text:
Is it ethical to ask a graduate student to help me with my paid external research?
I have a part-time outside job in addition to being a full-time professor.  I'm struggling with performing an analysis that I believe a graduate student would be able to help me with.  I suspect the student would be happy to do so, both because  of having a nice demeanour and also they enjoy interesting problems and are also applying to PhD programs, so being able to state that they helped me with my research would be to their benefit.  I'm not able to easily get my outside employer to hire them as a consultant.  Would it be ethical for me to ask for their help with this problem?  If I did, should I offer to pay them out of my own pocket (outside salary)?  Should I insist on doing so?  I'm thinking it would take a few hours.  FWIW, I'm not their official advisor, although my colleagues and I share that role in practice.
FWIW, one of the two outside organizations involved in this project is a non-profit, for which some people volunteer the time.  (I'm being paid by a for-profit company to do work with a non-profit organization they support.)
UPDATE
After posting the question but before getting any replies, I emailed the student, asking them if they wanted to help, including a link to this question and cc'ing the director of the graduate program and the Provost, as a check on myself.
I just figured out the technical problem I was struggling with, so I no longer need help, and this question is moot.  I'll leave this question up, in case it's useful to future readers.

Before anything else, you need to be certain about the legal ground on which you stand:

Is the external work that you are doing bound by any sort of non-disclosure agreement or other agreement to which your interactions with the student would be subject?
Do the university's terms of employment for the student state anything that whether a student can work externally and under what conditions?

If it's clear from both sides, then if the student will be doing a non-trivial amount of consulting work, they should get paid just like you are getting paid.  Almost certainly, they should get paid by the company you are paid by, and not by you (unless you are doing your own work as an LLC or some such entity).  A good litmus test is: would I be doing this work for free?  Clearly, you aren't.
If it were five minutes of work, that might be different.  But if it's complex enough that you are struggling with it, it's likely to take hours, maybe many hours, and could impact your students progress in classes or other research projects.  In that case, pay is clearly deserved.

+1 for mentioning the legal aspect of the "offer" as well.

I may sound a little strict about this, but when a guy does partly the job you are paid to do, he should get paid for it. Period. It does not matter if he is a graduate student or he thinks he must owe you a favour in exchange for a future reference letter. Slavery has been abolished (at least in civilized countries). You must pay him for his effort's worth. Where this money comes from (your pocket or your outside employer) is for you to decide.

Thank you.  I think it does matter that he is a graduate student.  People on StackOverflow often help people with their paid work without charge, and programmers work on open source projects without pay.  What seems significant to me is that there could be the perception of my misusing my power as a professor.

@espertus People work for free on open source projects but no one else there is getting paid. So, open source projects is really a bad analogy, when you are actually being paid to perform this task.

Fair enough, although a friend of the department volunteered to review some code that a student did for pay at her outside job, so I consider it acceptable in some circumstances for people to voluntarily help with someone's paid job.  Of course, that's irrelevant when discussing a professor and a graduate student.

If the student is willing to do it for free, then sure. However, you are, at least ethically, obligated to inform him that he can be paid for his work, seeing as it's not related to his studies, nor the university.

@Compass. I know 100% you mean good, but how is that different than the professor suggesting his graduate student to clean up his house or take his dog out? And saying something like "You should probably get paid for it but if you want to do it for free that is fine with me too" along with "Do not worry. You will still get a brilliant reference letter from me"

@Alexandros Yeah, I hadn't thought of it like that. Good point.

@espertus: There is a huge difference between your situation and that of SO. SO is a community: questions are not addressed to a specific person and there is no time constraint. A question is asked and people from the community answer when they're willing to do so, when they have the time, mood, etc. If noone answers, there's no responsibility from the community. In your case, you're asking for a specific task directly to a specific person, and this task should be probably accomplished within a certain amount of time. And the person will probably have to take responsibility for the result.

I agree, which is why I asked my question.  I'm just disagreeing with your original claim that all work without pay is slavery.


text:
Where to continue my research-oriented studies after Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science?
I have a bachelor's degree in computer science. I am looking for an appropriate master program. I am interested in algorithms.
My question is not about where I should continue my education. My question is about how exactly should I search for the place to study for my master's degree. I simply don't know where should I start. I don't know what my first step should be. I don't have any experience living abroad.
Right now in order to choose the place I consider just few parameters.

I am interested in algorithms, almost every university that offers master degree in computer science would be an appropriate choice.
Fee. It's really a problem. I didn't find universities in Europe that offer master's degree study for free, few of them offer applying for scholarship. But I am not sure I have a good chance to get one, and obviously it doesn't cover all fee. I don't have citizenship in a European country so I assume it's going to be harder to apply.

What's your experience? Did you try to apply to scholarship? What's your opinion? Can I start doing research and hope for funds.
In Canada there are few places without fee, therefore it should be very competitive, but at least there is a chance. Usually they ask for GRE in mathematics and computer science; sometimes for IELTS. What's your opinion? I assume you should be really perfect in your field in order to get applied.
In China, very interesting option, without fee or with minimal fee plus one year to get a new language. It looks very attractive, especially with approach of Chinese government to education, as I know there are many programs for free. The only problem is to get the minimal communication in Chinese which may take up to a year according to experience of others.
Addendum:
According to responses I decided to update my post.
I earned my bachelor degree 3 years ago, I have a good job, and I work as a programmer. Throughout the last year I am taking courses of master degree in my domestic university. I have one day off in week for studies. Three years is a long break but I feel the power is back. In my place it's not common that employer will pay for studies, of course I have some savings but this is not going to cover fee, and all spendings for at least two years.
I would like to go to research master. Right now I am not ready to get good grade at GRE, but I am working on it. I am not fluent in English, but in my opinion more important to be good in my field of study.

The reason why you're not seeing scholarships for study at the master's level in Europe is that the master's degree is not viewed as the prerequisite for PhD study, but instead as the direct continuation of the bachelor's degree. As a result, you're expected to move on to the master's program, and usually at the same location you did your bachelor's degree. That means there really isn't a call for a lot of scholarship to fund master's study. However, it is possible to finance one's stay in a European university, as many schools offer part-time positions for master's students working in a research group for some number of hours per week.
However, in the US and several other countries, gaining admission to a PhD program is a good way to get your master's studies funded, as the funding is normally provided for the entirety of your graduate tenure, rather than just the PhD portion.
To get in to most programs in English-speaking countries, you will need to show evidence of a good scholastic record as well as good English skills, as evidenced by the IELTS or TOEFL. If those aren't in place, it's going to be very difficult for you to be competitive, and almost impossible to be competitive for a scholarship or fellowship.

the PhD route seems very appropriate, I'll take a look

how much do I have to get in IELTS or TOEFL to be good enough?

@AlexandroSifuentesDíaz: Obviously the higher the score the better, but you'll need to check with each school you want to apply to, as they may have different minimum requirements on testing.

You should consider France. The second year of the master program is roughly the 1st (or 2nd ?) year of a PhD program in the US. You are not paid during this year, but you are during the next step : the PhD, and it is so during 3 years.
Now, if you are already a skilled programmer, you can apply for a short term (1 year) contractual position in a research project in a french university. During this same year you graduate from the master program, then you go straight into the PhD program.
Of course, this requires that you are attractive (scientifically speaking) since this is not the usual way of entering into a PhD program.
PS : I said France, but you can probably do that in many others countries.

The fee is supposed to be the same for everybody, and in 2011-2012 this is around 250 euros for a year. However, in some "grandes écoles" (business schools mainly) this is a completely different story. And some universities have specific curriculum for foreign students, that are more expensive. I forgot to mention that you should add 200 euros for the health insurance.

In my experience, universities are much cheaper in France than they are in the United States. So if the OP is coming from the US (like me), then 250 euros for a year of tuition is about 1/20 of what you (generally) pay in the US. My level of French is high enough to directly enroll; I don't know about the OP's... so that may have an impact on the cost as you said.

There is no such thing as free lunch. If some university is offerring ou free tuition they want something from you. Mostly in the form of research. So PhD has a very high chance of getting a scholarship unlike Masters just because they know you are going to just study and not primarily do research.

Another option that I've heard people doing but I wouldn't recommend is applying for a PhD with funding and get out when you get your Masters.

This can only be answered backwards, by asking what you hope to get out of the study. You state you want a masters degree... masters are typically used to get a job in industry, and scholarships can be difficult to obtain. You will typically have to pay in order to go this route. There are some graduate programs that offer research masters (at least in engineering), but (1) I'm not sure how prevalent this is in comp sci, and (2) you'll be adding on at least a year to your degree in order for you to complete the research.
If you are looking for a masters so that you can move to industry, your best bet would probably be to look for jobs now, work a year or two, and then have your work pay for your masters. Many workplaces offer education benefits, and this can be a very nice way to further your education while not paying for the degree.
If you're looking for research, consider going the PhD route, which would open up possibilities for stipends.

I've updated the post, the research master seems very appropriate, actually I do want to continue to PhD route.

