text:
Do universities care about bias experienced in group projects?
I am a master's student, and I will complete my master's program soon. During my second year of my MA program, I had to work on a two-semester group project because it was a requirement for the program. My question is the types of critical issues universities care about because universities seem to see issues like academic dishonesty as the most serious offense. Would universities care about the types of incidents that I am about to share below?
Example:
I was in a group project of five people, and four of the members were Caucasians (I am a racial minority female). I was treated terribly by two of the members (one female and one male). We had the final paper that was due just yesterday. The male, who was the editor, tends to procrastinate, and he literally waited until the last minute to make significant changes, and demanded from everyone to make the changes. We did this paper in a shared Google Doc by the way. I had another paper that was due at exactly the same date and time, so by the time that he started to become actively involved, I was much more focused on my other paper. He sent everyone an email on the morning of the day just before the due date, demanding significant changes. I was able to look at emails late that night, and he had sent me another email in the evening, asking if I was still involved in the project. By this time, I was already much more focused on my other paper. My response to his email was that I understand that we all have different schedules, and it is possible that we do things at different times. I had worked on the document and made changes a few days before he became actively involved. His response was basically how dare I challenge him, and called me a passive-aggressive person. He even dropped the F-bomb in his response. Now, the other girl. She also had similar tendencies to procrastinate and got along well with this male. On the document, she purposefully deleted my name, and put a comment, "Let's keep it this way." My relationships with these two individuals had not been positive throughout the year, but I think this incident went very far.
I never had these kinds of incidents during my four years of undergrad at a different university in the US. I am certain that this type of incident is very rare, especially at the graduate school level. I think that I should share my experience with the school because I think that this is a critical issue.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

I'm going to come this from the other (probably less popular!) direction.
I see no evidence of racial bias in your description. Of course I wasn't there and can't judge it, but to me it seems like you describe a straightforward disagreement between classmates. I would be very careful about raising the issue of race unless you have compelling evidence.
It is true that the group you describe is dysfunctional. For sure the others shouldn't have waited until the last minute, or should have made an appointment for everyone to work together on the last day. Still, I wonder if you are partly to blame for this. Again, I wasn't there, but:

Looking at this from the light most favorable to you, it seems like you did a good job on your part, submitted it ahead of schedule, and were planning to address the remaining edits later that night.
Looking at it from the light most favorable to them, it seems like you just dumped a bunch of stuff into a word doc, didn't help them edit/integrate/merge/revise/fact-check, didn't respond to requests for changes for an entire day (on the day before it was due!), then became hostile when they asked about it. If there was any misunderstanding about what "your piece" of the project was, so much the worse.

Regardless of whether the second viewpoint is accurate, learning to foresee and avoid such blow-ups before they happen is a valuable skill. (Of course, this is not to make excuses for racism or plagiarism, if those things actually happened).
The university will not intervene in dysfunctional groups. If you can make a serious case for racial discrimination, of course they should investigate that. But the dysfunctional group is really not a university issue; such things fall to the instructor of the course. The instructor probably views learning to navigate such problems as one of the course aims, and will view this as valuable experience for you. The insults, the use of the f-word in this manner, etc., is a very inappropriate way to resolve conflict, but since it is student-to-student, I doubt the university will get involved (unless you are in a culture / campus code-of-conduct that takes such things especially seriously).
Deleting your name from the assignment is probably the most actionable piece of this. Since you can prove that you contributed to this (assuming any of your pieces survived), and if they submitted it without your name, you could bring a plagiarism charge. I imagine the professor would just smooth it over (giving you the same grade as the rest of the group) -- this is likely to be his/her choice (depending on your university's rules).

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Couldn't the OP take the plagiarism charge directly to the university / college?

If they did this in a Google Doc, there is very detailed (automatic) revision history that you can’t remove/change. The only way to do that would be to copy the contents to a new document. So, if the OP wants to challenge having her name edited out of the document, it should be extremely simple to prove.

I'm so sorry this happened to you. A really functionalist answer is that universities all care about whatever they are accountable for. Things like complying with federal funding requirements and filing paperwork are, functionally, what all universities care about.
Plagiarism: Ultimately it detracts from school reputation and accreditation, not to mention frustrating faculty members. Plagiarism happens so often that schools tend to have really strongly developed rules about it.
Racially-motivated incidents: In the U.S., the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education can threaten to withhold federal funding from universities that have racial disparities. Even more important, that means that there is some reporting structure in place on most campuses, and people who (should) understand those laws.
Luckily, lots of people at universities care about a lot of things beyond what they're required to care about for the university to stay afloat. Sometimes student codes of conduct or statements on academic integrity include how students treat each other. On campuses I've been at, I believe that racially-motivated incidents between students are taken seriously.
I'm out of my depth in this part, but if you're in a situation where you feel strongly like racial bias is involved, that alone is probably enough to characterize it that way. Without iron-clad evidence that race was involved, something would probably never be pursued as a racial-bias incident (i.e. there wouldn't be repercussions to the students beyond what they would get for being non-biased jerks). However, it could be an important indicator of the campus racial climate, and that's probably how the information would be used if you reported it to the relevant office at the university.

It is also instructive to realize that this situation is exactly what many bias situations are like. People might gang up on someone in a way where it is obvious to or strongly suspected by that person to be racial, gender, etc. bias, but unless those people explicitly mention that bias, it is hard to prove. Yet over time, if one is in a less powerful group, they will tend to experience more and more of these people acting like jerks toward them than people who are in the more powerful group.
The fact that the bias angle would be hard to prove is a key element of the question, because it tremendously complicates how this can be addressed.

In terms of this specific situation, Google Docs should show what they typed in the revision history, so you have some proof of the incident. Telling your instructor what happened is definitely worthwhile. I'm sorry this has happened, and I wish you luck as you graduate!

I basically echo @cactus_pardner's comments, but/and with some further points:
First, again, universities (like corporations) behave like feral, amoral entities whose only genuine concern is self-preservation or self-aggrandizement. In particular, disturbingly, they can shed administrators who in-effect impede that. So it's not that "all we have to do" is get university presidents and regents that are honest, fair, scrupulous, etc., because the very entity that is the university itself may either prevent that, or manage to get such people out of the system.
In that context, to "induce" such an entity to "care" is rather difficult. Further, it may also be a bit difficult even to induce individuals in that system to "care" in a helpful/useful way, first because many relatively-powerful players will have been "selected-for" not-caring-too-much, and second because even more altruistic experience people will know all too well the uphill battle that you'd face.
E.g., even the HR (=human resources) department, and "ombudsman" office, are fundamentally (in the U.S., in my observation) "CYA" implementers. That is, they exist and operate so that the entity that is the university can say that they have such offices (purportedly) acting on behalf of students, staff, and faculty who'd otherwise have too little power to change anything or even defend themselves. But their fundamental loyalty has to be to their employer... and, again, the situation will tend to drive out too-altruistic players, because the university-entity will usually prefer less-altruistic rule-players.
This is just explanation of the context. But then the point is that a relatively powerless person such as you or me has to "play" things in a way that makes the powerful entity (=university/corporation) see an advantage to itself to take your side or care about your situation. "Justice" alone, or human compassion, etc., are not adequate motivations, sadly.
EDIT: as requested by @aparente001's comment: first, I'd claim that I'm not being so much "bitter" as "cynical", if that distinction has content. But, yes, my current thinking on this is based on several decades of direct observation, not gossip. For that matter, my initial state was a belief that universities really are the idealized and idealistic entities we might imagine they are, as opposed to for-profit corporations. To begin with, it appears that people appointed-to or otherwise hired for various high-level positions are chosen in part because they always know the right thing to say. This is presumably better than not knowing what is right (in the vein of "hypocrisy is the first step toward virtue, because it at least recognizes virtue"), but, as it turns out, this means that it is impossible to predict what action will be taken, from the words spoken.
I've seen more than one denial-of-tenure episodes that led to grievances, and I testified on behalf of the junior person who was denied tenure. In all cases, the institution decided that, yes, procedures were violated, but the conclusion stands. Even then, the "violation of procedures" really were blackballing attempts (which succeeded) by one or two "powerful" individuals. In at least one case, a higher-level committee was inappropriately influenced by a single individual, with the effect being to attempt to deny tenure, but, luckily, at that time the Dean was actually a conscientious person, and smelled something fishy, so the injustice was averted. My interpretation of this was that some individuals can be trusted, but that the institution is much easier to manipulate, and, therefore, cannot be trusted in the same way.
Having seen many university presidents and deans come and go, the pattern of selection process becomes clear, and it is not reassuring. The best dean I recall so far was an "acting dean", who'd been associate dean, as placeholder while looking for a more glamorous (!?) candidate. Luckily, for whatever reason, we had him in that role for many years.
There was the episode 15 years ago when I was Director of Grad Studies in math, and was "ordered" by "the Graduate School" to unilaterally change the conditions-of-employment of the entering class of math grad students, to worsen their insurance coverage. (This was motivated entirely by that entity's scrounging for money, and targeting what they perceived as a defenseless group.) I objected, both because it was exactly an attempt to take advantage of relatively powerless people, and because I'd already signed my own name on all the offers (which included, as we can understand, specifics about healthcare and other stuff). I was told that it didn't matter, because these were only kids, and anyway they'd never know the difference. Shocking... but eventually the institution relented, after some suggestions from me (and others) that with documentation of this sort of communication, local newspapers might be interested...
Chronically, women in math (traditionally wildly under-represented) have been, in my observation, treated badly, both in large and small senses. Attempts by me and a few other individuals to remedy this, while officially approved, are not actually functionally supported. E.g., recently every employee had to do a Title IX training... the point of which was in effect that nowadays by university policy people outside the Title IX office are not to do anything at all about such things, except report them to the Title IX office. This is a perfect cover-your-ass strategy for the institution, but is far too blunt an instrument for dealing with subtler things, that are essentially impossible to document. Thus, the effect is to squelch any crap below a certain (high) thresh-hold... but the institution can claim that they've taken decisive steps.
And so on...

