy for you to engage in that in addition to the primary role. This would offer you a smooth transition.

I am actually following your suggestion. I will update my post as long as I see some light at the end of the tunnel!

@Riri Good luck! It's a long process, I hope you get a place you like in the end.

I got 2 publications plus 1 proceeding from this thesis.

I don't understand (but Math is also not where I did research) how this would be considered a weak publication record.

Examine yourself for "imposter syndrome".  It's a common feeling that you are somehow a fraud in your field, because you realize just how much there is to still learn in the field, and you feel that your learning didn't cover nearly enough.  If that's you, welcome to the club, most people encounter this if they truly perform, and like most things it goes away by not fretting over it and getting down to work.

If on the rare chance that you really graduated without developing the necessary skills, then still attempt the work while doing extra work to strengthen the areas you're weak in.
Those are the most likely options to success, the rest of the options typically look like "bide your time hoping that things change" and "quit"
Good luck, and if you got your PhD, odds are you are as competent as many other PhDs.  Take trust in that; but, if you really need some skill, then shop around for the opportunities to gain that skill.

A lot of people in academia suffer from this syndrome. I suspect that I am no exception. I have started studying more technical works in the area I want to apply for postdoc now and I follow online conferences or seminars to cover my gaps. This is a good advice and thank you for you kind words.

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


text:
Advice for difficult first postdoc. What can I do?
Last year I took my phd in applied math. Now I am 5 months into my first postdoc (different subject from phd but still modeling and some numerics) which is 18 months in total. Both phd and postdoc are in the same country, abroad.
A little bit of history: The first time (during the post doc interview) I was presented the project (which is in mathematical modeling) I was very excited and thought: let's do this. I was told that I would work in a group and have people to help me (including a phd student). So I accepted. The phd student proved to not help me at all. Not because he doesn't want but because he cannot.
In the first 2 months I did some brainstorming, read other people's work, found some possible approach and gave a presentation to the rest of the group about it (still nothing concrete i.e. no numerical results / simulations). When I actually started working on it (like writing equations and code) I started with a very simple case. The thing is, after almost 4 months I am still stuck to the simple case. And I am completely discouraged because I already have my phd! I don't understand what does not work (is it the equations? the code? me?).
The last two weeks I am so stressed, that I can't sleep, I cry for no reason and I have decided to go in the next days to a therapist. Next week I will talk to one of my 2 bosses and tell him that the final model I agreed to give them is something which is absolutely impossible for me to do because even if i find the right equations for the model, I need to code it (which seems too complex because the model is far too complex) and do that of course before the end of my contract. I used complicated codes during my phd but I did not develop them so as to have the experience.
I want to open up because I am tired, demotivated and stressed and I don' t want to do research like that. I am planning to talk to them in order to find a solution that works, otherwise I don't have problem to leave. I will tell them that if they are ok with it the most I can try is to continue working on the very simple problem I am doing now. I think that after such a talk I WILL have to leave (which does not make me very sad because I hate working under such conditions). I am also afraid one of my bosses (the group leader) because I have heard stories about him and a phd student that was in the project before I come. He says that the student was fired because he had a very bad character and also was working on other research projects and not the project he was assigned to (but that's his side of the story).
I have already taken my decision to talk to my bosses openly because I want to act professionally and be transparent. I don't know if they have deadlines or other related stuff to my project, so I don't want to cause them any other problem.
I feel I am totally worthless and stupid because as a postdoc this should have come easier on me. In fact I am thinking that if they throw me out after next week's meeting I will not ever come back to academia.
Do you have any other suggestion? Am I seeing it the right way?
EDIT: If I rephrase my question will you open it? I think it can be usefull also for other people.
UPDATE: In a couple months my contract expires and I have already a first draft of my paper! I guess it was very important that I had a PI that understood that I was freaking out and calming me down was the best strategy in order to help me with the research.

Talking to a therapist is the right move.  Getting stuck on a research problem for a few months is not an unusual event and does not need to result in any extreme feelings or major actions.

@AnonymousPhysicist I have the impression that my boss thinks that I should not have stucked for such a long time with that problem. In fact by talking to him I want also to "calibrate" his expectations about what is feasible for me to do and what not.

Talk to the therapist.

I have talked to my boss and is actually satisfied with me and I should be calm. Thank you for all of your answers they really were helpful!

Well, welcome to the real research world beyond PhD studies. What you are experiencing is normal, believe me, I was there too. Getting help from your "boss" is completely normal. I did it all the time when I was post-doc. In fact we met every week. That's the whole point of being a post-doc - to keep learning. So, don't get discouraged. Maybe your simple problem is not that simple? Is it a software issue, or a problem with the idea itself? If it is the software, you need to design a case (maybe not realistic at all) but for which you do know the answer and try to analyze why your code cannot reproduce it. And seek the therapist's help as well to exclude other possibilities that you may have some clinical depression.

Talking to a therapist is very, very good.
Can you take a vacation? That is not a cure for depression, but it may give you some time to take the pressure off and see things with a new light.
I think being open with your advisors is a good idea. But, if possible, try to frame things in a positive light. Instead of using dramatic and negative words like "impossible" and "cannot be done" and "too complex", try to reframe your issue on what you have done and where you are stuck. Be as specific as possible. For example, "I have tried to solve toy problem X, but am running into issues Y and Z. Can you suggest an alternative path forward?"
Focus on your immediate task, and don't get overwhelmed by the long-term goals. If the full set of tasks cannot be completed by the end of your contract, then they will find other people to pick up where you left off.
Progress is very non-linear in research -- you may well find that after making it through this roadblock, the next steps are much easier. So, don't assume your current situation is permanent, and resign yourself to failure.
Research is hard. It is a marathon, not a sprint. Be sure to treat yourself well.

Thank you for your suggestion. I will try to have this discussion as calmly as possible. The funding for the project (and also the funding for my position) is external and ends at the end of my contract. This is something that puts additional pressure on me.

@Riri I know this is easier said than done, but try not to put pressure on yourself. You are not responsible for the success of the group's goals; you are responsible for your own career. If you do good work, that's all anyone can ask. Good work does not necessarily mean quickly solving problems -- it can mean trying something out and working at it for a long time and realizing the original problem is harder than people originally thought. Anyway, good luck, and take care of yourself.


text:
How do you handle a research identity crisis?
I have studied applied math and got a phd (3yrs) in that field with applications in fluid dynamics. Then in my first postdoc (1.5yrs) I did again a postdoc in applied math but studied applications in biological modeling. Now in my second postdoc (started 2 months ago) I am studying a new application, avalanches. The unifying theme is supposed to be the modeling. My problem is that I am feeling a bit lost, feeling like I have to start again from the beginning in this field (methods, codes et.c). I am completely lost and even if I try to make myself see that as a challenge, I am thinking that I want to go and study computational cosmology but then in this way I will never be enough successful for academia. This is because no ones wants someone that knows a little bit of everything but is expert in nothing. There are other things that I like as topics but not my current postdoc ( I actually got it only because I could not find another position on time to leave the first postodoc ). Can you please give me some advice? I would really appreciate it, since I am feeling lost for too long now.