The statement masters are typically used to get a job in industry is true for US and perhaps other countries, but not in general. However, in the continental Europe, masters is usually bundled within undergraduate studies (so you need to have one before applying for PhD studies there). See also http://meta.academia.stackexchange.com/questions/58/including-country-region-and-discipline-in-qa-for-which-it-is-relevant

In Canada a research Masters generally comes with financial support.  There are tuition and other fees, but the support generally exceeds the fees and should also cover basic living expenses. Naturally it is quite competitive to get a position, and if you get one, you are expected to work hard to earn your degree.  If you are interested in going further, a research masters can be a stepping stone to PhD work.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
A discipline being superfluous?
I heard for the second time today that a discipline is "superfluous". This comment was made by a young assistant professor, who does not do research in this discipline. Just to be fair to the commenter, that was not a serious comment, but just a casual remark.
However, I think deep in his mind he believes that this discipline is "superfluous". And deep in my mind I have the same doubt from time to time. Can a discipline be superfluous? How do you know whether a discipline is worth researching or not?
PS: In this case this discipline is HCI (human computer interaction), but you could replace it with any other discipline.

This is subjective / argumentative and therefore is inappropriate for an SE site.

@ZevChonoles: Many of the questions on Academia.SE are "advisory" and "philosophical" in nature. If you believe the question is inappropriate, you can cast a close vote accordingly. I believe the question of asking "is a topic worth investigating" is appropriate, albeit somewhat philosophical.

@aeismail: Well, I suppose I initially read it and worried about people debating whether "HCI" (or various other specific fields) are superfluous. Even the philosophical interpretation seems like it would generate more heat than light if person A's abstract criteria for when disciplines are superfluous turns out to apply to person B's own field. But I'm not a very active user of this SE yet, so I'm not as familiar with the norms here, and at any rate don't have the ability to vote to close, so I defer to your judgment.

What disciplines are not superfluous? After all, in the long run, we're all dead.

I agree with Zev's comment: it is hard for me to think of a more subjective question concerning topics pertinent to this site.

As a student, I had a comment from a professor about a discipline being "dead". Now, decades later, the discipline is a hot topic. Follow your gut.

Superfluous usually means unnecessary. So the person is claiming that a discipline is unnecessary. Presumably, this is a claim that can be investigated further: does research in that discipline have any kind of external impact ? does it affect other related disciplines ? Is there at least a path from the questions being asked to some future impact ?
In fact these are all good questions to ask about any discipline, whether it's deemed superfluous or not. And these are good questions to ask about one's own research in a discipline.
p.s While this is off topic, there's a common feeling among CS folks that HCI is either fluffy or superfluous. All of these people are also forbidden from using a Kinect, any video game console, a tablet interface, or even a smartphone.

...or any post-1990 version of Linux.

one might argue that HCI hasn't really had any role in Linux at all, and one might argue that rather proudly :)

@Suresh I assume you mean POSITIVE role ...

@Suresh.  Of course one might argue that.  But then one would be wrong.

One might say that. But I couldn't possibly confirm it. :)

I find it interesting that you link fluffy with superfluous.

That's a good point :). there's a strong utilitarian streak in traditional CS that I clearly have absorbed.

I think that the PS goes a bit too far. People claiming that HCI is superfluous typically mean the academic discipline - the alternative is to simply design using non-scientific common sense.

The first question is open to the typical mathematician's answer: Can a discipline be superfluous? Yes, of course it can. More usefully however, I think there's a more nuanced version which is also interesting: can a discipline as an academic research area be superfluous? This is a different (though not completely disjoint question): an area can be very important, but conducting research "in it" is unnecessary.
Using your HCI example, it's clearly not superfluous in the general sense, but is it necessary to devote academics to it when there's plenty of corporations who are going to perhaps do the work anyway? (I do have an opinion here, but the phrasing here doesn't necessarily indicate it, and it's not really worth discussing in this forum.)
The second question is much, much harder though (in the general case). If you can tell, reliably, if a discipline is superfluous, you are worth a lot of money in many, many fields. The obvious example is large swathes of mathematics, sometimes the uses that make them relevant don't appear for centuries. Other areas seem really important, but produce nothing that ever proves relevant (or to really emphasise the point, hasn't yet proven relevant).

As a concrete example, the mathematics being used today by theoretical physicists was probably considered little more than a curiosity when it was developed decades earlier. Theoretical physics itself has far outpaced our ability to do experiments, but continues to operate under the assumption that experimental physics will catch up (and it is).

I think your comments about fine art research is offensive (especially to a group that is under/UN-represented on AC.SE). Academics in the fine arts may not use scientific method or hermeneutics, but they are still doing research.

@DanielE.Shub:  I also didn't really like the comments about fine art research, but I also didn't really know what academics in fine arts would be doing other than art criticism or art history, which the OP specifically excluded.

This kind of debate is what I was afraid of with this question...

@DanielE.Shub, my comments certainly weren't meant to be offensive in any way (and as someone found them so, I'm more than happy with your edit), but I think there is a valid point to be made about the applicability of academic research to a given discipline, some disciplines are amenable to it, others are stifled and damaged by it (note that this is not a judgement in any way as to the value of the discipline - academia is not the pinnacle of society, merely a specialised part of it). Then in this sense, a discipline can be relevant but academically superfluous.

@ZevChonoles, as was I, I had thought I'd picked a relatively safe example, but mea culpa.

"when there's plenty of corporations who are going to perhaps do the work anyway" cannot be a disqualifier. It would mean that universities must never do anything that could be of direct commercial use. Consequences: (1) even more important innovations than now are burdened by patents, trade secrets and not-invented-here wheel rediscovery (in particular, open-source software loses a lot of its support), and (2) the widespread image of universities as ivory towers exclusively building cloud-castles is reinforced even more.

It's a tricky subject really... The questions are clearly very subjective, or rather any possible answer to these questions would be subjective.
For what it's worth, I do think that a field can be superfluous, in the meaning that a field might get outdated, or "deprecated", based on the assumption that more money (and time) invested in that field will most likely not yield any significant results. One such example I can think of is, anatomy. It used to be a critical area of research within medical faculties, but during the second half of the 1900s anatomy research has shrunk and eventually died out in many, if not all, medical research institutes.
Whether or not a field is worth researching is a HUGE question, in my humble opinion. Even deciding on whether or not a specific idea within a field is worth the trouble is tricky, and I believe it's a quality that a few of us may have, or develop after many years in research.

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


text:
Unable to defend and graduate because of advisers fickle mentality
I am an international student at a US university and I have a fantastic, caring and supportive adviser who I find fosters a happy work environment for all his students to grow in.
Here's the drawback to this happily unfolding story:

He advises 9 students, 5 of who are PhD students (I am one of them).
4 out of the 5 PhD students are in the final stages of their PhD program (me included).
3 out of these 4 PhD students have families and should have graduated at least about 5-6 months ago but because of "family pressure" they haven't. I don't relate to that because I don't have a family and I want to defend and graduate

My adviser has always had goals that are generally considered unattainable in my group. I had been given 3 weeks to finish my dissertation in 2012 with the dangling carrot that I could defend and then focus on writing papers perhaps.
I met this goal one whole week short of the 3 week goal. However, my advisor has been postponing my defense for a variety of reasons (all of which are true) and  is being pulled in several directions at the same time because of an important position in the research area of fuel cells.
So these constant vacillations have led to my defense being pushed to the end of Feb 2013. Now I'm told they don't know when I'll defend.
I find that this is rather unfair and considering that I generally have a good rapport with my advisor I am unsure of how to broach this topic. Why am I so worried? I come from a country where demanding things from your adviser is sinful and gets you kicked out of graduate school.
I'd really like to say that I want to defend and figure out the next step in my life! I am not talking getting a job necessarily but just life in general — get married, have kids, find a job, move to a different place (in no particular order) what have you.
Any advice or similar experience that I can draw from?

May be related: http://academia.stackexchange.com/q/5839/2700

I'm a bit confused about why it's important to you to defend early in the semester rather than later. It's all the same semester after all. It may be that your advisor is thinking about this the same way as me, and doesn't understand that defending earlier in the semester is a big priority for you. Talk to your advisor and explain why it's a priority for you to defend earlier rather than later and ask if there's anything that can be done.

@NoahSnyder - Semesters aren't meaningful when doing full-time research. Every day on which you could have done your defense but didn't is another day you haven't advanced your career.

@eykanal "Every day on which you could have done your defense but didn't is another day you haven't advanced your career". have you TradeMarked this saying by any chance or may I use it? :P

@Vahid I am curious, are you from a third world country? I am and I know that not getting a job by the time I am in my late 20s and not having a family injure my prospects of having a normal life. And not being able to defend and hence finish a major step towards graduation is actually the root cause of my troubles. :(

@drN - By all means, feel free to share :)

@eykanal: I still don't totally understand what you're saying, but really that's beside the point.  The point is that there's a good chance the advisor doesn't understand that graduating earlier in the semester is a priority, because it's quite common for academics to think of time in semester units rather than days, weeks, or months.

@eykanal: I'm confused.  Why can't you work on a different research project while you're waiting to defend?  The defense is just an administrative hurdle, after all.  Or do the results "rot" somehow?

Should this be tagged under/with the tag "abuse"?That is a rather strong word? Or am I wrong?