Just to give a different perspective: in Europe (Germany and the UK), my experience with HR (personal as well as that shared by other people) has been been almost always positive, even/especially in cases where there was a conflict with the employer. Seeing HR as the enemy seems to be mostly a US thing.

Would you be comfortable adding some observations that your assessment is based on?  (The tremendously bitter tone of your post leads me to think that your assessment is based on your own observations, as opposed to vague comments that you've heard here and there.)

I don't see why this is the slightest bit controversial: "the system" (for almost any meaning of "the system") is far more concerned with itself than anything else, and framing a situation as an attack on it is the best way to elicit a response. I do however reject your value judgement: expecting the situation to be otherwise is analogous to expecting water to flow uphill.

I took from your description of the situation: there may have been some intersection of racism and sexism in your particular experience in that course.  That sort of intersection can weigh a person down more than one or the other type of bias on its own.
I also took from your question that the sort of information you're hoping to get out of this Q and A could be useful for you over time, not just in relation to your recent experience this semester.
Here is some information that I hope will be helpful.  I will assume that your university receives federal funds, as that's the most common situation.

As cactus said, the US Dept of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has a lot of clout.  In addition to enforcing civil rights laws, it also enforces Title IX, which has to do with gender discrimination.  Note that in almost all situations, there is a six-month time limit for filing a complaint with OCR.  The legislation that protects you does not only cover racially motivated incidents, but also pervasive patterns that affect someone deeply.
Going to OCR is a sledgehammer.  There are a couple of flyswatters also available to you (regarding gender and/or racial discrimination):

a formal, local complaint
an informal, local complaint
not a complaint per se, but something more along the lines of constructive feedback

For all four avenues, except perhaps the last one (constructive feedback), it is very helpful to have proof, such as witnesses and/or email messages.
Right now, in the US, in most universities, it is generally possible, with a bit of digging, to find the Title IX Coordinator and his or her contact information on the web.  To find the person who handles racial discrimination concerns is sometimes a bit more challenging.  There may be a similar gradient when it comes to the person knowing what their job actually entails, and being responsive to things like email and phone messages.
The university should have their complaint procedure and form available on their website.
You are protected from retaliation.  That is, if you complain, formally or informally, it is illegal for the university or any of its employees or representatives, to do anything negative to you as a result of your having filed a complaint.
It's a good idea to keep a journal (for example by emailing the entries to yourself or a friend) documenting not only incidents as they occur, but also your contacts with university personnel about your concerns.
It's easier to advocate for yourself (and future students) if you have moral support.  However, sometimes people in certain roles or positions, that you would think would be supportive, turn out to be anything but, and one starts to wonder whether they exist only to keep the lid on the pressure cooker.  So, when you reach out for support, I recommend that you not jump into the deep end of the pool, but rather, start at the shallow end and get into the water gradually.  That is, let time show you what people's true colors are.
Even if your particular problem wouldn't make a strong case to OCR, a lot can be gained from going with one of the flyswatter approaches, including:

You learn more about what's allowed, what's not allowed, how to advocate effectively, where to go and how to proceed in case you or someone you know ever experiences a more serious problem
You put the university through its paces, and give them the opportunity to practice going through their procedures
You'll get better at noticing when something's off, asserting yourself, seeking assistance from the institution, and holding officials and departments accountable.
You'll become a better citizen and a better future parent.  Experience with advocacy of this type can also prepare you for the workplace.
Ideally, we would like to see universities do a good job of handling complaints internally when things don't go right.  (Since OCR doesn't have the budget to do it all; and since OCR can move veery sloowly.)

If you're interested in providing constructive feedback, a good place to start might be with the instructor or a department administrator.  Try to outline succinctly the types of problems that occurred, with specific examples of incidents of bias that you experienced, as well as suggestions for how things could be organized better, so as to prevent problems from surfacing.

Speaking from experience, I would say that the more practice universities get with responding to student complaints about bias, the better they get at it.  And the more practice a person gets in taking action about bias, the better one gets at noticing bias and acting constructively about it.  It can be extremely helpful to get started somewhere, and do something -- as opposed to passively doing nothing.

Edit to add:  Sometimes a university is very glad to receive feedback about even subtle racism/sexism, and I can even more easily imagine diversity staff being glad of the opportunity to work directly with a student who's experienced subtle bias to improve her/his knowledge of what the university has to offer in the way of support. A university that truly supports diversity will want to keep its ear to the ground so as to improve its diversity workshops, pedagogical techniques, etc.

Thank you for making clear the sledgehammer vs. flyswatter approaches. Your list of benefits from flyswatter approaches is also inspiring, because they are not futile, but sometimes it is hard to get the motivation to pursue them.

@cactus_pardner - Well, sometimes the fly swatter doesn't accomplish anything, but for me, at least, it's been helpful to give an educational institution the opportunity to do the right thing before escalating.  Also, I've found it helpful to try to find a fine mesh plan of escalation, very step by step, kind of like with disciplining children.  It's so easy to get upset and find oneself going from zero to sixty -- which can be very confusing for the person on the other end.  Still, I think it's helpful for people to know what sledgehammer they possess in case it ever comes to that.

Being at a university that just had a major incident (with plenty of discussion from the Chronicles of Higher Ed, and Time) that put some very serious strains on our institutional environment, I don't think that you start a complaint to put the university through it's paces.  You do it because the situation merits the complaint (without opining as to whether this situation merits such action or not).  These mechanisms are not toys.  If the OP is really looking for a flyswatter, stop number one would be to find the ombudsperson, probably prior to the title IX coordinator.

@ScottSeidman - If you've seen an ombudsman be a helpful option, please feel free to add that to my answer. // What did I mean when I wrote "if your particular problem wouldn't make a strong case to OCR"?  I meant that OCR is the ultimate nitpicker.  It is quite possible to have a situation that merits a complaint, without it necessarily being a situation that would result in a successful OCR complaint. // Am I safe in assuming that you would agree that what was described in the question here would never evolve into a major incident?

We absolutely agree that this would not rise to a major incident.  I extend on that to say an OCR complaint might be capricious, and result in the waste of university resources that can be put to better use, even if they were directed internally toward reducing bias.    I have some serious issues with the rationale behind pursuing a "flyswatter" approach.  You pursue those to make a bad situation better.  I've lived through a university "going through the paces", and you don't start that up on a whim.  It's not so much kicking the tires as kicking a beehive.

@ScottSeidman - It doesn't have to be that way. // OCR has a preliminary step -- not sure if you've had a chance to see how that works.  In that preliminary "evaluation" step, the unfounded or trivial complaints are weeded out, along with, in my personal opinion, some complaints that might not have gotten weeded out if they had been presented in the format and language that OCR looks for. // You're welcome to send links to articles about your university's hoo ha if you like.  It sounds like it must have been stressful for your community.

Without your interaction with the group(emails, Google Doc history) reviewed by somebody impartial it is impossible to say if you interpretation of event is correct.
For example claims of bias:
There are plenty of people I dislike. It is not because of bias.
With regards if universities care:
Due to current political bias in the universities unfortunately university would probably accept that your teammembers were racist sexists just because you said so, but the problem is that if you want to be objective you must admit that you do not know why 2 of your team members interacted with you the way they did.
Did you check their interaction with every other person they worked during their studies? No.
Can you read their minds? No.
Is it easier for you to believe that bias and not something you did could have caused them to be upset at you? Yes.
tl;dr you make a lot of claims that are not just unprovable in legal sense, but you personally do not know they are true(assuming you did not omit anything important in your recap).