Do you like what you do or not? Can you afford to live on your own money?
And sorry the harsh question, no judgement on you, why cannot you look for a job to meet ends of the months payments like the 95% of people on this planet who did not have the privilege to make a job out of their passion (which is usually the case and the problem of academia).
Reg. "comp.cosmology" the problem is not the outcome, but the entry, since you state now "I am feeling a bit lost, feeling like I have to start again from the beginning in this field (methods, codes et.c). "Why would comp.cosmology be different?

Research involves both a field/topic and a methodology. In my experience the work is more satisfying if you like both aspects. It seems like you have a technique (modeling) that you're succesful with, but haven't discovered a field you love. Unfortunately, academia is more strongly organized around topics than techniques. Conferences, journals, and research groups tend to be about a field or subfield, with many technqiues or methodologies used to answer questions in that field. Given that, it makes sense that you might feel lost or like an outsider.
I suggest you explore widely to find fields that not only interest you, but where you feel compelled to use your modeling skills to make a contribution to advance understanding within that field. This could include reading general articles, attending/watching seminars, but also visiting labs and talking with researchers. If you have that passion and feel like you've found 'your people' then it will be easier to persist through the difficult times.
You also need to honestly assess how much of your interest in cosmology, for example, is a case of "the grass is always greener", that is, something over there looks more appealing than where you are currently just because it's different and you're not immersed in the struggle of doing the work.
Best of luck finding your way!

I have also the impression that academia is not for me. I find research difficult and I am a very slow learner. I see people around me that are always better than me. I am in my 35 and they are almost all secured with a tenured track position. I feel I am failing at so many levels. I want to leave from the group I am , i think it is a bad fit for me. I did my phd and postdoc abroad but in the same country. Now I want to leave from here and go maybe in anoher country but I am alone and off course I don't know what I want to do next in terms or research (or even life).

" I see people around me [...] and they are almost all secured with a tenured track position."
First: you are the one hanging in the academia through postdocs, so you see only the one remaining in, not the one being (happily) outside.
Second: https://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2017/07/25/why-does-the-other-line-always-move-faster-game-theory-tuesdays/ ;)


text:
Can I write "paper accepted without revisions" on a CV?
I am a recent Ph.D. graduate applying to postdoc positions, and I am a bit uneasy about the small number of publications I have worked on. However, the main paper I worked on during my Ph.D. was accepted by a reputable journal with no requested changes from the anonymous peer reviewer (which my advisor said is nearly unheard of for this journal). Is it reasonable for me to say "accepted without revisions" or "passed peer review without revisions" when listing it on my CV? Also, would it be appropriate to mention this anywhere else, e.g., a cover letter or research statement? It is a long paper, and I'm one of just two authors, so I feel that this might look impressive and help mitigate not having many other publications.
On the other hand, I wonder if it would come off as weird, unusual, or off-putting. There is also no way for the reader to verify the claim.

I should add that it was the anonymous peer reviewer who had no revisions, and recommended the article for publication without any changes. The journal editors did ask us to make small revisions to the formatting.

FWIW, most reputable journals gather multiple reviews of prospective papers. It strikes me as very odd for the paper to be published based on a single review, especially when that review is so anomalous as to be described as "unheard of".

I expect that to be mildly complimentary if it's said about a PhD Thesis (accepted without revisions). For a paper, it does not say anything. Could be an excellent paper, or a sloppy review.

Football coaches tell their players, with respect to celebrations, to act like they've seen the end zone before, and will again

I really like this question. In a nutshell, it can be rephrased as asking whether having a paper accepted without revisions is a notable accomplishment in the way that, say, being first author on a paper in your third year of undergraduate or getting 20 publications in Science before you are 25 would be.

@NuclearHoagie I've seen one review at a reputable journal go (paraphrased) "... the results look robust and the analysis correct. For the first time in my life, I have no corrections to suggest and am happy to recommend acceptance."

I would take that to be a sign of an inadequate peer-review process. Better not to mention.

@CaptainEmacs my thesis was accepted without revisions. It is not a flex, it is the way my department works.

@Davidmh: Yes, I think the meaning of “thesis accepted without revisions” varies massively between different departments, especially between countries.  (Obligatory AVMTYTID.)  In the UK, it’s certainly a strong achievement (at in the traditional viva system, which I think most places still follow).  In Sweden (at least in my current department), it’s just the way things work, like you say — the thesis has to be fully finalised before it can proceed to defence.

@PLL Good point. I was talking about the UK and that interpretation seems to be relatively common here.

@NuclearHoagie Some astronomy journals only have a single reviewer. Depending on the field, it's not that peculiar. Although I'll note that I've never had a paper accepted without revisions nor had no comments when reviewing a paper.

@NuclearHoagie I've been a single reviewer for an American Institute of Physics journal, and their journals should been taken seriously.  I've been one of 3 for a barely acceptable journal.  It's not all that uncommon in general, and not much sign of the journal's qulaity.

Just have a private little celebration with co-authors and colleagues and be sure to show gratitude someday by writing careful, useful reviews yourself.

Do NOT add a remark that a paper was accepted "without revisions" to any of your application documents.
The ease of getting a paper published is rarely an indicator of its quality. It is more likely that it is an indicator of the quality of peer review. In my experience, revising papers after receiving reviewer comments (especially if this meant that the paper was rejected and I had to submit elsewhere) help make them better.
If you want that this paper stands out in your application materials, make sure that your advisor highlights in their reference what makes this paper special. But note that neither length nor amount of revisions make a paper stand out. This could achieve your goal of compensating for the low number of published papers.

Although this answer doesn't have the most votes, I'm accepting it because of the helpful suggestion it contains (and because otherwise, all the answers pretty much say the same thing).

It's the use of boldface that clinches it, I would say.

I would most readily assume that a paper accepted without revisions went through some fairly lackadaisical peer review rather than being so perfect that experts in the field couldn't find a single thing wrong with it. I'd like to think that my papers that went through revisions before publication are better papers because of it.
I'd also assume someone bragging about this is fairly inexperienced with the peer review process and/or trying to pad a resume.
Given those things, I'd strongly recommend against it. There's no honest way to make a published paper on your CV more than exactly what it is.