This discussion is getting long, please continue it in chat.

Talk to him (I'm gonna make a template out of that one)
Be professional, stay fact-based, don't say it as a criticism (veiled or not) of him, and you should be in the clear. Say something like:

I wanted to ask you, given your experience on this matter: I had expected that the final period of my PhD, between finishing the thesis and defending, would be quite short. Given that it's not the case, I was wondering: what is, in your expectations, a typical schedule? Am I doing something that hurts my ability to defend sooner? Could I do something to speed the process?

That should open up a dialogue about your expectations, his expectations, your constraints and his, and possibly help unknot the tie you're in.

However, you're not giving us much information about the exact nature of the core issue:

he has been postponing my defense for a variety of reasons (all of which are true)

If all the reasons given for postponing the defense are valid (I assume “true” here means “valid”), I don't see why you expect to defend. Do you think he's setting the bar too high? Is it merely a scheduling/timing issue? You say that your thesis is ready, has he gone over it, commented, critiqued, discussed it with you? Is the problem with putting together the committee?

Very good answer! You sound like my dad -- in that your answer is extremely professional and to-the-point in an unpassionate manner!

@drN Luke, I am your father… oh, wait, you're not Luke?! — joke aside, I am on the other side of the fence (meaning, I am a advisor, not a student), and seeing these situations without emotional attachment comes more easily

sorry... didn't quite get the reference although I suppose its a star wars thing. To me there is only Picard and nothing else! :P

@drN yeah, it's a Star Wars thing…


text:
Advantages and Disadvantages of doing PhD from a new university?
I have an offer to do a PhD in Computer Science from a fairly new university. The research topic is good but I can't really decide what are positives and negatives of it.

I think the question is different enough to answer on its own merits.  Joining a new institution has different risks and benefits than joining an established but low-ranked institution.

I'm going to reopen this question on the basis that the university is fairly new—the "not well-known" aspect falls under the domain of this question on rank and stature of universities.

Well, the first thing to think about is what sort of new university this is.  If it's UC Merced, then you might reasonably guess that it will eventually be as well known as the typical UC campus, and of course that's not the only new university intended to be very prestigious and successful (e.g., IIT Indore).  On the other hand, most new universities just don't come with this sort of commitment and backing.  If you don't have a powerful reason to think the university will be unusually successful, then you should assume it's headed for a not particularly distinguished future.  Furthermore, the initial years may involve growing pains that would not be present in a better established university, although these issues are not likely to be a big deal.
Now, this isn't a reason not to study there.  Most universities are by necessity not particularly distinguished, but that won't stop you from getting a decent education.  However, the key thing is to avoid getting caught up in a feeling of "Wow, a new university!  What a great opportunity to start from scratch and do everything right!  I'm sure we'll avoid all the mistakes that have held other schools back."  Helping to start something new really is exciting, and it can be a wonderful experience.  However, all new projects start with high hopes, while history shows that most never fully meet these expectations.
So the real question is how much these high hopes matter to you.  If the new university turned out to be a solid, respectable school but not highly ranked or especially successful, would you regret having gone there?  If not, then there's no problem.  (I'm assuming it's definitely a respectable option, and not for example an online diploma mill.)  If so, then you should think carefully and investigate whether their plans really look feasible.  For example, by looking at what sort of faculty have they managed to recruit so far.


text:
PhD in Management Science and a faculty position in CS
I would like to know how willing would staff in CS department of reputed universities would be to hire doctorates from relevant non-CS departments, for example, say, management science or operations research students. I see a dilemma for the recruiters here: research-wise the new member may be probably better-equipped to span a newer vista of problems that are currently not tackled in the department, but academically, the faculty may not be trained to teach usual CS courses at undergrad level.
A few specific cases, in either case you can assume the applicant is interested in CS research, but does not have publications in top CS journals:

The applicant is a CS-graduate and a PhD in MS but has no CS teaching experience.
The applicant is NOT a CS-graduate but a PhD in MS who has worked on CS-related problems for his doctorate. Will he be excused for not teaching undergrad? Or will he have the liberty to formulate interdisciplinary courses himself and teach them?

Interest in CS research? Yes, surely! Suppose the guy is an engineering grad who gets his doctorate in MS/OR, and after Phd, wants to get back to his 'roots', so to say :D The problem is the guy may not have prior teaching experience in CS, which is why the question.

At least three faculty in my department (including our current head) have PhDs in electrical engineering, at least one has a PhD in mathematics, and at least one has a PhD in operations research.  If a faculty candidate is actively publishing good research in computer science conferences and journals, which department gave them their PhD really doesn't matter.  (And if they're not actively publishing good research in computer science conferences and journals computer science research, they won't get hired, period.)
Most junior faculty candidates don't have significant teaching experience anyway, so that aspect really doesn't matter much either.  Sometimes it can be a bit tricky to find courses for new faculty with non-standard backgrounds to teach, but if they're really doing CS research, something always fits.

Thanks JeffE. Just a clarification: if they work on CS problems and have got published in Operations Research journals when they apply, won't they be hired?

Sorry, I should be clearer.  If their work has impact on the computer science research community, it doesn't matter where any particular paper is published.  On the other hand, if they the only publish in OR journals, that might be a problem, because most CS folks don't read those, so their work won't have any impact on the CS landscape.  On the gripping hand, if the work looks interesting enough that it'll likely have impact once the applicant starts publishing in CS venues (which they will be strongly encouraged to do if we hire them), then maybe publishing only in OR venues is okay.

Within research universities, departments are generally interested in hiring faculty who will improve the department's research standing, both within the university and within their research field. The people who are most eligible in this regard typically have extensive research publications in a given field, and will have a clear path down which they plan on doing research for the next 5+ years. If you wish to compete with these indidivuals, you'll have to provide a good argument to the university as to how you will be able to advance their standing through your research. Depending on your experience and publication history, this may not be hard to do, but you'll still need to put forth the argument.
From my experience, within teaching universities, they want people who can (1) teach, and (2) teach the subject at hand, in that order. If you're a great teacher but aren't that knowledgeable about some particular CS subject - but have a broad CS knowledge base in other regards, and are willing to learn - then you're a great candidate. That's my experience, at least.
Finally, it's worth asking why you want to join a CS department without the relevant CS experience. You can always join another department and simply get listed as faculty in a different department; again, from my experience, this happens quite often.


text:
What should I do if the professor I intended to work with has moved to a different school?
So, without giving out the details about the school. I joined a graduate program at school X, because I was really interested in work of professor Y. I met him during the graduate school visit and I accepted the offer to join school X.
Though Prof. Y did not officially accept me as his graduate student, he said come and meet me when school starts and we can figure out your research direction. Now, when I came to start at this school; I found out the professor Y has left and joined a different school Z.
I don't know what do now. My decision of joining school X was based on my intentions to work with Prof Y. Also, on top of that the school X now just has one faculty working in my interested area.
To be precise I am starting the PhD program now (Fall , 1st sem). I am not sure what my next step should be? I would appreciate any suggestions on the given situation.

Yeah, this happens. :(
I would recommend applying to school Z during your first year at school X. This would be very natural under the circumstances, and nobody (in particular, not those at school X) will think less of you for it.
Further, I'd recommend:

E-mail and ask Prof. Y if he'd be willing to vouch for you with the graduate admissions committee at school Z.
Simultaneously apply to a couple of other programs that might be more suitable for you than school X. This goes especially if Z is substantially more selective than X, so you are far from sure that you'll get in.
Kick ass in your first year at X. This will keep you sharp, enable you to get a letter of support from someone at X, and better prepare you for the program at Z if you go.
Keep in mind that you might not get into Z, or you might find a research area you like at X and decide you prefer to stay. (Another reason to kick ass in your first year at X.)

Good luck to you!

I am curious, is it possible to transfer between graduate schools (studying computer science) with my current coursework or do I need to send a fresh application to school Z ?

Every department is different.  My department, for example, will let students transfer up to one semester of graduate coursework, but no more.

While you may very well want to transfer to school Z in order to work with Professor Y, I'd consider the following point. If you expressed strong interest in working with him, and he made comments in writing that you should talk to him when you arrive at the school, then he was remiss in notifying you that he was no longer, in fact, at school X. Do you really want to work with an advisor who's packed up and moved without letting you know in advance?
However, I would also recommend, as Anonymous does, that you see if there's anyone in your current department who you would be interested in working for. If so, I'd pursue that option alongside the possibility of transferring to other departments. However, I'd also recommend that, before you accept an offer in another department, that you ensure that you have multiple potential advisors available to you, if you're working in a field where a commitment is not required before you enroll.

My PhD student was in exactly the same situation when I was moving from Michigan to Wisconsin but I told him that that move would be likely to occur even before I became his adviser. He just transferred with me (asking me only to confirm to the chair of the new department that I'm, indeed, interested in having him there).
The morals are:
1) Arranging a transfer is not a big headache.
2) You should be sure that not only you want to interact with prof Y, but also that he wants to interact with you before making any drastic move.
Given that Y didn't inform you about his move in any way, I would start with getting a clearer idea of where you stand as far as the second point is concerned. It doesn't imply that you should stay at X, but it may turn out that your best option is really to move to V to work with W...