I'm back in uni after 20 yrs in the work force.
Only way to really drop the hammer on jerks like this retroactively is to ask the professor if they have a rubric that lets group members grade each other.
Going forward, when you start a class and prof starts talking about group projects, you need to proactively ask if they have a way for group members to grade each other. Good professors do. Good professors grade the project/presentation, each member, and then let members grade each other. That way they can get insight into who the slackers and problem-makers were.
In dealing with a group, to cut-off procrastinators from the start, you need to treat a project like a real-life work project.
1) make milestones .. what needs to be done, when it needs to be done by, and who's accountable. There needs to be cut-off dates when things are done, that way pushy procrastinators don't end up running the show according to their schedule.
2) if there's prelim work that needs to be done, tell everyone to do it before anyone talks about meeting. eg: you have to find a video to support a case study you need to read. Every member can do that on their own. You will inevitably get a member going "when can we meet?" They want to meet for the sake of meeting, and will waste everyone's time when you're all just sitting around a table ignoring each other while doing the prelim work that could have been done individually. This person either wants folks to do the leg work for them and just brief them in a meeting (because they're lazy) or they are a social butterfly that thinks all work must be done face-to-face. Now is a great time for them to learn to work as an individual. Assign them a milestone and hold them to it.
3) if someone can't get something done in time, tell everyone to let the group know SOONER rather then LATER. Inevitably you're going to have a team member responsible for a major milestone. And at the last minute, when you think they're going to hand it in they go "sorry guys, my grandmother died, so I didn't do any of my work". Gee, you should have told us that 1 week ago when we had a chance to recover. This kind of person can destroy the whole project. Let them know it's ok if life issues come it.. stuff happens. But, if it happens, let the group know sooner rather then later so it doesn't tank the whole project.
4) if you have a pushy team member, there's a few ways to push them aside... you can get with the rest of the group to ostracize them, you can get with professor to let them know of an issue (most prof's will tell you to work out your own issues, unless it's something really serious, like group member is trying to plagarize other work and you've already told them not to... had that happen in a group before), depending on project you might be able to go behind the persons back and work with other team members on the REAL project after you assign the push member "busy work" (true story, on the business simulation, we had a pushy member that thought he was in charge... he started talking about running financial simulations on the other businesses... I told him that was a great idea, so he wasted his time doing that. He'd show up to meetings thinking he had a lot to contribute. He didn't realize that the business strategy I had didn't care about other businsses, because we were hammering them into the ground and they were floundering.. but it made him feel like he was doing something important. To use an analogy, his financial simulations would be like him looking out the rear view window of a race car to tell us who we just passed.. when I was driving the car and looking out the front window to see where we needed to go. I didn't care about passing people, I cared about hitting goal lines. If we just focused on passing people, we would have been in 1st but only slightly. My goal lines put us in 1st WAY far ahead of the competition. So, by keeping idiot mcgee distracted with busy work he thought was helping, it got him out of the way so I could get the real work done.) Sometimes you just need to toss these idiots a bone to chew on, pat them on the head and say "good boy, you do good work!" in order to get them out of the way.
I think the only real consolation I can give you is that in the real world, groups often work better then in college.
In college, you have slackers that know they can get away with things, you have pushy people you can't fire, etc, etc.
In the real world, you have slackers, but they often get fired for lack of performance over time (people know who the slackers are eventually). Push people will butt heads with other pushy people, but often only the pushy people that get things done and have a brain in their head are the ones that last, because idiots that boss people around without a clue of what's going on will get let go eventually due to lack of performance.
College is just this weird pseudo-simulation of the business world, but with all kinds of loopholes that let jerks get their way, and bosses (professors) that don't care. Because in the real world, a boss wouldn't simply tell a group "well, you guys get a C on this project... do better next time." No. A boss goes "THIS IS THE WORST WORK EVER! I'm going to get with each of you individually to see why, and someone's going to get fired for this!" That's when the troublemaker gets let go.
As for your current problem.. get with the professor.

Welcome, and awesome name! This is a good answer on making teams work, but the OP's big question is who in the university might care that things went wrong the way they did. And (in my experience) you're right that group projects at work go better than artificial group projects in a classroom. :)

I suggest you look for an existing question about group dynamics and move your answer over there.  Could make quite a splash!  (Proofread it a little bit before you post it.  Choose the question carefully where it would fit best.)

Peer marking can let others bully the OP even further.

Yes, universities care about the environment their students work and study in, increasingly more so as time goes on.
The more actionable bias issues are often those committed by employees and faculty of a university.  It is difficult to respond to every student-to-student of conscious or unconscious  bias incident.  They happen every day.  The worst cases often cause disciplinary action, but the less major incidents are often not effectively responded to.  Universities have started to take a more active role in training students to recognize bias, both their own and on the part of others.  Things are moving in the right direction, but have a ways to go.
I confess, I've been working hard to overcome my own biases, because my school has gotten pretty good at training faculty to recognize bias.  Let's say a student who looks on the ball, and is an involved student leader comes to me and says "I have three exams on the same day, can I get an extension on my assignment".  Without saying how I would respond, the next day, a student who comes to class every day in a tie dye with red eyes and reeking of pot,comes to me, and asks for an extension.  The two students asked me for exactly the same thing, and they're both entitled to exactly the same answer!  If I alter my answer according to what I expect from the student, that would make one student the victim of confirmational bias on my part.
Now, having interacted with more than a hundred project-based teams of students, the actions you describe are not uncommon.  That said, sometimes they have something to do with bias, sometimes they don't.  Just because in this case the target was someone in a group associated with bias, that doesn't automatically make this a bias incident.  It is very hard to tell.
My recommendation would be to pursue correction of the action, and not the cause.  If you have been excluded from credit despite your best efforts to be included, talk to the prof about it and make sure your efforts receive the credit you've earned.  I know this might not be palatable, especially if you have good reason to suspect bias, but I think it might be the easiest path to getting credit you deserve.
The situation you found yourself in is a problem with the team, and not necessarily an individual.  As you develop experience in things like this (and you've just had a valuable experience!!), you learn to see things like this coming, and move to avert a problem.  If six weeks ago, you sat down with your team and said "I'm not comfortable working under tight deadline unnecessarily... can we prearrange a schedule we can all live with?"  this might have been a happier experience.    I train students on my teams to watch out for stuff like this, but incidents obviously still happen.

The part about you as an instructor coming to terms with your own hidden biases is interesting -- I suggest you write a question about that, and then write an answer, with the relevant portion of this answer.  Also, if there's already a question about how students can prevent this type of disaster, another good chunk of this post could go to an answer there.  (If there isn't one, that would make a great question.)

@aparente001  I'll consider it.  The point is that we all have bias.  It's a human thing.  What we can do is learn to recognize when it effects our actions.  I confess, I've had access to some outstanding trainers on unconscious bias.

"We all have bias. It's a human thing" - I wish more people realized that.

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава


text:
How does being in academia help researchers
I have read about many great researchers in various fields who were not involved in academia throughout their lives. Some were involved in academia only part of their life, but almost invariably, their greatest work came after a period of solitude and isolation from others. In fact, most great mathematicians, for example, were rather isolated figures. Bernhard Riemann and Isaac Newton come to mind, but others like James Clerk Maxwell were also isolated during their periods of research. More recently, Andrew Wiles isolated himself for around 7 years and didn't speak about his work to anyone while he was busy solving Fermat's Last Theorem. (I have mentioned only mathematicians because those are the ones I have read about the most.)
Hence, I am failing to see how being in academia/a university position aids one as a researcher, practically speaking. It seems as though the greatest research must come from within the individual due to an intense and personal love and desire for the subject, rather than due to collaborating with others or being given a better position or whatever. In fact, such things seem to be the opposite: detrimental. They would make the person focus not on the subject but on paltry things like gaining more and more money or a better reputation.
My question is simply: How does being in university position (e.g. professor) aid the researchers who are at the highest level in their field? I do not mean being involved in academia, because one can be involved (eg attending seminars and lectures) without having a position (please correct me if I am wrong, as I myself am not actually in academia).

Andrew Wiles was a faculty member at Princeton while he worked on his proof. Getting paid to do research is generally considered a good thing by those wanting a roof over their heads and food on the table.

Well for starters it gives money to live. Being a Mathematician is a full time job for most people...

For starters: research how Riemann, Newton, Maxwell, etc. supported themselves.

Researches can't live in a hole and at the same time build a large hadron collider all by themselves.

@JonCuster: i meant like the Chinese mathematician who worked in subway and made a major contribution to the twin primes conjecture

And note Yitang Zhang didn't work at Subway when he proved his major result --- he was at the math department at the University of New Hampshire.

Beyond the obvious benefits of financial stability, one must also consider the possibility that not all researchers are solitary creatures. This is especially true in the non-mathematics parts of STEM fields, which frequently require collaboration to achieve meaningful results.
Moreover, there is the additional issue of the amount of work that one person can get done relative to the number of ideas and projects that they want to explore. For instance, right now, there are about a half-dozen different project ideas that I'd like to work on, and I could probably come up with a dozen more if I had the time and space to do so. But I only have a finite number of hours that I can work, which means that I have a few options:

find people who are willing to work on those ideas by getting a grant and hiring graduate students or postdocs,
do it myself, or
leave the work undone.

The last option is unappealing, and the second is basically impossible without burning myself out after a few months. So that leaves the first option, which is difficult to do if you're not affiliated with some sort of research institution.