There's no honest way to make a published paper on your CV more than exactly what it is. Maybe if there's a "best paper award" or something?

If you got a nobel prize for it, that might be worth mentioning. On the other hand, whoever you're applying to will already know about it.

No, you shouldn't do this. It will just come across as though you're trying to pad out your CV.

Bad idea.  Personally, I much prefer having constructive comments than no comment at all from a reviewer, so in my mind a paper accepted without review is just one that was not improved as a result laziness of a referee.

Is there a process to appeal against such "laziness of a refree"

I have had a couple of papers accepted without revisions in my career, and while I think they were good papers, they were certainly not perfect.  Specifically, I know from subsequent conversations that they could have been clearer.  A more exacting referee could have helped with that.

If the paper has been accepted for publication but is not yet published, I would just describe it as "accepted". It's certainly more common to see than "paper accepted without revisions", and without knowing the quality and detail level of the referee report(s) it communicates the same amount of important information. If the paper has been published,
just list the publication details (presumably in a standard citation format), which, again, are the important information. Think of it this way: if there are two applicants for a position, the fact that your paper was accepted without revision while the other candidate's paper was accepted after major revision is not going to be what determines the outcome.

Normally a paper only is officially accepted if no revisions are required anymore (other than correcting typos and the like). So I agree that the paper should be listed as "accepted for publication", and that's really all information there is.

Isn't "accepted" implicit when you include the conference/journal anyways? Presumably in some standard citation format.

@MateenUlhaq Well, some people provide information like "submitted to journal X" or "under review at journal X", so it's not obvious to me that a paper listed in a CV under a heading "List of preprints/unpublished manuscripts" together with a journal/conference name should necessarily be interpreted as "accepted". Better to include the clarification, IMO. I'm also not sure what you mean by standard citation format for papers for which the only details you know are author(s), title, and journal.

For the latter, I meant that the published works are listed in a conventional format, e.g. My Name, Julius Caesar, and Albert Einstein, “A quantum theory of Caesar salads,” in Proceedings of Culinary Physics, 2020, pp. 42–2112.

@MateenUlhaq Thanks. Given that OP only described the paper as accepted, it never crossed my mind that it might be published. I agree it's implicit that a published paper was accepted at some stage. Will edit.

@Anyon looking forward to your edited answer :)

@MoreAnonymous I already did edit it. Is something lacking?

I don't think you have addressed the point of mateen: "conventional format, e.g. My Name, Julius Caesar, and Albert Einstein, “A quantum theory of Caesar salads,” in Proceedings of Culinary Physics, 2020, pp. 42–2112."

Some people also use "in press" for the stage where the paper is officially accepted, but the full citation (e.g., page or issue numbers) aren't yet known.

Getting a paper accepted speaks for itself. No one cares how the sausage is made, only that it was made and tastes delicious. A good paper that was accepted after ten rounds of revisions is still a good paper, and a mediocre paper that was accepted with no revisions is still mediocre.
You should only brag about impressive achievements. Getting a paper accepted is impressive (assuming the journal is reputable). The fact that it was accepted without revisions is not, and could even suggest bad things about the journal and/or referee.

If you systematically had papers accepted without revisions, I would start to consider building a statistics, either thinking you are a genius, or that the journals you submit to have a flawed review process.
If you present only one datapoint in your CV, I would guess it was a lucky shot and I would not care about any remark on the paper. But I tend to agree with other answers, a published paper is a very good on its own, no need to pad it with additional linings.
Additionally, the quality of a paper is not measured in how long was the revision, but in how long it resonates in the scientific debate.
The biggest accomplishment and gain from having a paper accepted without revision is that you do not have to spend time in revising it and that the paper is out in the wild soon.
You probably do not realize it, but you have just earned research quality time. You have no due revision dragging in your agenda (and brain), you do not have the impelling sense of your paper being rejected ... celebrate!
I would quantify that time in ~3 weeks.
In other words: no one cares if your paper underwent 6 major revisions or no revisions at all... apart your mental health. You can surely do something meaningful for your CV in those 3 weeks.

The only time people comment on this is when the paper is still under review or being looked at/worked on. So on my CV it'll say something like "Paper X, RR, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management" or wherever. But once it's published, it's published. So, no, don't say that it was published in one shot, I've never seen anyone do this before and it would appear bragg-y.

Of course you can . But instead of stating with no revision explain it as " Accepted in the first place with minor changes"

If this is a publication still in the publishing process, you should write  "to appear" or "to appear in".
See, for example:

What is the meaning of "To appear" for submitted papers
How "submitted", "to appear", "accepted" papers are evaluated in a CV?
What the difference in CVs between "submitted to" and "to appear in"?

If it has already appeared, then you should list is as is standardly presented because deviating from that with extra embellishments only looks dubious.
If it is a special paper and it won some award, (or even nominated for an award) that is worth mentioning. If it has some number of citations that is faster than typical papers get in your field, that also could be worth mentioning.

You've never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The question asks "Can I write" it this way ?

Welcome to Academia.SE. Note that our format is strictly Q&A: the Q was "can I mention the lack of required revisions," so the only probative part of your answer is the word "without." Your answer would be stronger if you provided a rationale for why OP should not do this.


text:
What does being a full-time senior researcher in Latvia entail?
I have a PhD in Art History from a university in the United States. I was wondering what a full-time senior researcher position might entail because this is very uncommon in the United States, specifically in art history. Here is a job posting I found for a position with a 6-year contract: https://arthist.net/archive/37784

I assume that a senior researcher position would mean that it's research only and not teaching, but I feel like the posting is unclear. Is a research position typically without teaching?

Is a six-year position for a senior researcher common?

Is a base salary of EUR 1404,00 - 1754,00 low, or is this figure only low based on my expectations coming from a very expensive city in the U.S.?

Update: I interviewed, but did not get the position. I was told that the 6-year contract was related to legalities regarding non-residents. I was also told that "eventually" there would be teaching, however, many of the other researchers did not live in Latvia (Germany, mostly).

I suspect living costs are a wee bit lower in Latvia than Paulo Alto …….

Based on a cursory search, it's around or slightly above the average gross salary in Riga.

Thanks! And yes, I would not expect the salary to be at all comparable to living in Palo Alto.

I think it is fine to discuss academic salaries here, but I suspect you can get better answers about COL elsewhere on the internet.

Yes, and actually the salary issue is only one small component of my question. I'd love to hear about what a senior researcher position is like in Europe and whether a six-year contract is common.