Can you give me more details on how can I go about applying to some school V, staying in school X ? Do you think I should ask for assistance in school X regarding this. ( they wont take it in a bad way right?)

Nothing to do at X until the actual transfer takes place (except getting copies of transcripts, etc., and, possibly, asking for letters of recommendation). What you need to do, however, is to figure out who holds the "graduate director" position in the department at V to which you want to apply and contact him directly. I leave the choice between phone, e-mail, and snail mail to you (each has its own advantages and disadvantages) but you should explain clearly your situation, why you are interested in V, and why V might be interested in you. From there on you are on his mercy.

At X, I would tell about your intention to move only to people who are currently directly involved into some professional or personal relationships with you (plus those you need to get something related to the transfer from). IMHO, there is no point in attracting attention to it until the possibility is real and you are certain that you want to go for it, and all other people do not really care one way or another. Whether somebody takes it badly depends on their character and your communication skills.

Thanks, it does give me a little peace of mind knowing something like this is possible. Again, I sincerely appreciate you taking the time out to help.

The first thing to do, before initiating a transfer to work with prof Y, is to talk directly with prof Y, in person if possible; by skype by default; by phone if necessary; by email only if someone holds a gun to your heads.

Yes, of course. If you go to Z to work with Y (not to general V to work with W), you need to figure out somehow how interested Y is in that first. Talking to him would be the most direct route and talking in person would be the most revealing. However, if you apply somewhere else where you know people only by their research and they have never heard of you before, contacting the "potential advisers" directly won't be effective and you have just to proceed through the graduate admission and try to build your relationships when you get there. Am I wrong, Jeff?

@fedja: Normally, yes, but this case is different. OP applied and was accepted specifically to work with Prof Y, and Prof Y offered to talk with him about research. I'm merely suggesting holding Y to his offer.

I do not disagree :) I just do not think that forcing Y to do anything is a good idea and that if it becomes clear that Y just wants to get out of the deal, you'd better leave it to his conscience or whatever, in which case the problem of transferring somewhere else might present itself and then (and only then) what I wrote about $V\ne Z$ and $W\ne Y$ starts making sense.


text:
Problems in coping with my PhD Supervisors
I'm a PhD student at a reputable institute in my country. I joined the group of a supervisor who is good at experimental and not so good in analytical front. I also have a co-supervisor who's good at analytics and numerical stuff. Neither know my research problem well.
Initially I had lot of difficulties in understanding the problem. I was a little slow in understanding the analytics. They told me to do lots of stuff here and there. All of them failed. Now I'm in my third year, supervisors are asking me "Are you really interested in your problem, or do you want to leave the course?".
Leaving course mid-way does not make sense for me. But without getting much help from supervisors and working on my own is manageable. Sometimes I get mentally disturbed by their attitude. How do I cope with these supervisors who talk so crazily and seriously at this point of time?

What made you decide to work on a problem that neither you nor your advisors understood?

Although others may disagree, I've always thought a primary function of "advisor" was to be able to provide "inside information" on the advisee's project. If, indeed, you yourself have no special insight into your current project, and no one around you does, you must get a different project, preferably one in which your advisor does have speical expertise. Otherwise you are at a terrific scientific disadvantage.

Choosing different project now is as good as starting a new PhD. Its not that I'm not having insight to the problem, I'm little on the slower side because of lack of help from supervisors.

I would like to thank Kathy Smith and scaaahu for the motivation boosters. Now I'm trying to put 100% and doing well. Thanks a lot.

It would be interesting to know what is the subject or area of your research project. After 3 years, there has had to have been a passion to carry out the goals. Follow your dreams. You could be on to something that will help humankind so really take a bit of a breather and handle any doubts of your own. Visualize the future for a moment by seeing a DONE goal that you would enjoy with the same passion moving forward and having a team with you to help out. Sometimes debugging a project can be like watching grass grow. Find things similar to your dream and make a list of successful actions and put those back in and knock off trying to cope. A new strategy and approach to the supervisors will help rekindle their enthusiasm for you as it was in the beginning. Take the project back to where you were doing well. What happened just after... that is all that needs an adjustment.

I've been working on experimental simulation of hydrodynamics at low-g on earth. Thanks a lot.

I would suggest you to write a preliminary research findings report to both of your supervisors.
In the report, explain what you have done in the past two years. State the facts. Don’t point the fingers.  You describe what you have tried and why they failed. Don’t make it too long. Refer the details to the notes and the data stored somewhere else. The final section of the report is your plan to tackle the problem further.
The purpose of the report is to let them be aware of the efforts you have spent. It documents the lessons learned. With the report, your supervisors and you would have more understandings about the problem you have been working on for two years. Bear this in your mind, it is likely you would know more about the problem when you write the report.
The report will answer their questions, Are you really interested in your problem? Yes. you wanna leave the course? No. But you need their help to finish it. If they tell you they can’t help you after they read the report, then it’s time to either change the research problem or find yourself another supervisor(s).

Thanks @scaaahu. I think more or less you have answered my question.


text:
Question about ethics and possible misappropriation of research funds
I am working for a professor who started out recently. Most new professors get start-up funding from the department which helps them pay for their first students. Right now I am working in the lab with another PhD candidate; both of us have been funded by departmental funds until now.
The PhD is working on a project which has no funding. I am working on a corporate-funded project for my thesis.  Now I am the PI for this project internally. So I did the whole project as my thesis and I was listed as the PI on consent form (approved by my university IRB) when I carried out the final testing of my product with the corporate sponsor.
Here is where things turn shady. When I carried out my testing, we paid the participants through my research funds (the account number for the project is listed on some departmental documents that I had to sign to get cheques for test participants). In my GRA contract, it was specified that my funding was coming from the departmental account and when the PhD candidate showed me their contract, it was getting funded from my project account (the stipend account number was my project account number and I have confirmed this with a student departmental assistant). Their stipend was coming from my project funds.
I spoke with few other people in the department, and came to know that when the department gives seed funding to new professors, there is a limit in stipend they can give.  So to give the PhD student more funding, my advisor is using my research funds (for which I am PI) to pay this stipend and thus is getting double my stipend.   I am still getting funded by the department, so I get a lot less.
Screwed-up thing is this project is highly successful as I did a lot of hard work and I am not getting any financial incentive. In fact, it's all going to the other researcher who is nowhere involved in this project. The sponsor is giving my advisor funding for a second phase next month and also offered me a full-time job at their corporation. I should probably mention that I don't have a good relationship with my advisor and we fought multiple times in past due to some other issues but the PhD candidate gets along very well. They are like  family friends and have  very good social interactions.
I am graduating this December, so it probably won't matter anyway, but is this ethical? Can I speak with my department chair about this? I had asked my advisor multiple times to increase my stipend but they said they cannot. The questions is not about money — it's more about betrayal by your own advisor who you trust to be fair.
I still have the copy of the departmental documents used to order cheques for testing showing my account project number and a copy of the PhD candidate's contract.

I am missing something here. If you are the PI for this external source of funding, you should have control (at least bureaucratically) on how the money is spent -- how can your advisor use it without a signature of yours on the paperwork?

To follow up on Federico Poloni's point, saying you are the PI normally means the grant was awarded to you and you are officially in charge of how it is spent (which is unusual for a grad student, if the grant is much larger in scope than a graduate fellowship, but not impossible).  Even if the grant was specifically written to fund your research and you are the only one doing the work, that doesn't make you the PI; if the grant carried your advisor's name or was awarded to their lab, then your advisor is the PI.

Let me say this more bluntly, mirroring your own comments on Reddit: You are NOT the PI.  Your name on the IRB form notwithstanding, calling yourself the PI is misrepresenting your role.  There is no such thing as "being the PI internally".  It is not your money.

That said, the fact that another student is being paid significantly more than you may be a point of concern.

@JeffE yeah but is it ethical to pay another student when he is no where related to project just so that Prof. could circumvent Dept.rules of pay contraints to PHD student?Will speaking with chair abt this be of any help?

I will disagree with Joe Hass, in that it's quite possible that your advisor is very likely doing something unethical by paying you and your colleague different amounts for the same position in the absence of merit-based arguments to do so, it is quite possible that nothing illegal is happening that requires reporting.
The important issue here is that you do not know the terms of the contract between the external sponsor and your advisor. In particular, you would need to know what restrictions have been placed on the funds provided: in some cases, it may simply be an unrestricted "block grant" that the advisor can spend in any manner of her choosing. If this is the case, then the only regulations that might have been broken are departmental regulations.
Now, on the other hand, if there are restrictions on the use of the funds, it is much more likely that something inappropriate has occurred, but without knowing the agreement, you could be setting yourself up for needless trouble, so proceed with caution.

I didn't suggest that there were no ethical considerations, but that there might be legal considerations and those should be dealt with in the proper manner. The internal auditor at a university is still the best place to start. By the way, once you start talking about the terms of a contract you are talking about possible breach of contract, and I'm pretty sure that is a legal matter in the state of Ohio.

I disagree, I would say it is in fact ethical to pay people what they are worth as long as you are not breaking any rules. This may mean that you have to pay person A more than person B if you have no legal means of supplementing the salary of person B.

