text:
Grading on a curve in required doctoral course, failing as a result
After an undergrad degree in mathematics, I am doing a PhD in theoretical computer science. To satisfy my PhD program’s requirements, I'm taking a very challenging coding class this semester. I know how to code, but this course is more like a systems programming class and not something I'm used to. However, I have been doing all the assignments of the class.
The professor is quite a tough grader, willing to give a 0 in the whole assignment for compilation errors. Although the average of the class is quite low, I have been performing way below the average (typically in the last 15%) in every single assignment and exam. The professor has said that every one of our assignments/exams are graded under a curve, so our absolute grade doesn't matter that much, but only our relative position in the class.
Since I'm performing way below the average (despite putting a lot of effort) I'm worried that I won't be able to get the minimum grade required by my program (B), or even worse maybe I won't even pass the class.
The final and all assignments are all over and I should expect my grade in the next week. How could I talk to the professor and tell him that I put a lot on effort in his class, but due to my lack of programming experience my performance was way below the average of the class?
Update: I just received my grade and it was a B. I wasn't that far from the average as I thought (the final exam also saved me). Grade cutoffs were pretty low. I didn't contact the Professor as suggested.

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

Congratulations. You made it. That's the great news. :-) Hopefully, you will do even better in future courses.

How could I talk to the professor and tell him that I put a lot on effort in his class, but due to my lack of programming experience my performance was way below the average of the class?

The professor, and basically all professors, hear this “I put in a lot of effort” argument several times a semester from students who have failed or are close to failing. Over 10-20 years of teaching, you hear this claim dozens or hundreds of time. And yet, what we aim to measure is students’ knowledge, not how hard they worked. It’s safe to assume that your professor has not changed a student’s grade in the recent past based on this logically irrelevant argument, and that he will not change yours either.
I am sorry about your predicament, but grades are earned for demonstrating mastery of the material of the course. Skirting around this basic issue will not get you anywhere with your professor.

Edit: I see an interesting discussion in the comments on the more specific question of whether it’s reasonable to give a score of 0 for a programming exercise solution that doesn’t compile. I don’t teach programming so I may not be completely knowledgeable about the technical issues here. But for what it’s worth, I lean on the side of those saying it is reasonable. A solution that doesn’t compile may hypothetically demonstrate some knowledge and deserve some partial credit, but as a practical matter, expecting it to compile seems like a very minimal thing to require of a student attempting to master the art of coding, which is after all a practical rather than a theoretical skill. In the real-world, the primary purpose of a computer program is to get compiled and to actually run.
What seems even more reasonable to me is creating a grading environment that makes it impossible to submit a solution that doesn’t compile. This can be done in an automated fashion using various scripts etc. (in the same way that the arXiv won’t accept a LaTeX file that does not compile to a PDF file), and would provide immediate feedback to the student that their solution doesn’t meet even the minimal specifications for the assignment, giving them an opportunity to correct the work and submit again, before any human grading labor is required.

Regarding the last paragraph, I like the basic idea, except that if the student is unable to get the code to be accepted by the grading environment, the possibility of getting partial credit for demonstrating mastery of the rest of the task is excluded. Seems to me an even better idea is a grading environment that provides immediate feedback to the student that their code doesn't compile, and maybe gives them a choice to proceed or try again later; but doesn't completely prevent the assignment from being submitted.

For example, failure to compile could be due to a configuration difference between Python environments or versions. That could be the student's fault, or the professor's, or the sys-admin's. Even if it's the student's fault, figuring out how to correct it can take significant time. If the assignment deadline is at hand, I would rather the student have an opportunity to show what they have accomplished, rather than say they get zero credit because they didn't solve the configuration problem, even though they correctly implemented an oct-tree or a hashing algorithm.

Sorry this is off-topic, it just made me start thinking.

@LarsH thanks. Sure, I’m assuming everyone’s running the same versions of the programming environment. Basically if the student has not checked that the program compiles on their own system then something is seriously wrong with their approach to coding and they should not be able to submit. In practice there might need to be an option to “provisionally submit” a non-compiling program in borderline situations related to a difference in environments, compilation flags etc. (This sort of suggestion is what is known in programming jargon as an “implementation detail” :-) )

Yeah. My daughter has been taking online college courses, and far too often, the assignment submission system is poorly set up: It's difficult to find documentation on how to use it, the professor doesn't understand it, it doesn't do what it says it does, she submits questions to tech support and gets answers that don't match the available options, etc. For students' grades in any course to depend critically on some "smart" aspect of the submission system to always work properly is asking for trouble.