"what a senior researcher position is like in Europe" Europe is not a homogeneous mass. The duties of a so-called senior researcher, and how long contracts are, are going to be different from university to university, let alone from country to country. In France, where I am, you can hold a permanent research position with the CNRS -- no teaching at all, forever, unless you want to earn a bit of extra cash. Anyway, why not just email someone in that department and ask if the post comes with teaching duties? It seems like a perfectly reasonable question to ask.

Yes, sorry, but I meant Latvia in particular (as per the title of the question). Regardless, I have an interview for the position so I will find out soon enough.

@Parever After the interview, if you discover more, you can even answer  your own question. Probably we don’t have many users from Latvia, and such an answer would be useful for future users.

Often in Europe teaching is part of research positions, and it is not separately accounted/billed/paid;
Six years position may have to do with the fact that the university cannot permanently employ someone, and that the maximum temporary employement for PsotDocs&similar is 6 years (this is the case in some universities in Switzerland, for example);
For costs of life comparisons you may get some indications here. It looks like a salary of 3000€ in Riga allows you to have a lifestyle comparable to 7500$ in Oakland, CA. Scale it accordingly to the offer you receive ...

Re. cost-of-living comparisons: be aware that your cost of living as an expat may be more than your cost of living at home - e.g. you may need to factor in the cost of flights if you wish to visit family/friends, and language/cultural barriers and lack of local knowledge may make it hard for you to access the best-value deals.


text:
Manuscript review decision
I had submitted a Manuscript in a good journal which has given me the reviews as " Accepted for publication pending revisions"? What does this review actually mean? Is it accepted?
FYI, I have created a response letter in which I have given justification for some concerns and also made the changes that were asked to be made in the figures.
Can anybody please help?

It probably means the same as "Minor Revisions" in some other journals: you need to revise your manuscript following the suggestions of the referees, after which the editor will only check that the suggestions were addressed. The reviewers would not need to read the paper again; it can be send for publication as soon as the editor is happy that the revisions were made.

It means exactly what it says:
"Accepted for publication pending revisions".
It's accepted...pending the requested revisions. Essentially, they are going to ask for some changes (usually pretty minor and straightforward) and once those are done to the editor's satisfaction, the paper is accepted.

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


text:
Intellectual property of computer program of another authors equation?
When transfering a rather complex equation from another authors published article, to a computer programming language such as R, does the intellectual property of the script itself belong to the programmer?
Or would it be like translating, say a quote, to a different language?
Does it depend on the complexity of implementing the model in the script?
I am thinking of this on more of a philosophical level, rather than specific IP laws.

There are some disgusting cases of patented algorithms, but in a generic case, everyone can translate a formula from a paper to code.
Even more: it's the essence of computer science in how to translate a formula to code. This can be done in various ways, where some are much more efficient (and hence, better) than others. So it's definitely the intellectual property of the person, who wrote the code.
Probably, some implementations can be dismissed as trivial, but most would not be.
Of course, it's still an implementation of your formula / algorithm, which (normally) would be credited as such. But this retains you no rights to the implementation.
You might retain rights for the formula itself, by patenting it or something. Unless it's something big, I would not really bother.
Disclaimer: I am not a layer.

I expect that there are few equations non-trivial enough that the author has a reasonable claim of ownership, for which the corresponding code implementation is so trivial that the programmer can't reasonably claim a certain degree of ownership of their own.
Here is an analogy to consider. If an author were to construct some great, abstract system of morality, it is indisputable that they could fairly claim ownership over it. However, if another author were to take those abstract ideas and make them concrete by way of accessible language and real-world analogies, that second author could surely claim ownership of their own interpretation of the original author's ideas. Here, I liken the first author to the creator of the equation, and the second to the programmer who implemented it in code.


text:
Is meeting the entry requirements enough to justify applying for an MSc?
This summer, I will be graduating from the University of Leeds (BSc Mathematics) with an expected 2:1 grade. I am now looking at finance-related MSc courses.
Going to a top tier London university (Imperial, UCL, etc) would be a dream come true for me, but I can't afford to throw away the cost of making applications (approx. £70 each) if I don't stand a chance of being made an offer.
I expect to meet all of the entry requirements for these courses, but still feel that I would be (academically) a weak candidate for such courses (having achieved only ABBB at A-level, for example).
So given that I meet the entry requirements for these courses, would it be worth making an application - or would I not stand up to the competition?
Edit (additional information): I also have no relevant work experience. However, on the positive side I have good knowledge of a variety of programming languages, take on a fair number of personal projects which demonstrate a genuine interest in finance, and have done a lot of financial mathematics as part of my degree.
Additionally, I may be able to put in a plea on the grounds of extenuating circumstances on the basis of a mental-health diagnosis which had a significant effect on my grades in earlier years. Since these issues have been treated (i.e. in my third year) I have averaged a strong first (however, poor past performance means that I only expect to graduate with a 2:1).

I don't think we can really advise you on this. Contact the admissions tutor at the top couple of places you'd like to go, and explain your situation. But first work out specifically why you want to go to that institution. Bear in mind that if you go to London then £70 will be tiny relative to the costs you'll need to cover.

Since you only meet entry requirements, it is likely you won't get funding if you get graduate admission. This means that you'll need to cover tuition and living expense by yourself. In that case, £70 or even £700 is nothing compared to what you'll need to pay after you are admitted.

I do have savings of just over £50,000 - I just don't want to throw money away naively. I am not worried about securing funding, I am just wondering whether I stand a chance of securing a place. For example, LSE's entry requirements are a minimum of a 2:1 in a numerical subject. However, I am assuming that it would be foolish to make an application there, given my background?

@M Smith that is something you need to ask the admissions tutor at LSE. @scaaahu in the UK, an MSc is generally a taught Master's rather than a research Master's and therefore very unlikely to be funded no matter how good an applicant you are.

Previously people submitted three applications, one certain, one stretch, and one intermediate. To use the work experience to your advantage, try to find programs that encourage people with relevant work experience to apply.
In the US I'd advise you not to mention the mental health diagnosis at this stage.  However, I don't know if that carries over to the UK.
Even without mentioning specifics, it is still possible to write a short accompanying statement about the poor grades early on, something along the lines of "facing a challenging family situation during years x and y" and pointing to recent spectacular successes as a counterbalance.
In general you should aim for a non-apologetic, self-confident tone, especially since you want to go into finance -- which I think is a field full of chutzpah.  If you are not accepted, you're not accepted; but no one will judge you harshly for having tried.
With regard to the money -- look, in the finance world, don't they talk a lot about "the cost of doing business"?  Two or three applications are not going to make much of a dent in your nest egg.
By the way, I wonder whether you would like to consider looking beyond your national borders?  Finance is such an international sort of field.
(I actually agree this should be closed but I had too much to say to fit into comments.)