Departments usually have fixed stipends for graduate students without external support of their own. So it sounds like something is wrong here.

I cannot really tell what you question is about, but let me try and clarify a few things.
First, being the PI on an institutional review board application does not make you the PI for the funded project. It is not clear what you mean by "your" project funds, but from your description it does not sound like it is your funding, but rather funding that your supervisor was awarded and is providing you access to for you to accomplish your thesis.
Second, applications for funding generally have around 3 aims. The linkage between these aims can be pretty loose. It is not uncommon for students working on different aims of the same grant to think their projects are completely independent. Often a grant might not provide funding for all the staff required to complete the aims. In fact a selling point to potential funders is the ability to leverage their funding with "outside" funds like a departmental studentship.
The real issue I think in your question is if it is ethical for your supervisor to use her funding to pay PhD students different amount. The answer to this is that it is most likely ethical. It is possible your supervisor has circumvented the policies of both the funder and the department, but this seems unlikely. It is quite likely that your department has a fixed, relatively low, stipend for internally funded PhD students, but allows for PhD students funded from outside grants to be paid more. In my mind there is nothing unethical about that.
So then the question is why is your lab mate being funded by the grant while you are being funded by the school. No one but your supervisor can answer this. Maybe she flipped a coin. Maybe she thought your the project of your lab mate was closer aligned to the aims of the grant. Maybe, as you say, she likes your lab mate better and cannot be trusted. Before going down that road, you need to remember that it is quite possible that the decision of who to fund from where may have been made prior to either of you applying to grad school.

we sign our GRA contracts every sem ,so its not like our funding is decided before hand. The PHD candidate's research is nowhere aligned with my work .He never has spent an hour on it and neither was any advice offered or taken . So the question of the PHDs work more aligned with my work is total non sequitir. I came to know about all this studd because i did some of my own sleuthing ,because i just dont trust my advisor to be fair. She is completely biased and perfomance doesnt seem to be the metric here. I am graduating in DEC anywaybut i was considering if it is wise to confront my advisor.

Despite signing a contract every semester, it is extremely rare for students to change funding sources midway through their studies. As for the alignment of the work, I didn't suggest the work of your lab mate is aligned with your, what I suggested was that both of your projects fall within the scope of the grant.

Ok here is the timeline of events. The Project was funded in JAN 2013. In spring 2013 both me and PHD were funded by Dept .But in Summer and Fall , he was funded by that new project and my funding from Dept.  continued. We did testign and finished the project in AUG .So yeah our project is done now. So The PHD had no work in this project  but he is getting funded from this. Should i confront my advisor abt this?

@james234 I edited the question to try and clarify how big of a scope a grant has. I am assuming you haven't read the funding proposal, so why do you think that your lab mate isn't doing work related to the grant?

i have the accepted proposal draft with me ,as i used to frame my thesis research questions. We had regular teleconference calls with project contact in other corp. till end and i was in everyone of them. I went through the final doc that was submitted to the corp. ,so i know what research went into writing it

Not knowing where you are in the world makes this a bit complicated so I will answer from the only perspective I have, which is working in the USA. What you are describing may...possibly...be illegal.
First, save every scrap of paper that has any bearing on the matter. Save every email and text message.
Second, do not go public...yet. Don't call a newspaper, write about it on Facebook, or text your best friend.
Third, figure out what the proper channels would be in this case and go through them first. If you are at a public university there may be an internal auditor who looks at these things. You should be able to talk to that person confidentially, and they should be able to quietly determine if any university policies or public funds were misused. Be very honest about what you know to be a fact with evidence to back it up, as opposed to what you suspect but cannot prove. Don't make allegations that you can't support with documentation. If you have suspicions you can present them but make it clear that you are not sure whether the situation is improper or not. Separate your personal feelings about your advisor from the objective truth of their behavior.
Fourth, if the funds in question come from an external public agency (such as NSF, NIH, or NASA in the USA) then those organizations will have offices that investigate possible cases of financial misconduct. In the USA they are called the "Inspector General".
Fifth,...I don't know what comes fifth. If you get to this point and you still think that misconduct has occured, but none of the normal channels are working or you feel that you have no support, then you face a difficult personal decision. If you are absolutely certain that you have proof of financial misconduct (by the terms of the applicable laws or policies) then you can put your career at risk and go public for the sake of your personal ethics and morals. You will probably pay a high price for being honest. Good luck.

I am from USA , OHIO .But at same time i am not PI on grant but i am PI on IRB approved by univ and also this is my thesis .So this is like my copyright and the other guy is getting funded by this and he has no contribution to this research whatsoever

Questions to ask/answer: What is the source of the funding? What restrictions were placed on the funds by the funding organization? Are those restrictions being observed? If no, contact university internal audit department. If yes, chalk it up as a learning experience. Unless another person has claimed authorship or ownership of your work, copyright has nothing to do with it.

No, this is not "like your copyright".  If you are not the actual official PI on the grant, then you are not the PI.

While there are a lot of confounding elements to this question (e.g., misunderstandings about who is the PI, different pay levels), the only ethical/legal issue here is if the corporate funds are restricted to paying someone who is actually working on the project. This has three complications:

Corporate Awards Are Not Uniform: There is really no way to know without looking at the contract if they care how the money is spent.
Contracts Are for Audits/Disputes: From a legal standpoint for a civil contract, contracts are the recourse that you go to when things go bad and you need to sue (or threaten to sue). You often see all sorts of things in contracts that neither party honestly cares about, just to cover all their bases in case something goes bad.
Corporations Care About Results: In practical terms, most businesses could care less how you spend the money they give you, so long as they get the products/results they're paying for. Even if your advisor took their money, put it in a ditch, and burned it, but the work got done? (shrug) Why would they make a scene about it? Contrast against the NSF, which would probably audit the heck out of you if they found out $20 in a $2m grant went to pay for a stapler that wasn't itemized in the proposal.

In short, it's immoral only when the sponsor would care about it.  It is only illegal if it violates the contract (and even then, it's more of a "breach of contract" issue). Those two issues are not necessarily connected. In either of those cases, most corporations don't care so long as the work got done. These issues are very different than for governmental sponsors, which are very picky about personnel on projects, work-in-kind, or any other issues where they're paying people to do different work. Federal contracts also get into real legal issues (e.g., federal laws) as opposed to more general corporate contracts.
Some notes on other issues:

PI: Being the main person on an IRB has nothing to do with being PI.  PI is a financial role and a legal role, primarily. I was involved with a larger project recently, which had 3 IRB's in place (one by myself, two by others). The PI on the project was not the lead of any of the 3 IRB's.  It's not uncommon at all.
Different Pay: The advisor might indeed just value the other person more than you. I've seen this a lot in multi-disciplinary projects (e.g., CS students paid 50% more than Psyc). Or, alternatively, they may be unable to provide supplemental funding to you when the department covers you (and likewise unable to shift that student to departmental funding).

Either way, I wouldn't worry all that much about different pay unless you think it will also be reflected in your advisor's letters of recommendation. After all,  as a grad student, you're not making much money either way: the payoff is in the next stage. However, I'd still check on it.
You might want to talk to them and say, "I am feeling like that I'm doing my work well but somehow not meeting the bar at this lab.  For example, I see that other students at the same level are being paid twice as much. What can I do to reach a higher level?" That puts them in the position of laying out a pathway where you get honest feedback about your skills to work on and that might also lead to higher stipends down the road.

Fun fact: You probably also could not itemize a stapler for an NSF proposal in most cases, since it would be considered general office supplies and not valid to pay for with grant funding. So don't even bother trying to itemize it on your proposal. :)


text:
Missing out on a position due to false HR advice. What should I do?
Following up on my previous question (Academic Progression via Promotion vs via Recruitment), where I wanted to apply for an assistant professor position at a university where I am currently a postdoc. The HR advice then was that I cannot do that as an external applicant and that I need to apply for promotion next year. For more background please see my original question.
Last week I discovered that a couple of the potential candidates for this position are actually postdocs in a similar situation as mine, and already work for the same university. They are going to give presentations to the staff next week (This is how I knew). This implies that the HR advice to me was not accurate or something odd has happened.  I contacted HR for explanation but didn't receive back.
I missed out on this opportunity due to false advice from HR which is not fair. What are my options?

This, and your earlier question, seem to be very localized. I think that you need to handle it locally. Go back to HR with your new evidence and seek new advice. Challenge it if necessary. Go to whomever is responsible for the new position with whatever advice you get from HR along with your new evidence and ask for advice there. If it is at all unfavorable, ask for an exception.
It is possible that there is nothing more than a lack of communication or a misinterpretation of rules. But you won't get out of your trap without bringing it to everyone's attention.
Perhaps you will just learn how the other cases are not the same as yours. But perhaps you can get the gears unstuck with a bit of jiggling.

"Go back to HR with your new evidence and seek new advice." --- And, if any of this misinformation was sent to the OP by email, he/she will definitely want to bring printed copies of the emails when going back to HR.

@DaveLRenfro, absolutely.