I know y'all have heard this and I'm not an academic; however, it seems wrong to put absolute Faith in the "bell curve" to assign grades. This theoretically allows students to get "As" even when they have minimal understanding simply because they were able to answer a few questions that the "F" students weren't. In contrast, students that have near mastery can still fail a class simply because they were maybe 2 standard deviations below the mean. Academia and sporting events are not the same. Not getting a top 3 finish in academia does not necessarily mean you don't understand the material.

@ShawnEary that’s an interesting topic and indeed gets discussed frequently on academia.se. To clarify, my answer does not discuss the moral justness of grading on a curve or the question of whether OP “deserves” to fail. I’m mainly pointing out that the particular argument OP raised about working hard will not be a winning argument. But as for your point, it seems pretty clear here that OP has not shown “near mastery” or anything close to it, by OP’s own admission. So I think the grading on a curve issue is of little consequence to the discussion, or to the likely outcome.

The original version of the question asked:

What should I expect about my grade in this situation?

We do not know. I went to a top grad school where all the students were brilliant, and so even the lowest students earned Bs. Conversely, I taught some classes where the lowest 15% got Ds and Fs. Only your professor can tell you what grade you will get.
Your updated question asks:

How could I talk to the professor and tell him that I put a lot on effort in his class, but due to my lack of programming experience my performance was way below the average of the class?

You don't. As the other answer states, it is too late now; you really should have sought their advice much earlier. Moreover, they likely already know how much effort you put in. In my experience, one of these three things is true:

They feel really bad at you trying so hard but doing so poorly and would love to offer you advice, but decided to wait for you to approach them (which you didn't do), or
When deciding where to set the line between passing and failing, they look at the assignments of the students on the borderline and take those into account (for better or worse), or
They are even more hard-hearted than me, and assign grades purely numerically, without taking any emotional factors into consideration.

In all three cases, telling them "I put a lot of effort into your class but didn't have enough programming experience to do well" does not change the outcome. In the first case, they'll feel bad but be unable to do much now that the course has ended. In the second case, they'll already know everything you want to tell them. And in the third case, they won't care at all about these factors, and may be annoyed that you try are trying to get them to give you a grade based on something other than your performance.

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

You are not failing because the professor is grading on a curve.  You are failing because you do not understand the material.
It is likely you will get an F for this course.  Can you withdraw from the course with an incomplete? UPDATE: final is already in, it’s unlikely you can take a W.
I would talk to the professor, but to figure out how to withdraw from the class without a grade, or change to a pass/fail.
It’s common to give 0s if something doesn’t compile.  If you are in the bottom 15% you will fail the course, which could cause problems with your PhD.  Assume every computer course will have this rule moving forward.
Your focus should be on mitigating the academic fallout from failing the course.  I would also consider talking with your current advisor and seeing if they can help you.
When you talk to the professor, don't talk about how hard you tried.  They've heard it before - probably 100+ times.  Their go-to method to handle someone in the bottom 15% of the class begging for a better grade is to explain in detail how they earned an F.
I've never been in a situation where a grad student made an F.  Here are the questions I would ask while talking with them.

Why didn't you take an incomplete/W grade when you saw you were doing poorly?

Making an F as a grad student is a big deal.  You could easily end up on academic probation.  Figure out the worst-case scenario and work to avoid it.

Why did you wait until the final was in to try and fix it?  If you had come to my office before now I feel I would have suggested withdrawing.

Where are you in the PhD program?  Especially if you are in your first year, the university will almost certain put you on probation, which may affect scholarships and funding.

Making an F in grad school is much different than in undergrad.  Find out what will happen if you get a F and prepare as much as possible for it. You need to be proactive.  Your future in this program could be in jeopardy.

If you are in the bottom 15% you will fail the course - Why? Grad (and upper level undergrad) courses, even if curved, are not typically graded on a "standard Bell curve".

@Kimball - Grad students can fail.  It sounds like OP has demonstrated he has NOT mastered the material, and knows it.  As a computer science grad student you need to be able to turn in code that compiles, which the OP can’t.