What follows does not answer so much the general question posed, so much as address the examples offered in the question. All of the question's examples answer the question.
Professionalstability and remuneration are conducive to engaging in the sort of committed, intense, and prolonged thinking and studying that results in deep conceptual advances. Very few professional contexts outside academia offer this sort of environment.
Andrew Wiles was already a tenured full professor at Princeton already when he did his work on the Taniyama-Weil conjecture and Fermat's last theorem. He studied at Oxford and Cambridge, wrote a PhD with the famous number theorist John Coates, and, prior to his work on FLT, had coauthored papers with Coates and the famous number theorists Karl Rubin and Barry Mazur.
Newton, Riemann, and Maxwell were university professors and all of their work was conducted in what were at the time the standard institutional contexts for such work, with the provisos that all three were recognized as exceptional talents, Maxwell and Newton ascended professionally more rapidly than was the norm, and all Riemann and Maxwell encountered the sorts of ordinary professional mishaps in changing jobs (and wars, and illness - Maxwell had smallpox and Riemann died from tuberculosis) and the like that all of us experience in some measure.
None of these people was particularly isolated in a professional or social sense. Maxwell and Newton occupied prestigious professorships at young ages. Newton served in parliament, was warden of the mint, and was president of the Royal Society! Riemann probably had the most difficult road professionally, but he was helped by Gauss, who recognized quite fully Riemann's talent, and he interacted with the other prominent mathematicians of his era and locale (Jacobi, Dirichlet, etc.).
These are all extreme examples of people of unusual talent and who worked unusually hard. The academic context allows them to support themselves economically while taking the risks necessary to pursue difficult lines of research that might fail. For every one of them there many others of similar talent and work ethic who pursued ideas that developed less fruitfully. The academic context allows this mass of talented, hard-working people to develop ideas that might fail, and without this the ideas that succeed might not be developed at all.
Riemann and Wiles stand out for having published relatively few papers, all of high quality. This is almost impossible without the stability provided by excellent work conditions of the sort that can only be found in an academic environment (Wiles published nothing that appeared in print from 1991-1994 - this is impossible for someone who does not already have a permanent academic job!). The sort of positive isolation conducive to deep thinking is almost impossible in non-academic environments.
In general, being in an academic environment is important in the current time for the following practical reasons: availability of doctoral students, access to research funding, access to financing for travel, and access to other researchers. Additionally, in institutions that function well (a minority), the work conditions facilitate creativity and intellectual risk taking.

In the modern era (say, the last 50-100 years) non-professional contributions to science and mathematics have been extremely rare. (When they happen, you read about them). Doing science is a full time job, and being employed at a university or (the right kind of) industrial research lab provides you payment for spending much of your time doing research. Most science is also collaborative --- and universities provide collaborators, in the form of PhD students, postdocs, and other faculty. The modern examples you give --- Andrew Wiles, and Yitang Zhang --- were both employed at universities (although Zhang is a closer match for what you want, since he was employed as a lecturer at the time rather than a tenure track professor). A recent example of amateur mathematics making an impact is the solution to the Hadwinger Nelson problem: https://www.quantamagazine.org/decades-old-graph-problem-yields-to-amateur-mathematician-20180417/
So it certainly occasionally still happens that someone who is not a professional mathematician employed in an academic setting solves an open problem. But when it happens it is news, and I know of nobody who has done this more than once.

It seems as though the greatest research must come from within the
  individual due to an intense and personal love and desire for the
  subject, rather than due to collaborating with others or being given a
  better position or whatever.

This assumption is both not necessarily true, and not necessarily true for both all people and all fields. My best work, for example, has emerged from collaboration with others, passing discussions, etc.
Indeed, I'm not entirely sure the image of the lone genius laboring away in isolation, fueled only by passion, hasn't done more harm than good.

Many greats answers on academic career of famous and incredibly talented people.
At least German universities are what they are (a mixture of research and teaching) because they root on some philosophical principles that say they should mix research and teaching. While not willing to dive deep, the idea is that research facilitates better teaching (on to the frontiers!) and that teaching facilitates better research (why was that like this again?).
So, putting research institutes and company-based R&D aside, if you are a tenured researcher at a (German) university, you do some teaching.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is Cover Sheet Necessary for Writing Letter Submission?
I am applying to Music Technology at NYU, and writing samples are requested. However there is no clear guidance on the webpage about my question. I've also sent email for the query, but still no response probably due to thanksgiving. Since the deadline is approaching, I am asking here for your help.
I am wondering if it is necessary (or better) to include a cover sheet on top of every submitted writing sample. If so, could you please give some suggestion on content as well as format/layout of the cover sheet? Because most of the resources or examples on the internet are for law schools, and I don't know if they apply to EE, CS or related fields. I am asking because I'm not sure about whether there is any "formal" way of doing this, including the proper content and layout.
Thanks very much for your help!
EDIT:
Below is the description for the writing sample:

Program A: Please submit samples of previous scholarly work on music technology or related fields. You must submit at least three papers that best represent your ability to conduct research and write effectively about your area of specialization. We encourage you to submit published work.

There is nothing about cover sheet, so it might be unnecessary. Just that I am wondering if it is better to have one.

Program B: There is the other school asking for writing sample and it says Include your full name and department to which you are applying at the top of the document.

In this case, it seems better to include a cover having the requested information. If so, what do you suggest to write and in what format/layout?

My guess is that you don't need a cover sheet for each sample.  If you link to their instructions maybe we can be more helpful.

@aparente001I just added the instruction from the school.

I did my application for grad school pre-internet, and no writing samples were requested.  So this is not intended as an authoritative answer.
The instructions you posted weren't super clear, so I compared them against another randomly chosen program.  It happens to be for an MFA program: http://english.olemiss.edu/how-to-apply-to-m-f-a/

Please provide a cover sheet with your name, address, phone number, and email, and the titles of the pieces in your work sample.

Okay, now I'll extrapolate from that and make my best guess.  (If you don't mind waiting until Monday to do your submitting, you could ask the departments for clarification.)
Program A: If your pieces of writing already have your name clearly indicated somewhere near the top of the first page, then perhaps you don't need to add anything; however, a cover sheet as requested by the MFA program I quoted might not be a bad thing.  If they find it extraneous, I suppose they could just toss it.
Program B: If the piece of writing is not published, I would guess this means that you should add the name of the program you're applying to below title and author, at the top of the page.  If the piece of writing is a reprint of a published article, then my personal guess about this would be to use a pdf editing tool (e.g. Foxit's "typewriter tool" or "textbox").  If you are not the sole author, then in addition to the name of the program you're applying to, it might be helpful to put your name in that textbox too.
I guess if the reprint doesn't have enough space at the top for such a textbox, you could make a separate cover sheet, and then splice the two pdf's together with for example PDF Splice & Merge.
A nice extra feature for non-published pieces of writing would be a header or footer with your name and the name of the program you're applying to (and page#/#pages).  In case the committee is sitting around a table with hard copies of applications, and things start to get messy.  (I have no idea if that's how some committees work.)

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


text:
Best sites and practices to disseminate research papers
I am thinking of posting a preprint of a paper of mine before I get a response to my submission. This is allowed by several publishers.
I considered three possibilities: arXiv.org, academia.edu and researchgate.net.
I have a problem with arXiv because it requires posting the source LaTex files which will be made publicly available. I resent this because I am foolish enough to fear that someone may want to plagiarise my work and this would make it easier. In the Why submitting TeX help page they explain why LaTex files are better for archiving but not why it is useful to make them publicly available.
A first question is: is it safe to make the LaTex code public?
Second, do professional mathematicians usually post preprints on these sites?
This leads to another concern. I see that often the results of googling a paper point to the preprints while the published paper is "hidden" in the scholarly article links. Would this be counterproductive in the long run as most people would just download the free version (with possible mistakes) instead of the peer reviewed one?

I don't think that this is a shopping question. The scope is clearly delimited, and the question is about the impact of specific concerns on making a choice.

There are ways to convert pdf to latex, see here (though not perfect).

I edited the question about the best sites so to avoid being "shopping".

Related: Are there any examples for an ArXiv publication nurturing or preventing plagiarism?

The website where professional mathematicians share their preprints on in the arXiv.
Regarding your concerns:

Plagiarism is mostly a non-issue. Given the number of articles on the arXiv already, if someone were to pick one to copy, it is unlikely that it is one of yours. Even so, this would not cause any meaningful damage to you.
Many mathematicians actually read the arXiv digest in their particular area, and could notice your article there if relevant for them. Researchgate on the other hand has a somewhat questionable reputation.
You should definitely keep the arXiv version up to date, and fix any mistakes you find there. Many people will indeed read the arXiv version over the one on the publishers website, for a variety of reasons – including not having access to the latter, so you should count that as a plus, not a minus.

Thank you Arno, you are very convincing. I will go for arXiv and surrender my precious code :-)
The only thing is that one is not allowed to add the corrections received from the reviews.

Most of the time, you are either allowed to add corrections from referees, or at least noone cares. It's the editorialized version (the one reformatted by the journal according to their standards) that you should not post.