Buffy and @DaveLRenfro: Thanks both. I did receive the initial advice by email, and I have contacted the HR person for an explanation, which I have not received yet. I expect a "sorry I wasn't accurate with my advice" but then what? I missed on the opportunity already and the deadline has passed. Probably by next week the position is filled.

"I have contacted the HR person for an explanation, which I have not received yet" --- I'm not sure how long you plan to wait, but for something as time sensitive as this I would have visited them in person (with paper copies of email to support my claim) within a few hours of not getting a reply to a follow-up email asking for an explanation. Actually, I probably would have visited them in person right away instead of sending such a follow-up email, unless I had duties (classes to teach, office hours, necessary lab time, etc.) that would have delayed me for a few hours.

@DaveLRenfro I did go and they implicitly confessed there was a mistake.  They cannot fix it as it's too late, so I'm to demand an apology and an investigation on why this happened.

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


text:
Should I indicate that definitions are from an article?
In my master thesis I included some definitions exactly (just translated in French) like they appear in a paper because they are particularly well written and easy to read for someone who has never dealt with the subject. Of course I do cite the paper, but should I explicitly tell that the definitions are from that paper ?

That is a great question for your advisor. :)
All I can give is my personal opinion on that, and your advisor might have a different opinion (and in the end, he grades your work, not me, so it might be good to find out what he is thinking):
There are two ways to quote a paper. One is to quote its general content, this is marked by something like

The following section is based on multiple works by A and B [1,2,5,7].

If, as in your case, you want to directly quote something verbatim, I would make it clear, for example like this

Definition 7 ([1, theorem 4.3])

Including the exact place where to find it in the original paper helps others to check that you really just quoted verbatim (don't get me started on people who change a quoted theorem to suit their claims...).
As a general rule, always try to make it as easy as possible for people to read and verify your work, without drowning them in unnecessary references. Quoting a famous 50 page research-novel might look good in your sources, but if you don't give the exact place in there, almost no one will have time to check what you are quoting.

Yes, you should indicate this explicitly. Make sure to clearly distinguish between ideas that you paraphrase from your sources, and text that you copy in identical form.
There are Latex environments that do this for you, for instance quote. It will visually mark up text blocks that you have taken in verbatim from a source. Not doing so properly may raise issues of plagiarism.

That is absolutely not what verbatim is for! In particular, verbatim will not wrap any text or allow any formatting. It's entirely unsuited for quoting anything other than short snippets of code, such as latex commands.

@nengel You are right. I changed my answer accordingly.

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


text:
Degree vs IQ test?
Considering a for a high number of jobs, the degree you do is not directly related to what you do in your job.
Wouldn't it be a better idea simply to have some sort of national IQ test at 18 (or updated each year) and use this as a basis of selecting people for jobs.
As far as I can see, a degree is more like a 3 year endurance test. Of who is best at postponing financial gratification the longest.
I'm sure there is a big lobby in the University sector to send more people to University. But really, is there any point?
The Universities are left over from the time when boys were sent out to learn about Christianity and Latin and ancient greek philosophies. It had a quasi-religious component to it. (As Oxbridge still retains to some extent).
If we universities didn't exist, I'm not sure we would invent them as a way of selecting people for jobs.
So would an IQ test be better?

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a rant, not a question.

IQ tests don't really tell you much beyond the ability to take IQ tests.

@Buffy Exactly the same could be said about degree exams.

Being good at pattern-matching is pointless if you have no idea what the terminology in a field means.

You are saying that it would better to decide one's aptitude for the rest of their life based on the results of one test at the age of 18 rather than through 4-5 years of continued development in undergrad with different forms of evaluation? Really?

@Cell Well you could retake the IQ test every year. Why not? Better than having it based on some exams you took when you were 21.

@Azor Ahai As I said in the question most people do a job not related to their degree. So those terminology would be useless.

@Buffy because 'smart' or 'IQ' are not really scientific terms, right? see NNT aka Nero, Dweck and salman khan


text:
Is it illegal to cite books that were illegally downloaded or accessed from a library?
How illegal is it to cite books that were illegally downloaded?
If they aren't available in the university library, if you can't really afford the books (maybe you will make one reference in one article and the book costs $250+), if there isn't anything else you can use (published articles, reports, etc)... it's one more citation for the author. So in fact you might be helping the authors academic career (here I am considering only academic authors).
I do try my best to find other articles that I might be able to use in my work, but sometimes there is nothing else written, or not enough time to do the extra search.
What do you do?
ps1: I do buy books that are important to my research.
ps2: I do download books that can be important to my research.

There is no requirement of owning a book for citing it. You could have taken a peek at it on a colleague's desk.

There are two different issues. A "book" has an existence independent of any particular copy, for purposes of citation. The ethics of citing-as-in-depending-upon something one hasn't seen are something else: unwise and somewhat dishonest. Yet one should also not lie-by-omission by not citing-as-in-acknowledging-existence, as that would also be somewhat dishonest, etc.

I guess we can imagine some really far-fetched scenario.  When they put you on trial for copyright violation, that citation may be used as evidence...

The illegal act of course is the download, never the citation. @Federico Poloni answered that correctly.
However:

If they aren't available in the university library, if you can't really afford the books

besides the possibilities @StasK mentioned:

In many countries there exist inter-library catalogues (e.g. GVK) that tell you which libraries have the book you're looking for. Once you know that (or your local librarian found out for you), you can ask your local librarian to either get the whole book via inter-library loan, or
to order a partial copy (e.g. the chapter or the exact pages you need).
There are also commercial document delivery services (see for an example: Subito). Which offer tracking down documents and again either loan of the book or partial copies.
Even the linked commercial service charges only 9 € per book inside Germany for non-commercial customers and 25 € worldwide for commercial customers but excluding UK and USA (I don't know why).
If you're talking about a thesis: university libraries usually have a copy at least of all PhD theses done at that university, for Bachelor or Master theses you'd often have to ask the institute (or supervisor) where the work was done.
In Germany, the national library has a copy of each book published in Germany or in German (or about Germany) from 1913 on. There are also field-specific large libraries, as for example the  TIB Hannover for technical literature.

So, are you sure "can't really afford" is a valid argument?
(Whether you nevertheless download pirate copies, or ask your neighbour to let you have a look into her book, or buy it despite the fact that the neigbour at the other desk owns it as well, stays entirely your own choice.)

If I have to get a book by inter-library loan, I try to make a copy of the vital chapter. This is legal here in Germany (single copies for personal use, reseach or teaching of not too large part of a book).

Check your local copyright law.  You may have a right to copy works for research purposes if the licensor is unwilling to supply at a reasonable price in a reasonable time; etc.

@SamuelRussell: that's another good point. Here (Germany) however that applies only to books that are out of print for while. So books you can buy do not fall under this copyright exemption. Rules for this are changing right now, however.

You can cite a reference even if you have not read it, although that of course is a poor practice.
For books in English, you can often get a reasonably good idea about what a book covers by looking at Google books or previews on Amazon. That may not get you as far as you would have liked, but it is better than nothing.
I thought research was an altruistic attempt to expand the humankind's knowledge; have I been wrong all these years???

on the other hand, should you do a citation based on the scarce info you get from google books and amazon?

It depends on how obscure your topic is. Sometimes, you just KNOW that's the only book that covered it, and it was published in 1980s somewhere in Belgium in 200 copies as somebody's dissertation, and there are probably less than 30 copies of it remaining in all the libraries in the world. Still it has the original ideas that you have to acknowledge, as everybody else in the field does.

@StasK No!!! Never cite something you have not seen. If the original is necessary and unavailable, you need to cite the secondary source that made you aware that the original is necessary.

It seems that there are different senses of "cite". I would mean "list in bibliography", as in "acknowledge existence of", even if I've never seen the thing. This reminds me of some serious people I've heard say that they deliberately didn't cast their eyes on competitors' work, so they'd not be obliged to cite them. Yes, cite the secondary source, too, I'd think.

@paulgarrett, what I meant was listing/acknowledging existence. Of course you cannot cite long paragraphs from the sources you've never seen. Not reading competitors work sounds like dirty tricks to me, certainly below the moral obligations for the best quality research. If the competitor asks them at a conference, "Have you seen my PNAS 2010 paper on this?", and they say, "No, I haven't yet", this won't sound terribly convincing to the audience.

Of course, in this case, the OP has actually read the reference! So I think by academic honesty standards they have to cite it.

Citing a book that you downloaded in violation of copyright law is not illegal. Citation does not qualify as copyright violation because it is not one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder (e.g., it does not involve modification, distribution, public performance, the creation of derivative work, etc). I am not aware of any context in which simply citing a work would violate a law.
Although there are strong academic norms about citation, these are generally not codified as laws. For example, citing a book you have not read is considered bad form but you would not be breaking any laws if you did it.


text:
Questions regarding PhD in Linguistics or Applied Linguistics at US universities
I have a few questions regarding admission into a PhD program in Applied Linguistics or Linguistics at US universities. I could not find any other valuable online sources regarding Linguistics for the answers I seek. Let me start with my qualification. I am an international student with a Masters in English Linguistics and Literature with a percentage of 65.9. Although it's the best language university in my country but it is not that famous anywhere else. My grade average was B with no A or C in any of the individual modules. We don't have GPA system for language studies.
This percentage is regarded with high value in my country and I was one of the top four in my class. However, there is no set grading scale used by the examiners in my country and it is very rare, in fact, almost impossible to score above 70% in any language related field. And that is the case for the most perfect performance.
My Bachelor's scores are mediocre (59.9%). I was disappointed in myself for not being able to get admission into a medical school (marginally) like the rest of my siblings and ending up doing Bachelors in law and English Literature was a major shock for my planned future career (I had been a brilliant student before). I, however, slowly developed interest in Linguistics and did well in Masters.