Thank you for your detailed response. With regards to this question being off-topic, do you know of an SE forums which deal with questions such as these? I did ask on the Quant Meta (https://quant.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1566/does-se-have-a-platform-where-asking-for-advice-regarding-prost-grad-application/1567#1567) and was pointed in your direction.

@MSmith - I'm sorry, I think I was confusing your question with someone else's, hence the stuff about the work experience. You should look at the existing Q&As here about how to put together a strong application. // In the US, you would be getting advised at your undergraduate institution in your grad applications.  You'd reach out to a professor that you connected well with, who would hopefully mentor you in the process and write a strong letter of recommendation. I don't know how things work in the UK, though.

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


text:
Is it okay to publish my thesis when it was done 2 yrs ago?
Is it okay to publish my thesis when it was done 2 yrs ago?
I defended my master's thesis in February 2016 but the data gathering was done in October 2015 and the final revision was submitted to my university in March 2016.
I thought of submitting my thesis for journal publication. Do you think they would still accept it when it's been done 2 yrs ago? I had been very busy after graduation and I never had the chance to submit my research paper for publication.
Hope for your enlightenment
Follow-up:
Thank you for taking time in answering my query. My field of study is in Psychology. It's a causal, experimental research. After I defended my thesis, I got the highest grade in my final defense. I was told by my adviser to submit my paper for journal publication and present it on the upcoming convention (that year) but I had been extremely busy because I focused on the licensure exam that time. It's not totally an original study because I adopted the intervention from the US. My study was to try it in the Philippine setting but there were some modification on the approach to suit with the respondents. I'm concerned about the originality, if you send your paper for publication, does it really have to be fully original especially the intervention? I really want to have it published so I can teach this intervention to others  (to my community) especially to financially incapable families who can't afford to pay for a behavioral therapist or psychologist. Since the intervention is a cost-effective approach.

Which field, which general topic? Some topics stay fresh for a longer time than others, but in general, two years is not a long time at all. You may need to update your paper with the latest literature, if your field is moving fast.

Do you still have contact to your former supervisor and  can discuss this with them?

I have made an update above as a response to your comment. Thanks for taking time in answering my question.

well, i dunno what journal you're considering.  many journals have different "levels" or grades of published documents with full-fledged "papers" as the most salient and novel works.  then there might be some kinda "reports" or "correspondence" for submissions that the editors feel the readership can benefit from, but do not quite cut it academically as the leading papers.  but i don't know.  good luck with this.  other than your time, there is little that you risk by submitting.

Is the information offered in your thesis interesting?
Useful?
Original?
Previously unpublished and not known?
Pertinent to the subscribers of the journal to which it is to be submitted?
Would the visibility of the published work be useful to you, professionally?

Now none of those questions have anything to do with how long this work has been sitting around (like for 2 years).  If all of the answers to those six questions was "yes", what reason in the world would there be to not publish?
Even if it was, say, 4 outa 6 "yeses", why wouldn't you publish?
There was some things I did in grad school that I thought was crap, yet I was encouraged to submit to publication (and I didn't).  So, Sofia, you need to look at the content of your thesis and ask yourself if the work has value, if someone else reading it will find authentic value in it.  And you need to make some attempt to evaluate its novelty (but don't worry, the reviewers/referees will let you know if there is uncited previous published work).
I can't think of a reason in the world where, if the content would otherwise be worthy of publication, that the two years would make any difference at all.

I have made an update above as a response to your comment. Thanks for taking time in answering my question.

If the data or comparable studies were not published from you, your former institute, collaborators, or third party, go for it. You might want to ask your someone in the field about a matching journal and then submit an article. If it is not interesting at all, it will be rejected.
I have seen post-docs presenting their thesis a couple of years on different posters just to advertise their work and get into touch with people because they had not yet gathered enough new material.

I have made an update above as a response to your comment. Thanks for taking time in answering my question.

Based on your update, I think it is likely that your work could be published successfully. As long as you acknowledge the intervention you adapted, your work should provide useful evidence that that work can be replicated and that it can be successful in the Philippine setting as you adapted it.
Because of the delay, you should update your literature review to make sure to incorporate further developments in the last two years. If someone else has now done a similar intervention in a similar context, you should especially engage with their work.
Good luck! Especially if you ask your advisor for leads on where to submit, I think you can get your work published and out there for others to benefit from.


text:
If I accepted an admission and funding offer before April 15th, is it considered unethical to rescind if before April 15th
Recently I applied to a number of graduate program in the humanities. After applying to ten schools, I received an offer in late February for a full funding package, from one of the universities, which seemed rather early to me. This offer came from an advisor, not the actual graduate school -  the official letter of acceptance from the graduate school came several weeks later. In the offer, the advisor stated that though I had been offered funding, they would appreciate an answer on whether I would accept the funding as soon as possible. Since this was late February, and I had only heard back from one school at the time, this put me in tricky situation, and I couldn't really give her a deliberate answer. I would certainly accept the funding if I chose to attend, but that was not a certainty by any means. The school from which I received the offer was not my top choice, a good school, but not a top choice. As such, I told her I needed more time, without going into any details. Quite simply though, I just hadn't heard back from most of my schools.
A couple of weeks later I heard back from this same advisor, and this time she again asked for an answer as soon as possible, but did notify me that the national deadline in which a decision can be made is April  15th, several weeks away. At this time, I was still waiting to receive a decision from a couple of other schools. I told her (the advisor that contacted me) that I needed more time.  One to two weeks went by, and trying to expedite the decision, I contacted the one last school that I hadn't heard from, and found out I had been placed on the waiting list. My waitlisted school said they needed to receive word from a couple of other students whom they had made offers to, and they could then possibly make an offer to me if these students declined. As such, after thinking myself into a rabbit hole with these complications, rashly, despite having thought of it for several weeks (which may be why I thought myself into a rabbit hole) I accepted the offer from the initial school that made the offer.
I have read elsewhere on these boards that accepting an offer and then withdrawing it after April 15th, for a waitlisted school is highly unethical and can cause dismissal from all schools. I certainly see the reasoning behind that, but if I were to rescind my acceptance before April 15th, hopefully a week or more, would this be considered unethical since they could still easily give the funding elsewhere? Moroever, would it be a disadvantage to the school I did receive the offer from? Finally, could it possibly have an effect on my long-term career if I rescinded the offer and accepted admission to the waitlisted school?
Regardless, is it ethical to rescind an acceptance of funding and admission before April 15th (hopefully a week or more before)? Would this burn a serious bridge that would hurt my career? Would another student not receive funding since I accepted the offer and then withdrew it?  I understand that some programs will reach out to their highly-regarded candidates in order to recruit them, and I'm certainly not against the school, but it sounds like I have a solid chance of getting off of the waitlist. It was one of my top schools, for not just academic reasons but personal as well. Seeing how this is the next five years of my life, it's a weighty decision to make. Please let me know what you think, or if you have any official procedures for going about these matters. Thanks!