"Researchgate on the other hand has a somewhat questionable reputation." You mean in the field of mathematics? Or more in general? Could you clarify? @Arno

@boscovich If you search this site for Researchgate, you will get some idea of it.

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


text:
Teaching using bad material
This semester, due to an increase of students enrolled, I was assigned to teach an introductory course. The course had been previously taught by two lecturers, who taught a different half of the course. The two do not know well the other half, so they developed the teaching material independently. This semester two lecturers were added and each of us teach the whole course.
It turns out that the slides for the second part are very superficial and contain some serious mistakes and omissions, and so do the tutorials. Mind that the errors are on basic definitions upon which the rest of the material is developed. Also the textbook is horrible because it is aimed at business students and is very wordy with many examples but little clear explanation and definitions.
I spoke to the lecturer in charge of the first part, who is also course coordinator, and we agreed that it was too late to change the slides and we would do something for the next year. However, the other lecturer must have been informed of my complaints and turned nasty to me, even though I have been careful not to criticise the person but only the material. Therefore, I really do not feel like helping them with comments and suggestions. Mind that it is not an ego problem here, I don't give a damn about proving my colleagues wrong, I only want to do my job and move on.
In any case, I have now to teach five weeks of material containing mistakes. Should I follow the material and teach wrong things or should I warn the students of the mistakes on the slides and teach the right stuff?
Personally I would prefer the second option (for ethical and selfdignity reasons) but that may create problems in the exam when students have to answer questions on the wrong defintions. Also, the students may be confused and the reputation of the course would be damaged. Lastly, I do not want to talk to the head of department now because it is too late and we all know what happens to whistleblowers.

I understand you might not have time to completely rework the course, but why can't you fix the errors on the slides (and any subsequent assessment)?

That wouldn't solve the problem bcecause I would be teaching different stuff from the others..Also, the coordinator insists that we teach using the same material for consistency.

I don't see how being consistently wrong is a good thing. There is an ethical issue here. Misleading students is a serious breach.

"that may create problems in the exam when students have to answer questions on the wrong definitions" - will marking be done by just you, by all lecturers, or by others? There is a very real problem here if students are studying with extra non-lecturer-provided materials (which we always hope they do), will they be counted wrong? If anyone other than just you will mark, you should make that very clear to the students in the lecturers as they will likely be lost in the conflicting information.

What field is this? Is it something as standardized in terminology as mathematics?

I don't know how markig will be done. I imagine each lecturer will mark the same questions for all students. Yes, it is like mathematics.

Presumably you have some degree of academic freedom, and have some constraints on you due to contractual agreements with the school. If you don't know where you stand then you should indeed talk to your dept chair or dean. It doesn't have to be drama or an argument of who is right, merely to find out what are the limits on you here. Within those limits, do what you want. Another option might be grade very generously on questions you consider wrong or which differ from how you taught the material.

As a compromise, given you are staying with the existing slides, consider saying things like "For purposes of this course, the definition of X is [what the slides say] but many people use [more conventional definition]". That way, the students know what they should assume during the exam, but have been warned that they will see different definitions in the future.
In thinking about contributing to updating the slides, you would be doing it to help future students, not to help the instructor who wrote them.

+1 for "helping future students."  That's why we do what we do.

If the definitions are really wrong, don't just say "many people use [more conventional definition]" but be clear that the course definition is indeed wrong, and explain what happened with the materials if you have to.

Sorry, but I don't see room for compromise here assuming the case is fairly stated. It is an ethical issue about what is taught to students. It is not acceptable to "teach" them things that are known to be incorrect. No one should ever teach anyone things that they know will later need to be unlearned. You are positively damaging them and insisting that they absorb falsehoods in order to advance their careers.
Furthermore, it is an ethical violation to put a low level faculty member or lecturer in a situation in which this is required.
Being able to stand up to such idiocy is the precise reason that we have academic freedom in the first place, though, I suspect, little freedom is granted to you.
Letting such a situation go forward is wrong. Forcing you into the situation is also wrong.
Unfortunately, the solutions are painful. Probably the best outcome, if you can force change, is to ask the dean to relieve you of this course and that you have ethical reasons for needing this relief. That will probably blow back on you, though I hope not. In the best case it will force a wake-up in a place where it might be useful. But perhaps he/she can assign you other duties so that you don't have to participate in an ethical breach.
Maybe you should be the course coordinator.
Your objections are already known to some, at least. So you are already a whistleblower.
Note that I'm less concerned about the quality of the materials, than I am that definitions are being given that are incorrect. Students will be disadvantaged in future by having to learn these. I am also not concerned that the textbook is mostly examples rather than a more rigorous treatment. Examples are good, actually, if they lead you to correct reasoning. There are a lot of valid ways to use such materials.

You are absolutely right, also on this "That will probably blow back on you" :-)

This situation is so close to my own that I had to check that I was not in fact the OP. If the subject matter is, for example, introductory statistics for undergraduate students majoring in something else, such as business studies, or psychology, there is evidence that it is a subject that, when taught by non-specialists, is prone to major error.(See Haller and Krauss, 2002). I inherited lecture notes that were just wrong on certain issues (such as the interpretation of a p-value). In my university, I am pleased to say, that when I pointed this out (and gave references to show that it was not just my opinion) they said: we would never ask you to teach something that you believe to be wrong.
The key point, it seems to me is to be able to show in the way that academics accept, that is by citing references, that there are errors in the material that has been produced.

It turns out that the slides for the second part are very superficial and contain some serious mistakes and omissions, and so do the tutorials.  ...  I spoke to the lecturer in charge of the first part, who is also course coordinator, and we agreed that it was too late to change the slides and we would do something for the next year.

Sorry, but I don't think that is a reasonable decision.  If the slides contain serious errors, that are known to you, then you cannot reasonably continue to use them as materials for the students without correction.  There is no such thing as it being "too late" to correct errors in teaching materials.  At a minimum, you need to correct the errors in the slides you will be using.  A broader improvement of the materials can wait until you both have time to rewrite it.

I'm often up until the small hours of the morning the evening before a lecture getting my materials right, so I initally failed to see the "its too late to change the slides" argument. But re-reading the question, its seems that the idea is that there are several lecturers giving the same classes from the same slides at the same time to different groups in parallel. I can see how, in that situation, there could be a time considered "too late".

"Too late" would be if you are literally already in front of the class and you have no time to change the slides.  Even then you would alert the students to the erroneous material when it comes up and correct it "on the fly".  If you have even 20 min before your lecture you can edit the slides to remove/correct the erroneous material.  Showing students erroneous material is relly not a good teaching practice.

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


text:
Value of multi-author vs single author papers in academic performance review
I am having some disagreement with my VP Academic. She claims that being one of three or four authors (not necessarily the first) in a published paper has the same value of being the only author.
Does anyone know of academic evaluation criteria for publications published or used by reputable institutions? Or, can anyone suggest other effective ways to prove her wrong?
Post comments edit:
1) I publish in the field of statistical methods with data analysis included. My papers are being compared with papers in social sciences.
2) For value I mean time and effort put in writing the papers and getting them published.
3) I would like to find out if there exist some guidelines or criteria for evaluating publications, maybe considering the discipline.

What is your academic discipline or area?

Statistical methodology and analysis

Value to whom?  Different fields view multiple authorship differently.  In fields where single-author papers are the norm, having five coauthors dilutes your perceived contribution; in fields where 10-author papers are the norm, it does not.  (See also: author ordering.)

Thank you for your comment. I edited the question to make it clearer. Do you know how to substantiate what you say (even if it may be obvious to most of us)?

For value I mean time and effort put in writing the papers and getting them published. --- That sounds like cost, not value. I assumed "value" meant something like the work's contribution to your reputation among your peers, reputation within your department, reputation among your supervisors, collaboration potential, hiring potential, promotion potential, funding potential, attractiveness to strong PhD students, commercialization opportunities, and the like.

I'd have thought that it mainly depends on the study and is (other than deciding what to study and together with whom) no decision of the yours: if you do it single-handed, you'll have a one-author paper, if many people work together it'll be multiple authors.

Ok, it seems that i started a sterile polemic. I thought it was clear from the subject that the value was towards academic evaluation. Maybe i should gave said cost. Maybe my VP is right.


text:
Is it ethical for professors to require that students maintain a balanced and disinterested tone in their papers and presentations?
I have noticed personally a tendency toward hyperbole and dare I say anti-intellectualism within American society, along with of course a marked polarization along ideological fault lines.
Is it ethical for a professor, seeking to shape a more informed and open-minded citizenry, to dock points from students who argue a point overtly ideologically when it adds nothing to the point being addressed?
Examples I have in mind:

OK: As demonstrated by the retrospective study by Pooler, discourse in American society is beyond an unacceptably and unsustainably dangerous level of polarization along ideological, racial, and religious fault lines.
Not OK: As demonstrated by Pooler, or by turning on grandfather's favorite Fox News program, discourse...
Not OK: The progressives and their Alinksy-style tactics have succeeded in polarizing...