My first question is, as most good Universities require a GPA of 3 or above with successful candidates usually having more than 3.6, what are my chances of admission? How can I go about explaining my situation as the % of students pursuing Linguistics doctorate at US from my country is very low. Are my scores too horrible?
My only research was Masters thesis in a literature related field, titled, 'Autobiographical element in Gabriel Garcia Marquez's "One Hundred Years of Solitude"' of almost 40,000 words. Will it hinder my chance for admission into Linguistics?
What else can I do to improve my application and up my chances specifically for Linguistics? How should I lay out my SOP? My ultimate preference would be Berkeley, UCLA and MIT. Should I even think about these universities with such scores?

Any help would be highly appreciated.

As an international candidate you need to think about what your scores mean. I think percentile rank, as opposed to GPA or raw percentage is what is important. In the US a 65.9 would be very bad and I would guess that in the US 75% of the students have a GPA of 3.0 or above and 10% have a GPA of 3.6 or above. In many European countries a 59.9 would be a borderline 2:1 and put you in the 50th percentile.
It sounds like you think your Masters work would be in the top 10%. That is very good. With a little help (both in your letter and by your recommendation writers) schools will figure this out.
One solid piece of previous research is really all that is need to get into a PhD program. 40,000 words is huge. You may want to work on shortening it so you can present it as a paper and send it as a writing sample if English is not your first language.

Your GRE scores would be very important, in this case. For a writing sample, a term paper in linguistics would be better than your MA thesis, given its length. Your writing sample should show your linguistics knowledge, if you're applying to linguistics programs.


text:
How to politely say in a paper that most of the published research on a topic is by the same person?
My field is cardiovascular epidemiology, and my current research question relates to some risk factor which is supposed to strongly elevate cardiovascular risk in a defined subgroup. However, my data do not indicate any such association, and power analysis shows that I have about 0.85 power to detect an effect of the size previously published. I see my findings as evidence for the null hypothesis.
Most of the available work on this risk factor in this subgroup comes from papers that all share one author. He is the leader regarding this question. He also holds a patent for assessment of this risk factor and possesses shares of a company that develops and plans to sell diagnostic tests to assess this risk factor.
I would like to make a statement in my paper that politely mentions these facts. This other author has published virtually everything there is that reports this positive association, and would profit enormously if it were true. However, I'm only a PhD student and they are top tier.
So how would I best go about this in my paper?

First off the fact that one group is dominating will be implicitly understood if you provide a paragraph or two summarizing their work and cite their publications. In such a paragraph you could add words like "ground-breaking" or phrases that describe the dominance of the group on the field.
You could for example start the paragraph by saying:

"The work concerning risk assessment of [...] has largely been carried out by [the research group] (example citations)."

(I hope you see the main idea of my attempt) Then you follow up on what they have done and cite their work.
It is just important to keep the tone as neutral as possible and let the citeable work speak for itself. Spending one or more paragraphs describing the work should be enough to make everyone understand the message.

One thought is that, since most of the work on this topic is from this group, they are likely to be reviewers for the paper, which may be an issue if the paper directly challenges their findings.  You might consult with your advisor on how best to approach the politics of the situation.

"We have found in our results that there is no relationship between Thing and Risk Factor, which is in contrast to previous work [2, 3, 4]. Possible reasons for these differences are..."

@debray: yes, it goes without saying that we plan on excluding him as reviewer, given that the journal offers this - many do

Most of the available work on this risk factor in this subgroup comes from papers that all share one author. He is the leader regarding this question

This you can freely express in your paper: it is a statement of fact, and if you provide evidence to back it up (papers, reviews, book chapters, etc.), there is no reason for it to be interpreted as a hostile statement. It is actually quite interesting.

He also holds a patent for assessment of this risk factor. […] This guy has published virtually everything there is that reports this positive association

Again, it's a statement of fact, not a problem. You can cite a patent if you want, and stating that in a neutral light is easy.

and possesses shares of a company that develops and plans to sell diagnostic tests to assess this risk factor. […] and he would profit enormously if it were true.

This, on the other hand, I would be very wary of writing that in a review. First, because it is not a scientific statement, so its place in a scientific paper is not clearly defined. Secondly, because it could (and probably will) be interpreted as having a strongly negative implication, possibly to the extent of suggesting very serious ethical issues.


text:
Phd at same uni as MSc, possible offer but would like to change topic/group if possible
I need some advice on how to diplomatically handle this situation:
I will submit my master's thesis in a few weeks, and I am pretty sure that I want to do a PhD afterwards. Research is what I want to do.
I have gotten a "maybe" from my current advisor (Prof. "A"), as in stay for a few months as an intern to extend/publish the work (minimally paid) and we'll talk again about a PhD (this is not specific to me, he did this with all his PhDs). However, there is a different Prof. "B" that does research on some other, more interesting topics, and if I could choose I would probably want to do my PhD in his research area. Although Prof. "B" knows me (positively) from a previous project, he'd probably also want me to intern at their group for a few months before making an offer. It is only during the course of writing my thesis that I realized that long-term the topics in Prof. "B"'s group actually interest me more.
The question now is:
How do I handle this situation, and maximize my chances of getting a PhD offer without upsetting anyone? I really don't know how to approach this situation, and I don't want to seem uninterested before I have something official. Do I talk to Prof. "B" in secret? What would I ask him? What do I do if Prof. "A" asks me to sign a contract for these next few months? Should I wait and apply for US unis anyways, regardless of my average GPA (see below)?
Some more info:

I am at a top-tier European university. PhD candidates are handled as employees and usually hired by the respective professors themselves. Candidates usually finish their MSc first, it's not possible to apply for a PhD position without having an MSc. Often, students working on their master's thesis will stay on with their advisor if the thesis is good enough. I'd say about 50% of PhDs get hired this way.
My grades are OK, but not stellar. Depending on the conversion, I'm at around 3.3/4.0, which is pretty much exactly the average of all graduating MSc students here. The university is known for not inflating grades, but this number still doesn't look too good.
I'm not too keen on applying to other universities: Most of the higher ranked universities are in the US, and I'd have to wait until December in order to apply for next year. Also, that would cost quite a bit of money, take more time, and most of the top unis have GPA minimums that are above mine (e.g. MIT has a 3.6 minimum).

Two partial answers:

It's not a problem for you to ask Prof. B about the chances of you doing a PhD for him. Even if it is in "secret". You are looking for employment, and you're not obligated to tell prospective employers about the other positions you are looking at. Any professor will assume that their MSc students apply for several (PhD or industry or both) positions, especially if the professor has given them just a "maybe" for continuing with a PhD.
If you get a positive answer from Prof B., I can't imagine there would be a problem saying to Prof. A: "I've been thinking, and I would prefer to do my PhD with Prof. B because I am more interested in researching Topic X, which his/her group is doing". If Prof. A's reaction to that is getting angry, you don't want him/her as your PhD supervisor or collaborator anyway.

What you are describing isn't that uncommon. For those doing a masters completely separately from their PhD—as it sounds like you are doing—many students move around after completion of one degree to something that aligns more with their interests.
To that extent, it should be fine for you to discuss your future plans with Prof. A and Prof. B at your leisure. I would recommend talking with Prof. B about joining his lab as a graduate student and taking it from there.
Lastly, I would not recommend joining as an intern. (I'm assuming his field of research is similar to your own.) At this point, you've already completed your masters; if you're going to be performing graduate research you should be recognized as such.


text:
Is it true, that there are associate professors, full professors and University provosts without a doctorate in the Western Continental Europe?
There is legislative proposal in our small country (Republic of Latvia, Baltic Country, European Union) that proposes to allow elected associate professors, full professors and provosts of the research universities to be without doctorate (e.g. PhD or MD or other doctorate). The authors of proposal are saying that anglo-saxon and Western European countries have tradition (even Stanford University) to have such positions filled with persons not having doctorate.
I can not believe this. Doctorate degree is so common in academia, I can understand that only junior lecturers and assistant professors can be without doctorate (with mandatory master degree). But starting from associate professors - degree should be a must in science and medical studies.
Is there clarification available under which circumstances the Continental Western European research universities allow associate, full professors and provosts to be without doctorate (e.g. PhD or MD) (I mean specifically doctorate in medicine, and no just the professional qualification).
My question applies specifically to the Continental Western Europe starting from Germany and Austria and going to the West. My question applies to the research and technical universities, not the Tertiary Art education (in which it is fair to have professional degrees). The previous version of this question applied to Anglo-Saxon countries as well but I was reminded about similar US specific question, as well as there were comments about distinct UK traditions. So - there are a lot of information on Academia site about US and UK, so, I narrowed this question to the laws and practices of Continental Western Europe.
I edited question once more - I replaced wording "PhD/MD" with "doctorate". Of course, my question is about doctorate generally, not about particular type of doctorate as PhD or MD.
If this question gathers enough proof that such legislative proposal is contrary to the traditions of the Western Universities, then I can bring this proof to the authors of the proposed legislation to question their true intentions.