Please break up the wall of text and make it clear what the actual question is. At the moment it's very difficult to read.

Also see https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/103095/pursuing-other-phd-offers-after-accepting-one-too-early/103098

See in particular https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/42534/1010.  You are allowed to withdraw an acceptance before April 15, but not after.

The Council of Graduate Schools's April 15th resolution clearly lays out the obligations of students, and notes that a decision made prior to April 15th can be rescinded if the student gets a different offer, so long as it is done in writing.

Students are under no obligation to respond to offers of financial support prior to April 15; earlier deadlines for acceptance of such offers violate the intent of this Resolution. In those instances in which a student accepts an offer before April 15 and subsequently desires to withdraw that acceptance, the student may submit in writing a resignation of the appointment at any time through April 15. However, an acceptance given or left in force after April 15 commits the student not to accept another offer without first obtaining a written release from the institution to which a commitment has been made.

The answer to your question as to whether it is unethical to rescind your commitment before April 15th is an unequivocal no: @aeismail's answer gives the proof, quoted from the CGS April 15th Resolution.
[Earlier this week I reached out to a student, saying that we were about to admit him.  He wrote back saying that he had just accepted an offer from a comparable school.  I wrote back telling him that his offer was not binding until April 15th.  He stuck with his decision -- as I was expecting -- but the point is that the ethics of this are completely understood.]
Having said that, speaking as a Graduate Coordinator, I don't understand what you think the school in question did wrong.  You write

To be frank, I've been trying not to second-guess the decision and take responsibility for the decision I made, but as I've thought more and more about it, I don't exactly feel like it was fair to place that pressure on me so early in the decision process.

What pressure did they place on you?  They communicated clearly that you had until April 15 but "asked for an answer soon if possible."  To me this means: if you have already made up your mind, please let them know. If you haven't made up your mind yet -- e.g. because you are yourself waiting on another school -- well, then it's not possible for you to answer soon because you don't know your decision yet.

They have to know that I probably haven't heard back from other schools, that I'm not in a position to make an informed decision, and that it is unorthodox to personally reach out to student who is trying to make the best decision for him/herself as they can.

They can't know whether you've heard back from the other schools of interest to you -- rather, that's what the email is asking.  You may or may not be in a position to make an "informed decision"; if you're not, you should hold on to the offer until you are or until April 15th.  As for personally reaching out to students: this week I have personally reached out to every student who has a pending offer from us.  I make it clear that they have until April 15th to reply but say that if they happen to know already it would be very helpful to hear. Guess what the most common response to this email is? "Sorry, but I haven't made up my mind yet."
Bottom line: you absolutely do not owe anyone a response before April 15th.  The right strategy for you is clear: you should hold on to all offers of interest until April 15th and let go of all the offers you know you will not take.  The second part is important, because in order to get the information you want before April 15th, it is very likely that other students need to follow this strategy too.  And thus emailing students to get them to remember to divest the offers they are no longer considering is also an important part of the process -- it benefits you too, so you should not resent it.

Thank you for your very direct answer. Yes, in retrospect, I should have been much more blunt and straightforward in my replies. I had just read elsewhere on these boards schools reaching out like this are breaching some ethical rule and that it is considered unusual and a bit shaky, but it's the internet and that's why you try to get as many opinions as you can. Thank you for lending a point-of-view on the other side of the equation as someone who is part of the field - it is useful to know the procedural aspects that go into these processes.


text:
Citations when mixing of factual evidence and interpretation in one sentence
I have a bit of a technical question about constructing narrative while writing as a historian (I guess it also applies to other humanities).
This never really occurred to me as an issue during undergrad and graduate school while writing my thesis, but I have noticed now as I revise my thesis that at times I write sentences that contain both the factual events contained in the primary source I cite in the footnote at the end of the sentence and my interpretation of the source I cite.
For example, if I describe the relation between Event A and Event B, I might first describe the general context. Then follows Sentence A that describes Event A and cites Source A describing Event A. Then follows Sentence B that says:

In reaction (to Event A), Event B happened⁴.

Where Footnote 4 describes Event B.
My question about this example is about the two words “in reaction”. The source I cite at the end of Sentence B does only describe Event B. I derive the connection between the two events and that Event B is a reaction to Event A from the general context. Thus “in reaction” is my interpretation of the causality between the two events.
Now if one is really squeamish I guess one could say that by not separating “in reaction” from Sentence B I mix interpretation and factual evidence and some readers could be misled that the source I cite at the end of Sentence B also includes that Event B happened in reaction to Event A.
The same kind of situation seems to happen at times in my writing when I have a sentence that is built like this:

[Interpretation], [relative clause with factual evidence] [Footnote with evidence for events/facts in relative clause].

My question is whether this style of writing is acceptable at all? It certainly does not occur often in my writing, but it does at times. No one who has read my writing really has ever said anything about this. Although it is hard to check the writing of other historians with regards to this question, as I do not have the sources to check in most cases, I have noticed that other historians do this kind of mixing at times as well (some even seem to simply cite sources at the end of paragraphs that clearly contain both factual statements and interpretation). I also wonder what having to interrupt sentences to clearly separate interpretation and facts all the time would do to the flow of the narrative.
Still this is a concern now, and I would like to know how to approach this dilemma. Is there a convention or best practice? Is mixing interpretation and evidence acceptable, is it sloppy writing or is it completely unacceptable?
Crosspost on Reddit

What about "In reaction (to Event A), Event B⁴ happened.", i.e., move the footnote to just after "Event B"?

Thanks for the reply. Mmh, that is not really common, at least I have never seen that in a history article/monograph. Also, I don't think that it would necessary make things clearer.

Footnotes should be placed in connection to the material that they describe. There is literally no reason other than a style sheet that they can only be at the end of a sentence. If it belongs halfway through the sentence, before you begin interpretation, then put it there, where it makes the most logical sense.
Remember, your writing is what is paramount. Use the tools you have to make your arguments and narrative work, rather than the other way around.