One more question: how do you handle edge cases, such as the following?

A gifted student submits a quality paper written in an obviously sarcastic manner without any single instance of excessive sarcasm, like the copious use of understatement, implied hypocrisy and contradiction, etc. Is that just clever?
A student submits a adequately-researched opinion paper that argues a position you find reprehensible using what appear to be sincerely-held value judgments about, say, war crimes or genocide. For instance: "When it comes to dealing with a barbaric and cruel enemy, one must have the courage and moral strength to do as the Romans did when dealing with the barbaric Carthaginians. If the women are spared, no man or boy should be found alive. In modern times, Henry Kissinger sums it up well: anything that flies on anything that moves. It may be ugly, but it is an ugliness that betrays an inner beauty."

Of course it's ethical, and your examples do a very good job of illustrating why such a guideline can be useful. Just in case I'm missing something obvious, perhaps you can clarify on what grounds you think anyone could possibly argue that it's unethical?

This needs to be done carefully, because of a natural tendency to view arguments opposed to one's own position as being more "overtly ideological" than arguments supporting one's own position.  Deducting points for overtly ideological arguments can become (or can be an excuse for) deducting points for disagreeing with the professor.

@DanRomik well because of what says, you don't want to necessarily be too heavyhanded about it. So... I would find it unethical to give a student a bad mark to give myself a psychological boost, and then you can have some edge cases where this happens all over the place but it is a good, well-argued paper, right? My philosophy is that grades should accurately reflect the quality of a student's work, nothing else, nothing more, but if you have a lot of these elbow jabs in your work, it does affect the quality

Ad hominem attacks, sarcasm, and devaluating comments do not belong in academic discourse. The grade reflects the poor style, not ideological differences between the teacher and the student.

One excellent example for disinterested presentation is Beyerchen's book on scientists under Hitler. Despite the infuriating subject matter, the book is very dryly and disinterestedly presented. This makes the book so fascinating to read and the effect even much stronger. Only in the very last sentences of the book you can clearly and undisguisedly see the authors' own opinion. A prime example of great academic writing.

It's nothing to do with ethics. The professor's job is to teach you to take a scholarly approach to your subject. He or she is doing what they are paid to do.

Not only is it ethical, I would even expect a thorough professor to penalise polemics (unless writing a polemic invective is specifically the purpose of the homework). Fact analysis should be separated and clearly delineated from own opinion. I think it is extremely bad style if academics present facts to make their opinion appear in a favourable light or to vilify the opponent's opinion; it's bad if it is openly so, it's worse if it is manipulative. Bad things happen when this style gets out of control in political discourse (see e.g. Weimar Republic).
It is perfectly fine to present facts in a disinterested form first and then to take sides, clearly and openly, with reference to pros and cons. But the rhetorical polemics that increasingly pervades discourse turns truth-finding (or rather -approaching) into a jousting contest where overwhelming the opponent, independently of the ground truth, is all that matters.
Sarcasm can have a place in achieving a critical distancing from the matter - but, again, it should not be mixed in into a fact-presenting section and it is very rarely appropriate in an academic text.
In short: yes, I believe that, not only is OP professor's action ethical, but it is the right thing to do. Facts should be presented clearly delineated from opinions.

At least based on the examples you gave, the rule you mention is clearly directed at teaching students to argue better and without resorting to various straw men, ad hominem attacks and other such rhetorical fallacies. Sure, there is some room for error or unfairness as with any policy, and depending on the precise way it is applied one can argue about whether this approach is effective in instilling good thinking habits among the students; but unethical it certainly isn't, as long as it is applied by the professor in good faith and out of a sincere belief that this serves the educational goals of the course.

authors: ليندة السعيدي


text:
How do I get over these (possibly sexist) feelings regarding an underqualified labmate?
Well, this is kind of embarrassing for me and I am judging myself as well.
I have just started my PhD. And there is another woman who has started in the same lab as me. Over the first week, I found out that she does not know how to program well. She does not understand many basic terms and had no publication before while I had several publications. On top of that, she is being paid several thousand dollars more than me.
Now, why I am judging myself? Because of my gender (man). Before starting my PhD, I used to believe that sexism was mostly created by insecure men.
Over the past weeks I have been having difficult feelings:

Did I not work hard enough for my PhD admission?
Could I be in a better university?
Or, is the system biased toward women?
Am I becoming sexist?

I do not know how to get over this. Any suggestions?

It seems that, without any particular evidence, you have jumped to the conclusion that your colleague's higher pay is because of her gender.  You're apparently a scientist; is that a scientific conclusion? Correlation is not causation.

That is true.
To be honest, before coming here, I thought I would see everyone better than me or equal to me. Not someone from the same lab, who constantly asks the similar basic questions over and over again. I thought, I would be one asking questions to the labmats and learn from them.
I thought, I would distance myself from her so that I am not asked that many questions. Turns out, we are taking the same courses as well.....

What "system"? What discipline? Academia is not monolithic and varies across both disciplines and countries.

...and even between different universities in the same country, different departments at the same university, and different research groups in the same department.

I want to gently point out that a couple of your questions sound very insecure.

Make sure the terminology you fault her for not knowing actually is standard.  It's not unheard of for textbook authors to make up their own category systems, and these end up being taught without ever admitting to the students that this is a way of talking about the problem, not the way.

If you are not both working on the same project, then concentrate on your own and do what you need in your preferred fashion. If you don’t often go to workshops then don’t change your behaviour. Why add stress about something that is outside your priorities, focus on your tasks.

If you behave correctly toward her then, no, you aren't becoming sexist. You can have thoughts, and speculations, of your own. But the key is proper behavior.

Do you know why she is paid more? Maybe she negotiated for higher pay and you didn’t.

Is she attached to a specific project or have external funding of some sort, eg from industry to research a particular problem? Is it possible to negotiate pay at your institution? Are your salaries public or did you directly compare? Are the salaries banded, if so are you the same band?

Just be polite and nice and focus more on getting good at your work and less on other people and your jealousies relating to them. You would save yourself some headaches if you apply this to both girls and boys.

Related on Workplace: Why is discussing pay such a taboo? How can I get people to talk about concrete figures?

Are you working in a computational lab where programming is very important?

It seems as if you have two major issues.
1) This person doesn't know how to code
2) This person asks a lot of questions.
First, it would benefit you to remember that there are many skills required to be a good researcher. Examples include the ability to come up with good research problems, to develop theory, to read results in a way that makes connections/insights. This person may have been admitted because they are highly skilled at one of these other areas. The committee may believe that the person can pick up on the skills they lack. I myself started my PhD with horrendous gaps in my knowledge (my friends tell me that they were horrified by the questions I asked first year), but my letter writers were able to assure the committee that I was a quick study (and I was).
Second, you should remember that learning styles vary, and some people learn best by asking questions. It may not be your learning style, but one of the reasons study groups exist is that many people learn well by walking through problems and questions with others. This is the sort of thing that the askees seem to either love or hate. I had faculty tell me that I was their favorite student because I asked great clarifying questions during their courses/departmental seminars. I had other faculty tell me that I would never succeed in academia because "no one likes people who ask questions." If you are in group two, the best thing you can do is put in some headphones so you don't appear to be available for questions.

Yeah this is true. In my undergrad, I used to learn mostly alone would probably go into study group like twice or thrice in the semester [once before the final exam of each subject]. This would usually help to clarify the gaps. I was not from a community that asked lots of question all the time or from day one. Thanks you for clearing that out.
I do not think I am in group 2, at least I should not. Because I asked a question a lot of the time. But I usually do an internet search or reference reading before asking questions.

Another, reason I asked the question, whether I am being over confident by saying the things I said here. Mentoring a grad student in Programming, who is at the same level as me and applied for the same program as me, was definitely not the thing I was looking for when I hopped on that plane....

@Dawn It might be a good idea to address the pay difference.

Even with "coding skills" it can vary. For instance, in my graduate studies a peer and friend of mine could code circles around me in C++ (part of his undergrad) but the research we did required Python or R (part of mine) - which he had no experience in. He was a good programmer and caught up by the end but if I did not know about his background then the Python questions he asked (and his code which even he admitted was horrible and trying to make R be C++) might have made me wonder.

I can’t really comment on the pay difference because OP didn’t provide very much info on that. Is it an outside fellowship? Is it pay determined by the PI?

What makes you think she asks a lot of questions? I couldn't see anything about that in the edit history of the question.

@eirikdaude In the comments that was brought up as a major concern.

I would factorize this into two separate issues.
First, fairness. You seem to think this person is much less qualified than you, and yet she got admitted and is even paid more. A few points to consider:

Your are not privy to the reason(s) she was admitted. She may be strong in other areas. You do not have enough evidence to say that admitting her was a mistake / unfair.
In many departments (particularly non-top-tier ones), candidates are admitted in the hope that they will show more aptitude for graduate study than they did as an undergraduate. Sometimes this bet works out, sometimes it doesn't. It may simply be that admitting her was a gamble that didn't pay off (or simply a mistake). In this case, the professors are likely also unhappy, but not much can be done at this point.
I'd like to think that most departments wouldn't purposefully admit someone who is unqualified. That said, many departments have too many qualified candidates, and choose to give preference to candidates with different backgrounds. For better or for worse, academia in many countries operates this way, and you will have to get used to it at some level.