Does this answer your question? Professorship without PhD in the United States

I modified my question - the cited question is good enough for me regarding US, but I would like more information about EU and UK. So - I modified my question.

I think a lot of countries have exceptions for art schools and musical conservatories, which in many systems are grouped with universities. But I don't think that is what you had in mind. And in a research university you would never hire anyone without a sufficiently strong research background, which then could be used to grant them a PhD anyway, if you want them desperately enough. Karl Weierstrass would be a good historical example for this.

Note that in the UK, the terms associate and assistant professor are not commonly used. The "ranks" of permanent academic staff are lecturer, senior lecturer, reader and professor, and the conversion from one naming convention to the other may not be well-defined.

For me, it is more surprising that you find it acceptable that "readers and assistant profs" can be without a doctorate, but not entry-level positions. I have indeed seen a couple of examples (in the UK) of Lecturers (entry-level academic positions here), often industry hires, not holding a PhD, however these were mostly hired at teaching-only positions without the expectation to do (or supervise) research. I have heard, second-hand, of somebody holding a "higher ranked" UK academic position without completing a PhD degree, but  apparently "they had a research profile any prof would envy"

Sorry for terminology. I thought that read is entry-evel position - just lecturer for basic courses. I don't know much about the UK hierarchy.

I think that you need to realise that in the UK there are no legal requirements that academic postholders in universities should be qualified in any particular way at all. In practice nowadays the adverts seem to all ask for a PhD for lecturer/associate professor posts, but adverts for Chairs [top of the hierarchy Professors to simplify] don't bother and don't care - track record is all by that stage. I think what the proposers are saying about the Anglo-saxons may have been true 50 years ago especially in non-science subjects but not nowadays .

@DanielHatton There is at least a UK US comparison here: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/48977/academic-rank-equivalence-between-the-uk-and-the-us-systems and a bit of an attempt at a broader take here: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/428/is-there-an-international-taxonomy-of-academic-titles-ranks Probably others too, these were just my first finds. Of course it's a bit complicated because the mappings will never be 1:1.

The University of Sydney just appointed a Vice Chancellor without a PhD.

I can imagine many fields where one want recruit someone from outside of academia because have significant other experience than just writing papers: all kind of arts, literature, design, architecture, business related, even in engineering. In that sense an MDs and JDs (which is undergrad degree in many countries) is a similar situation. Note that academic culture is very diverse even in “Western Europe” so examples in one country are not really arguments for or against of any kind of new legislation in another country.

In France, in order to be allowed to apply for a "Maître de Conférences" position (~=Associate Professor), one must either have a PhD or have 3 years of professional activity (excluding teaching and research) during the last 6 years.
See this link (in french) for more details. There is a similar rule for Professor positions (habilitation or 5 years of professional activity during the last 8 years).
Therefore, in France, there may be Associate Professors or Professors who do not have a doctorate. Note that, however, most of them do.

In certain regions of Germany, you need a habilitation (above a PhD) to get a top-level W3 professorship, though there is wiggle room for "equivalent qualifications". See for example https://inspirehep.net/jobs/1854066.
In the UK, Cambridge is recruiting the Stephen W. Hawking Professor of Cosmology, who must hold "a PhD or equivalent postgraduate qualification": https://inspirehep.net/jobs/1849843.
So it looks like the answer to your question is that it is possible to get such a job without a PhD.  In practice, I think it is quite rare.

I don't think these are counterexamples, actually. There are valid and accepted research doctorates that aren't called PhD.

By "or equivalent qualifications", they mean DPhil instead of PhD. However, DPhil = PhD, so there's no counter-example here.

Academia has turned into a meat grinder and generally people who have a PhD will try to keep people without a PhD out purely because they didn't go through the same process.
There continues to be an inflation of qualifications for every area, classically a PhD was not needed not valued- Newton didn't have a doctorate nor did many important scientists in the past that worked at universities.

Seventeenth century credentialing isn't relevant to the Q at hand

No, but it's worth understanding how requirements have changed and what has driven that change. In many of the other linked answers the same answer is essentially given.

This answer unnecessarily assumes ulterior motives where there probably aren't any. In any field, organizations try to hire candidates that have the best and most relevant expertise for the job. In academia, people don't get hired for having a PhD, but for having a strong research profile. That most people with a strong research profile also have a PhD is a byproduct of the fact that a PhD is a 3-5 year research traineeship.

Academics have always been more interested in the process and the formalities associated with it than the result. This is why most scientific papers are not reproducible and why the name of the university is generally more important then the specifics of someone's work for hiring. What I wrote isn't even debatable.


text:
Selling of monuments: What does it mean?
I am watching the documentary "Free to Choose, Part 6: What's Wrong With Our Schools" at this link
At 20:08, Friedman says:

Many of the buildings and facilities at Dartmouth have been donated by
  private individuals and foundations. Like other private universities,
  Dartmouth has combined the selling of monuments with the provision of
  education and the one activity reinforces the other.

The transcript seems to confirm that this is what he said.
Since I am in Europe and I don't have any experience with US education, what is the "selling of monuments"? Is Dartmouth College really selling monuments like bronze statues? How does it make a profit doing that?

I suppose this refers to naming a library, a gym, a stadium, a dormitory or any other campus building after a donor.

It's an interpretation of the fact in the first sentence. Buildings = monuments (poetically).

This was invented in Europe long before the US even existed. For example, the famous Lucasian Chair of Mathematics, held by Isaac Newton and others, came about because Henry Lucas left money in 1663.

Many private schools and other private institutions ask donors for money. Often what they offer in return is naming rights to a classroom or a lecture series. The big items are football stadiums and such.
When I was a kid and our church wanted to build a new school they offered naming rights to things, such as classrooms. The donor would get a plaque. One local library "sells" bricks with brass plaques that are arrayed around the entrance to the building.
Of course, this is in addition to the major donors who put up an entire building or fund a professorial chair.
Usually the "monument" isn't a big thing taking up space, just a visual recognition of a donation. Nor is it usually a donation big enough to actually fund the thing in question. It adds a bit of revenue at little cost. It gives "bragging rights" to donors.
Some publicly funded institutions do the same thing, of course.


text:
From bad high school grades to becoming a professor in mathematics
I know it is possible, but are there professors (kept anonymous) who did poorly in high school?

Why do you want to know? This is only marginally on topic (if that) here.

I don't believe listing individuals is appropriate here (certainly not as an answer to the question "Who had bad high school grades?"

I know several stories, but they are not mine to share. I had multiple professors in grad school who were poor high school students. This includes two professors who were high school dropouts and another who skipped >180d days their junior year of high school before deciding they wanted to go to high school.

This question could use some improvement.  I mean, right now, the obvious correct answer is just "Yes."  It's also largely unhelpful.  The thing that you're asking is not actually the thing you want/need to know.  I suspect that you'd be better served with something like "starting from bad grades in math, what would be necessary to become a successful math professor" and possibly some further details about current conditions.

I'll note that if you are the high school student with bad grades, knowing an answer to this isn't going to help you. Only your own efforts will. It is possible  to do better as many have. People don't start out knowing everything and it takes work to succeed. Do that work.

I am reminded of the video of the chemistry Nobel prize winner who mentioned in his speech that he got an F in chemistry at some point


text:
Contacted by COI PC
I have a little bit of a weird situation. In a submission to conference (which is anonymous), I marked a member from the PC as conflict of interest (COI) due to personal reasons (rivalry). The chairs reached out for clarification, I provided the context and the chairs agreed that it is a conflict.
However, the PC, after been informed, has reached out directly to me in an accusatory tone and asked for an in-person meeting, and threaten action if not agreed to do so. What should I do?

Save that threatening email for your next COI disclosure.

Hard to say without more information (which you perhaps shouldn't provide). I suggest contacting the "chairs" who you have spoken with.

How did the PC reach out? Phone? Email?

How did they reach you if it is anonymous?

Via email @BryanKrause.

@Buffy I suppose the chairs let them know.

There is a lot wrong here. I agree with @EthanBolker about speaking to those chairs. But did you say something accusatory or negative about that PC?

@Buffy no, I stuck to the facts and remain as neutral as possible when context was asked.

To me this seems sufficiently inappropriate behavior by this committee member that I would contact the chairs about the email you received. I think an understated or strictly factual tone is best; you might write that you were disappointed to receive this communication, or just say that you received it. They can use their own judgment from there.
There is no legitimate action for this person to take, you're not required to meet with them. It's normal for competitors to exclude each other in peer review; so far it sounds to me like this person has confirmed that you were correct to list them as conflicted. If you feel you are in any physical danger you might contact the appropriate local authorities, but that depends on the disposition of the local authorities.