In legal citation, where exact attribution is critical, it is the norm to have citations for every clause (at least). Under such a system, just moving the footnote immediately after "Event B" would make it clear that the first clause was not supported by your footnote, but absent such a discipline-wide understanding you might need to reword to be clear, e.g.: "Event B⁴ then happened in reaction to Event A."


text:
No response from potential PhD supervisor after Skype meeting
Four weeks ago, I had a meeting over Skype with my potential PhD supervisor for an open PhD position in his group. He initially expressed interest in my work and asked me to arrange for two recommendation letters in order to know more about me and then later, we discussed about my current/past research works, my future plans and intricacies of his work for about 45 minutes over Skype. He had also specified that both of my letters were good and will discuss with his boss (his group leader) regarding my academic background and research experience. Finally he told that he had applied for a grant and will let me know once he gets to know about the outcome. Overall, the meeting went quite well. Since then, I haven't heard back from him. He also hasn't responded to a couple of my reminder emails. Should I be optimistic about this?

well, it is up in the air. No response might mean that there are no news yet to share.

If your employment is dependent on the supervisor getting their grant approved, then you realistically have about 25% of getting the position. The results of a grant usually come several months after submission.


text:
Are physics and natural sciences considered liberal arts?
I was surprised to see the description given for "liberal arts education" in Wikipedia as follows:

Liberal arts today consists of four types of areas: the natural sciences, social sciences, arts, and humanities. Its central academic disciplines are physics, biology, philosophy, logic, linguistics, literature, history, political science, psychology, mathematics, and many others.
Liberal arts education (Wikipedia article)

I'm obviously talking about the modern usage of "liberal arts", not the ancient or historical term (trivium and quadrivium). I had in mind something more akin to humanities, so excluding natural sciences like physics, chemistry, even astronomy. My conception seems to be right at least by some definitions of the term. The first result I get when I search for "liberal arts" is a definition by Oxford Dictionaries:

North American
  Arts subjects such as literature and history, as distinct from science and technology.
Oxford Dictionaries at lexico.com

It's defined by Collins as:

(Education) the fine arts, humanities, sociology, languages, and literature. Often shortened to: arts
Collins English Dictionary

It's possible that the British English definition and/or the meaning of the term outside North America or USA is different. Two of the most common online American dictionaries seem to emphasize "general knowledge" as opposed to professional knowledge:

2 : college or university studies (such as language, philosophy, literature, abstract science) intended to provide chiefly general knowledge and to develop general intellectual capacities (such as reason and judgment) as opposed to professional or vocational skills
Merriam-Webster
pl.n.
  1. Academic disciplines, including literature, history, languages, philosophy, mathematics, and general sciences, viewed in contrast to professional and technical disciplines.
American Heritage Dictionary

I'm not sure whether things like physics and chemistry fall within the American dictionary definitions above, but the Wikipedia article clearly says that the natural sciences and life sciences are part of the liberal arts, and gives examples of physics, chemistry, geology, biology and neuroscience.
Liberal arts education: Modern usage (Wikipedia article)
Notwithstanding that many American dictionaries don't mention the natural sciences by name, at least the one below does:

n.pl.
  1. academic college courses providing general knowledge and comprising the arts, humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences.
Random House Kerneman Webster's College Dictionary

Does anyone know whether even in America there's consensus among academics and institutions that "liberal arts" include things like physics, chemistry, geology or neuroscience?

It's possible that some courses that sound like hard science are taught more from an arts point of view.  I.e. the students get an overview of the subject and learn a lot of technical terms, but don't necessarily have to understand it from a scientific perspective.  This would be like "painting" courses where one learns about the various styles and techniques used by the masters without ever actually having to pick up a real paintbrush.  I remember an economics course with two sections, the arts section learned to interpret what graphs meant without ever learning the underlying mathematics.

If you're taking a vote, I consider the wikipedia definition to be the correct one.

Note: The inclusion of science, engineering, and math was discussed on the Wikipedia article's talk page over the last 6 years.

Could you edit this to be a single question?  Probably "Is there a consensus?" is the best question.

@AnonymousPhysicist Maybe I'm asking more questions than I realize, but in the title I ask if physics and natural sciences are a part of liberal arts, and then I ask whether there's consensus that the natural sciences are part of the liberal arts. Are those multiple questions I'm asking? Should I take out the parts about other parts of the world, ie., UK and India?

Yes and yes.    ....

Nowadays American universities usually use "arts and sciences" to mean what "liberal arts" used to mean. The point is that these are academic disciplines rather than pre-professional fields or the performing or fine arts. "Liberal arts college" is more or less a set phrase now.

There is little consensus, I think. But mostly it is a matter of convenience and organization at colleges and universities. I studied mathematics. I earned both a BA and an MA at different places, one of them an R1 university. Just by asking, the degrees could have been designated BS and MS. Other places the math department is in the School of Engineering. But that is just an organizational convenience, though it might let some departments share faculty more easily when it comes to budgets and such. Some places CS is part of the math department and is a "liberal art". Other places it is part of an engineering discipline. Still other places it is different from both.
But in the US, at a liberal arts college, the student is expected to gain a broad and well rounded education. It will include both literature and science, even though it might focus somewhat on a single area.
But, your question, itself, details that there is no consensus on this.

I don’t think there’s a complete consensus, and my feeling is that outside of the usage “liberal arts college” (or SLAC) the phrase “liberal arts” is going out of common usage.  The meaning of both the word “liberal” and “arts” are not their modern usages and so most people don’t understand the term.  On top of that both words are unpopular or at least controversial with parents, and so it’s not great marketing.

Hmmm. "unpopular or at least controversial with parents". Maybe that is why we need liberal arts education to flourish.

I think the fight over the liberal arts themselves is far more important than defending the misleading name itself.

Some evidence to support any of these feelings would improve this response.

It's worth pointing out to those not familiar with the concept that physics, chemistry, biology, and mathematics are typically taught at liberal arts colleges although most students only take introductory courses (or specialized courses like "physics for poets") at these institutions.


text:
Redoing my bachelor’s degree for general specialisation and better GPA
I completed my Bachelor’s degree and Master’s degree, in Computing Information Systems (IS) and in Information Technology (IT), respectively, at a university in Australia four years ago. Both degrees are from the Department of Computer Science and Engineering.
In back home, computer science jobs are widely demanding. Even before arriving back home, l applied to many jobs in the public and private sectors but my applications were rejected mainly for the following reasons:

I have a low GPA in my bachelor’s.
IS is unbelievably misperceived as Management Information Systems.
IS is not computer science (very narrow specialisation to the point that it is not computer science anymore).