Second, concern about your own performance. My guess is that you have been concerned for some time about whether your university is "good enough," and this poorly-qualified person has caused you to revisit this fear. These are separate issues, and you should treat them as such. However, it may be that there is real reason for concern about your school (in which case you should reconsider your options there), or it may be that this is an irrational but persistent fear (in which case the way to "get over it" may involve counseling, etc.).

"My guess is that you have been concerned for some time about whether your university is "good enough," and this poorly-qualified person has caused you to revisit this fear."
This is kind of true, I guess. :\

Focus on the fact that perfect fairness doesn't exist on the job market.
She could be there because of her outstanding talent and abilities which you improperly assess. Or she could be there because of personal connections, or as eye candy, or to balance the gender ratio, or because of a well timed (lucky) application, or because the person hiring her simply failed to see through her flaws, or, or, or. All of these are unfair to those who have to work hard to get the job, but happen to either gender.
The point that matters in your question is this one:

Or, is the system biased toward women?

You found a single individual in a position you assume they are under-qualified for. If it was a man, would you assume the system is biased against men? Maybe. But if you train yourself to look around yourself, you'll notice that every profession holds 10-20% incompetent and/or hopelessly under-qualified people (the exact number depends on the optimism/pessimism of the observer), and that the gender ratio is pretty even.

But there's good news: while perfect fairness doesn't exist, good workers do, on average, progress their carreers faster than bad ones.

The part about the position sound like the "Peter Principle" where every person rise to their optimum position of competence plus 1, while the real work is done by those who have not yet reached their final level...

@Solar In my opinion, Peter Principle is way more optimistic than reality, because it strongly assumes people who are inadequate to do their job no longer get promoted, while in reality it merely changes the probability.

@Peter: Is that your principle?  When I read that book, I was in the Navy.  I remember thinking we had solved the problem: when a person reaches their level of incompetence, we continue to promote them.  Eventually they get high enough they are no longer a threat.

My impression is that your problem is not about "sexism", it is about that her wage is higher than yours.
Ignore it. Don't compare your success to others, compare it to what you want. It is the decision of your department, what is the value of someone's work for it:

If her work is over-valued, it is their problem and not yours.
If your work is undervalued, yes it is a problem, but it is independent from her wage.

It is very unlikely that you would earn lesser because you are a male. Typically, such organizations have a fixed or roughly fixed wage table.
Yes, she might have some "downwind", but you have probably no way to know, what is it exactly.
Check, how people typically earn with your skills and experience in the region and field. It can help to determine, what is the case about (2). And leave (1) to others.
P.s. I think, the most probable cause of this scenario is that the department needs your work, but they don't have budget for that. As the woman was employed, it wasn't so yet. Now it is already impossible to decrease her wage, and they can't increase yours. It is also quite possible that they overvalued the competence of the woman. Any department/company leader knows the danger of such scenarios very well, their name in my region is "wage tension". Typically they try to avoid them, but it can't always happen.
P.s.2. People tend to undervalue the worth of the knowledge on fields which is not so well known for them, and overvalue the worth of the ones where they are familiar. There is nothing bad in it, it is simply because if you know more about something, you also learned, how complex/hard is it. Check the woman, maybe she is not so bad, only different.

Yes this is good advice. To think "where other people put their money is not my business". Also gives peace of mind.

I've observed several similar cases in academia. Most of them were men, whose fathers were friends of department members or members of other departments who held significant positions in the university.
In my country, it's very often the case, that you're being assigned to do some research for money, while you're working on your Ph.D. topic (Ph.D. funding is very low, so you don't make a living out of it). And it's indeed a very frustrating experience being assigned repeatedly to some boring work with no chance to have good publications, while somebody gets an interesting position and subsequently is evaluated as much more productive, as he has better publications.
On the other hand, I've seen several professors/teachers, who favored women solely because of their gender. I've seen letting them hand their projects late, spending time explaining them the difficult topic or improving their test scores, while male students were treated completely differently.
In my university, there's also one female researcher, who got very close with a very high-positioned faculty member. Subsequently, she got wildly promoted to the point, where she, being just Ph.D. student, was leading the whole laboratory with doctors and associate professors.
That being said, I understand your frustration, but I don't think, that there is anything you can do besides being focused on your work and maybe trying to get better social connections in your institute.


text:
Monolithic Reference Collection, vs Per Paper Reference Collection, or Both?
When managing References,
seem to me to be two-ish, options:
Either for each Project, I maintain a database of the relevant resources (In say a bibtex file),
and for each new piece of work I start a new one.
Or I maintain a single "Monolithic" collection of resources (still in a bibtex file),  for everything I do, and I carry that around with me for years.
There are some in-betweens, such as having a Monolithic Collection, which I copy references from at the start of a project into a Project Collection, which I then use (and update) during the project, then copy either all or some of it back into the main collection.
What are the Pros and Cons of each approach?
Am I thinking about this in the wrong way?

More or less the same question: Should I keep all my .bib files in a single folder, or one with each .tex file?

I think the difference, is that bibtex is just used as a example in this question. But it actually the point of the other question.
So the answers to that question talk about things that are bibtex dependent (eg to do with the way latex interacts with the path to the bibtex file).

I'd argue the other question uses BibTeX as an example for presenting advantages and disadvantages that can also be found in equivalent systems. To use your example (even though paths do not seem to be mentioned in the other question), relative paths are not very LaTeX-specific; linking a central storage for bibliography entries from a document under version control almost always means that other people pulling the document sources might lack access to the central bibliography storage. As far as I see, this seems to apply to virtually all points in the other question (?)

I usually go with a single database, arranged in folders and/or tags. So the references are present one time, and then I just move them around according to what I need to do.
If you have separate databases, you risk to duplicate records, and save the same reference many times.
This also depends on the type of system you use: Zotero and Mendeley (the tools I mostly use) go with the single-db solution arranged in folders and tags, whereas EndNote allows to create separate libraries.


text:
Is it wrong not to cite a bad quality paper when the literature on the topic is scarce?
Should I cite a paper that I deem of bad quality just because it is among the only two papers that use the same methodology I'm using in my research?
I'm writing a paper that uses a relatively new computational tool. There are ONLY two studies that use the same tool in similar research contexts. One did it superbly (Paper A). The other didn’t (Paper B). I have to make the reader aware I am not the first using this software in my field, but the scope of my paper is clearly defined and does not include delivering opinions on the other two papers (both papers are in my same field, but their research questions are so different to mine that, on behalf of directness, there is no point in discussing their results and wasting precious space in an already dense paper). In other words, a plain sentence of the sort “Software X has been use in rocket science before (Cite A; Cite B)” must do. But I feel a little uncomfortable for not differentiating between the disparate quality of the papers, perhaps sounding like I am endorsing Paper B at the same degree I am endorsing Paper A, and implying that readers should view both as having equally meaningful information. As a clarification, I do not see any wrongdoing by the authors of Paper B; it is just a flawed paper that made it into a top journal.
Is it ethical to skip citing a paper that I consider of bad quality? To what extent does citing means endorsement if no further evaluation of the cited paper is included?
Consider that the problem is more nuanced that it might seem. If the software was of customary use, no citation would be needed, but these two papers and mine are the only studies using the software, and I want to make the reader aware I am not a crank for trying this approach.

If the only reason for citing papers A and B is to say that you're not the first to use software X, then I think you could safely cite only A provided you don't give the impression that it's the only prior use of X. You might write "Software X has been used in rocket science before, for example (Cite A)." By saying "for example" you make it clear that it's only an example of prior use, not a complete catalog of prior use.

From your title, I thought you were asking if anyone has an objection to you omitting mention of the mediocre paper.  But in your question, it sounds like you're on the fence.  Are you, in fact, leaning one way or the other at this point?  Is space at such a premium that the proposal by @JeffE would not be workable?

@aparente001 The space is really a premium and I don't want to open a discussion that, due space constrains, it's going to be unsatisfactory at the end. Nonetheless, I want the readers to know, even unconsicusly, that I am reviewing the correct literature. For the very same reason, JeffE opinion, that I should cite and then remain silent, isn't satisfactory to me.

Let's just make sure we're on the same page here about Jeff's answer.  You could cite both papers extremely briefly, fairly early in the paper, in 25 words or less.  In a separate place in the paper, you can speak more specifically about the good paper.  By not speaking more specifically against the more mediocre paper, a careful reader will understand that the one you were quiet about did not have anything in it that was worthy of specific comment.

To which extent citing means endorsement if no furher evaluation of the cited paper is included?

None at all.
By citing the paper as using the software, you are acknowledging that the paper exists, and that it used the software, and that is the only thing you are doing. Citation is not a sign of approval or agreement or endorsement; it is merely acknowledgement of existence and relevance.  Citations are not statements about the quality of any result, either positive or negative.  If you want to state an opinion about the quality of a result, either positive or negative, you must actually state your opinion in the text, using English words.
I suggest initially citing both papers, and then giving more details about how paper A used the software to derive interesting results, and then remaining conspicuously silent about paper B.

I disagree with the 'conspicuously silent' part.  It will look obvious and as a reviewer, I will wonder why didn't the authors mention paper B? Is it because it is similar? Are they trying to hide something?  I would talk about A and B simultaneously if the only point is to highlight past works that use method X.  Let the reader judge what is good or bad.

You are not obliged to cite work that is accepted as badly sub standard. In fact the job of an academic, as with all research, is to filter, to choose the best parts of what is out there.  Research is inherently a filtering process, and therefore you want to show your reader that you are good at filtering, that you have vetted the material you choose to cite, otherwise you lose respect of the reader.  Ironically if you do not filter properly, you yourself will be filtered by other academics who see that you waste the reader's time.
That may be a bit harsh for one citation, I'm just expressing the general rule, and the more exceptions we make the more likely our own work's quality will be questioned.

I disagree with this comment.  Give credit where credit is due.  Papers are supposed to talk about ideas/concepts/solutions, not evaluate the quality of papers.  It is very easy to 'filter' info to make yourself look great; e.g., Trump.

There seems to be a misunderstanding.  Of course credit has to be given  where it is due, and that is always given even in cases where we credit bad work.  My understanding of the question is that it is asking about citing entire articles in a kind of literature review (in this case a short one since there were only two articles).  When doing a review the author must only present the best works, there is no reason to include unhelpful work in any part of one's research because part of expertise is knowing what is valuable and what is not.

@Ootagu, "when doing a review the author must only present the best works" is not correct, to my perception, especially when there is very little prior art. After all, if the second paper is not merely "worst" (or "worse", for just two), but is also second-best, how is it possible to not mention it? And, after all, mention/citation is not the same as endorsement, it is merely recounting facts, not judging them.


text:
How should I upload the source files of my paper?
My paper has just been accepted.
The journal needs me to complete a final submission.

A LaTeX or Microsoft Word application file. This should include
keywords/index terms, and bios and photos if you are including them.
The contents of this file should match the accepted PDF.  Failure to
submit a source file may result in publishing delays.

If your figures are not embedded in the source file of your
manuscript, you will also need to upload separate figure files. The
acceptable formats are Word, eps, ps, tiff, ppt and excel. We do NOT
accept png or jpeg files for figures.

How do I upload the LaTeX file mentioned above?
\begin{figure}[tb]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figures/func.eps}
    \caption{side-channel exploitation.}
    \label{Victim function}
\end{figure}

My images are all placed in the figures folder. In the Latex source file, I use the command above to quote. But I didn't understand the meaning of journal.
What does the following sentence mean?

If your figures are not embedded in the source file of your
manuscript, you will also need to upload separate figure files.

Can I upload the entire folder, including Latex files, picture directories, and bbl files? Or upload Latex files, upload the images one by one. Many pictures are used in the paper. Additional info: the optional file description has no bib.

Congratulations on the acceptance of your paper.
Your figures are not embedded in the source, they are referenced (by name and path) in the source, so they should be uploaded separately. However, you should almost certainly make some changes first!

Journals have their own file structure. They usually don't want to be using your file structure as a subset of their own! That means that you should adjust the path references in the LaTeX files so that they avoid the sub-directory called figs. Shift everything to the same, flat level; check that it all compiles correctly with all the figures and source documents in the same directory, and only then upload it.
Upload the figures, bib files, and other material one file at a time. Most journals hate zipped source material. If the journal does not accept bib files (check with them if you can!), then you will probably have to paste the bbl file into your original document. If your are unsure how to do this, I suggest that you either check with the journal editors, or ask at the TeX forum on StackExchange,

Thanks a lot for answering. But the optional file description has no bib.
I uploaded the picture in the original answer.

I have added an extra line about bib and bbl files. The TeX forum or the journal itself will give you good advice. ... Don't panic!

Really Thanks!!!

I think this description is too strict. I have always kept my own directory structure and just uploaded a .tar.gz file of the whole source directory -- and that has always worked. The people who do production are experienced and skilled, they can deal with subdirectories.


text:
Can I use an exact sentence from a reviewer in the later submission?
I submitted a paper and received reviewers' comments on it. Would using an exact sentence (just a single sentence) that one reviewer used in their comments be considered plagiarism? The sentence is so beautifully put that I can't say it any better.
The comment is:

The problem is X. Maybe you can try Y.

I did Y, and to motivate why I did Y in the text, I added a paragraph, and I want to use "The problem is X" in that paragraph. I'm afraid that I would alter the meaning by changing the wording.

What makes you so frightened of being accused of plagiarism for copying one sentence? Can anyone cite an example of someone running into trouble for such a petty and inocuous reason?

Agree 100% with @SylvainRibault. All responses below seem to me as an overreaction. In the response letter just copy below the reviewer's comment your new paragraph. It will be clear that you're not hiding anything. That's all that's required.

@SylvainRibault maybe the person is not frightened of consequences, but wants to make an ethical decision.

Totally agree with the first two comments (and thus disagree with the answers given). The OP only wishes to use a sentence which he finds nicely formulated. I am sorry, but as far as I understand, there isn't any original idea in this particular sentence, it's just grammar. There is obviously no need to cite the reviewer or, worse, put quotation marks around this sentence in the revised version. This is really crazy. Would you cite the referee for each of his corrections to your computations? Each correction of a typo?

This sentence is so good and simple and factual that no copyright claim would hold up. Take it and thank the reviewer in your acknowledgements, for his idea.

If I understand you right, you did Y because the reviewer suggested it? In that case you certainly want to acknowlegde the unknown reviewer for suggesting Y. This still doesn't settle the question about the citation, though

Moderator’s notice: Escalating discussion about pronouns removed. If you want to continue this discussion, please do so in chat, but please stay civil. For SE’s stance on pronouns, please see this FAQ.

Reviewers know very well that their suggestions and comments may end up in the final publication. This is the point of reviewing, and no reviewer would (or should) consider it plagiarism if sentences are copied verbatim. Having said that, it is always best to err on the side of caution, so the best course of action would be to let the editor know exactly what you did. You will contact the editor anyway with the revisions, and it is only natural to state that you used the reviewer's quote.
If you want, you can acknowledge the "anonymous reviewer" or ask the editor, and thereby indirectly the reviewer, whether they wish to be acknowledged by name (they will probably decline, but they would be happy at being offered the choice).
Personally, I once was acknowledged as "anonymous reviewer" for a model proposed based on the data in the paper (they used an entire figure I sent them). I fully expected the authors to use my image and model (why else would I have sent it?), but the acknowledgement came as a surprise and made me happy.

"no reviewer would (or should) consider it plagiarism"  The reviewer's opinion does not matter.  A direct quote which is not marked as a quote is always plagiarism.

In fact, it is not that black and white in reality.

@AnonymousPhysicist If it comes as a suggestion to your paper I see no reason to treat it as a quote.

I agree with this answer. In your response to the comments that you submit with your revisions, point out that you copied the phrase exactly. If there is a problem, the editor should point it out before it becomes problematic. And I would also include a footnote that acknowledges the anonymous reviewer. Something like, "I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this formulation of the idea." As long as you don't come across as trying to hide anything, I doubt you'll run into trouble.

In many cases, the answer will be that it is perfectly natural and fine to use the same formulation as a referee. If a referee comments "In the second paragraph, you may want to point out that all Flimflams are green."; then adding "All Flimflams are green." to that paragraph is not plagiarism. The reason is that stating a fact is not plagiarism, and here the manner of stating it has no intellectual value in itself.
However, your case is different. Rather than copying a completely mundane sentence, you are tempted by a particularly beautiful sentence. There clearly is intellectual value in the formulation. Thus, you should put it in as a quote attributed to the anonymous referee.
As comments by a referee are meant to improve the article, and their name wouldnt be attached to the quote anyway, I don't see any need to ask for permission unless there is something potentially contentious about the quote.

If you use something you need to cite it. And quote it in the current situation. You may want to get permission to do so to keep it clean, but you can cite it as a comment from a reviewer in a "private communication" if nothing else is open to you.
But make sure that you don't leave the impression that the words/ideas are yours.

I have never seen such a citation. It is common to acknowledge reviewers for their ideas. Also citations should be verifiable. These "private communication" citations are frowned upon even if they contain a well know name.

@Karl, The OP specifically wants to use a direct quote.

I read that. You cannot quote something that isn't published. Mustn't be published, actually.

You're a seasoned academic, I believe, you've been proofreading colleagues' articles for decades. I am sure many sentences from your feather were published without authorship of citation. Instead, you got "We acknowledge Buffy for his thorough proofreading." No?

@Karl, that wasn't what the OP suggests, nor do I.

This is the best answer.