I know already some may wonder why the description of the program or courses are not reviewed. Unfortunately, this is how many organisations from all backgrounds including technical and research/Academic bases bluntly processing the applications. They pretty much match the words from the degree title to the job description. Yes, this is how irrational! Your academic achievement is based on what your undergraduate degree consists of, summaried by the title (mostly general specialisation) and GPA. In many cases, whatever builds up on that will be ignored if you are not satisfying with your first degree.
However, I am not saying that I cannot find a job that is related to my academic backgrounds. Currently, I have been working as a web developer for the past three years. But my point is that I cannot get a high-salary job because of the degree title as well as my low GPA.
Now I am seriously thinking to do a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science at the same university, hoping that I receive more than two years of credit exemptions of a three years undergraduate degree. This is because I covered almost all core subjects required in the Computer Science program in my previous studies.
My questions: (1) As in the policy of Australian universities, Is there a way to get higher GPA other than doing another degree? I am asking for Australian universities because I did my two degrees in an Australian University. Also I am assuming that I would get more credit if I go back to the same university.
(2) Since the units of my both degrees cover almost all units of the undergraduate program of Computer Science, can I argue that my degrees are equivalent to the new degree without further study?
[My inner voice says this is worth it if I receive that degree with better GPA. If you were living in the same circumstances, what would you do? I would appreciate sharing your opinions and thoughts about my plan].

What is the question?

Please see the edit.

What does IS stand for? Where is "overseas"?

Equivalence/recognition/comparability of degrees and qualifications is a common issue. You can find some info for the EU at https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/education/university/recognition/index_en.htm (is your question only about Australia?).

@henning edited for more clarification. IS stands for Information Systems and it was in Australia.

@Nemo My degrees are recognised but apparently not enough qualifications for certain jobs within the computer science industry.

The way the question is phrased now makes it perhaps a better fit for workplace.SE.

If you were living in the same circumstances, what would you do?

If I were you, I would do a part-time Master's degree in Computer Science while working on a not-so-high salary job.
You will waste your money and time by doing another Bachelor's degree in Computer Science. You won't gain too much. The courses are about the same except a few theory courses (depending on the program and school). At the end you still only have a Bachelor's degree.
If you do a Master's degree in Computer Science, the school will teach you more theories, more skills and you get a Master's degree at the end which can earn you more respect that you need when you look for a high-salary job.

If the GPA is realistic, a Masters degree might be too demanding

If an application requires a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science and an applicant holds a Master's, their application will be rejected because either they do not meet the requirements or they are over qualified. As stupid as that.
@ErnodeWeerd

@iAziz - That is not the 'demand' I am referring to. I meant to say: If the student's GPA is an actual reflection of his/her capabilities, obtaining a master's degree might prove to be too difficult for that student.

In your CV consider listing these qualifications more like this:

2013 - Bachelor of Science in Computing Information Systems, from the Department of Computer Science and Engineering Department of King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia.  Equivalent in Australia is a Bachelor of Computer Science.
2016 - Master of Science in Information Technology, from the Department of Computer Science and Engineering Department of King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia.  Australian equivalent is a Masters of Computer Science.

As long as you have something authoritative to reference, to back up the claims of equivalency, then you're covered.  And it's something that can be discussed in greater detail at an interview.

As for your grade-point average (GPA), simply leave that out.  The fact is that you have earned a B.Sc and an M.Sc., which means performing and completing to the required standard.
If an interviewer queries your relative GPA, then it can be formed as "I worked to the standard required, while holding down a job and being physically active in Sportball"
Avoid calling yourself an under-achiever - you DID earn both qualifications, which is a massive success by anyone's standards.

+1, I would try harder to get a job first and then only consider more study. Studying is a significant investment both in terms of time spent and in tuition fees (or salary not earned). If you aren't going to learn much as your question implies, don't study.

Despite the fact that the courses are from the Computer Science department, they are not science degrees; Bachelor of Information Systems and Master of Information Technology.
I wish I can obtain an official document from a local authority stating that these degrees are equivalent to Computer Science. This is definitely impossible, unless if a university grants it with an official transcript.

What have your jobs been in the last four years?
When I'm looking at a CV, what I want is evidence that they can do the job my company needs. The best evidence is if they've already done that job (or something similar) in the past!
If not, that's when I look back to the uni degree. And then I'm not looking for what modules you studied, I'm looking for what projects you did, primarily your final year project, because again that's the only evidence of you actually being able to apply what you learnt in class, or where you learnt to apply coding if it wasn't so much part of your course. I meet lots of software engineers who did science degrees, for example. I'm also looking at your grades though, so less than a 2:2 in the UK way of grading degrees will basically mean you wasted your time, and the better jobs want a 2:1 or 1st.
It sounds like you've got a problem with your grades anyway, and there's nothing I can do about that. On that front, the battle is over and you lost. If there's some justifiable reason, you should be prepared to talk about it in interviews, because if it was simply because you slacked off, then employers are not going to see that as a good thing.
But for the rest of it, you certainly can present it better. Listing courses and modules will never convince anyone; but describing a final year project that's relevant will get a recruiter's attention. And of course, you'd better make sure your jobs since uni show you applying your abilities.
Another way you can help yourself is to work in this outside uni. If you're a coder but you've spent a couple of years serving coffee, I want to hear that your spare room is full of Linux servers and bits of Arduino and O'Reilly manuals, and I want to see your GitHub or Sourceforge commits. I'll happily accept someone who currently has lower skills if they can demonstrate they're really keen about the subject. If you've just taken a bar job and let your skills lapse though,  you're off my list straight away.
Hope that helps. As someone who does the CV checks and technical interviews for my department, this is what I'm looking for.

What you have stated is absolutely reasonable and wise. However, things are not running this way in my country. In many job applications, you would get to select your degree title from a list of titles. If your degree is not listed, you are out already. Some allow you to type-in your  degree title and some other details such as university. But eventually you will be rejected before you get interviewed because your degree title does not have the word "Computer". This is literally the case in many times. I think my GPA is around 2.2 or 2.1 in four points systems.

Your situation is unfortunate but there are some ways to go about it. I live in Australia but come from a third-world country where your situation is not so unique.
Given that you can still secure a relevant job, though not your dream job or a high-paying one, if I were in your place, I would take this job and build some CV by getting experience to move up the ladder somewhere else. Truth is, you are still a fresh graduate.
Another option is to think seriously of having your own business: be an entrepreneur. You may want also to start as a freelancer!
Both options may be easier than doing a degree again. Trust me it will be extremely boring, and an effective use of neither time nor money.

I am already trying hard to build for a better CV, taking some courses in Data Analysis and Statistics and hoping to get into the Data Science world. But there are jobs that you will never get without a good GPA and relevant degree "title", where you are not tested or interviewed for your skills but your academic achievement. Even if the job is highly technical.

Sorry @iAziz, but I call this life! I see you are working hard, and I do hope this hard work pays off eventually. Just don't despair and keep trying! Good luck