What’s your basics for the claim that being in the bottom 15% means failing? How did you arrive at such a specific percentage?

@Henry - It’s probably more like 20%.  From the rest of the post it’s clear the OP hasn’t understood the material.  The number is going to change slightly, but there are always 1) lazy students 2) students who are in way over their heads who just can’t master the class.  Those 2 groups usually add up to 15% to 20%.  How I got that numbers TAing + teaching.

I agree with the commenters that say that this answer assumes a little too much about the specifics, but nonetheless I think this answer provides good actionable advice. It may not work, but it seems like the last reasonable option besides just hoping that OP makes the cut.

OP is not just in the bottom 15% of the class, but according to themselves, is in the bottom 15% scoring on every assignment and exam. I would expect this to imply that OP will fail the class. It's possible for more than 85% of students to pass a class, of course, but in that case I would normally expect that the students in the bottom 15% who pass did acceptably well on at least some of the assessments.

This indicates that the top 20% of students get A's, the next 20% get B's, and then C's, then D's, then F's.
Since you're in the bottom 15%, you should expect an F. Sorry.
Edit: in response to your edit, see this related question. You could tell the professor, but what are you trying to achieve? Your professor can't just change your grade, and it's simply too late for things like remedial classes or tutorials. If you need help from the professor, you really need to let him know once you start struggling, not after you drown.

The grading system listed on Wikipedia is very much not universal, and as far as I know not even that common. IMO it's entirely unjustified to assume that Keio203's class uses that scale based on the information we have.

Do you have any basis for thinking the professor uses the specific, very unusual, scheme listed at that link?

@Henry the title of that article is Academic grading in the United States and the OP is from the US. Maybe it's not as unusual as you think?

Even Wikipedia says this is "the most extreme form" of grading on a curve.

@Allure: I'm from the US, and (approximately) nobody does that. "Grading on a curve" could mean anything from "I give everybody a few bonus points if the test is really hard" to "I scale and translate the distribution of grades until the mean and standard deviation match [whatever numbers the department wants]," but it certainly does not imply this highly specific "20% gets an A etc." scheme.

Do not trust that Wikipedia article, there is a lot asserted as commonplace that I (as a lifelong U.S. academic) have never heard of before (e.g., "grade rationing").

@DanielR.Collins I find this sentence from that wiki article particularly awful: If grades are meant to represent the student's relative ability to learn, rather than to certify that the student knows and can do certain things, then rank-based grading shows clear superiority in methodology to non-curved methods of grading.

@Kimball: 100% agreed.

It's definitely not commonplace for an instructor to design a course where ~40% of their students would be failed (with a D or F).  That'd very likely have the bulk of full-time students failing at least 1 class per semester.


text:
Getting a teaching job after completing PhD
My friend is very fond of studies. Her father couldn't fund her further studies after her bachelors, so she joined jobs. She left her job at the age of 40 and completed her master's degree in computer science. After that she got a job again. Now she is saying that she is not learning much in her job and it is monotonous, she wants to leave her job again and pursue Ph. D. in data science.
I am clueless if I should discourage her or encourage. She will be 50 by the time she completes her PhD. Are there many teaching job opportunities at that age, given that she has been in industry throughout and not into teaching? She says she wants to keep engaged in studies related activities throughout life and doesn't want to retire till death.
Can you please suggest what should be the best thing for her to do?

Does she intend to remain in India?

yes, she is not much interested in moving out of her country.

You don't have to encourage or discourage her if you don't know anything about the answer.

I know nothing of job opportunities in India for anyone, much less older doctoral graduates, so this answer will be a bit different.
I think people should follow their dreams as much as possible.  If someone is a bit older, but unsatisfied with their current position they are wise to consider opportunities and to try to attain their main goals to the maximum extent possible.
Not every person interested in a doctorate is interested in it as a "job" certification. In math, especially, and to somewhat the same extent in CS (and probably other fields), the desire to "know" and to "think" are the main driving force. Being bored in life is no fun.
Your friend just needs to be realistic about where she will be on completion and the possibility that she may not have an opening in academia. I can't guess at that, but it might be a less important consideration for her than extending/expanding her mind.
I would encourage her to follow her dream, but to be realistic about the economic and career aspects. She would probably be no worse off in the non-academic job market than now.
She can probably get some solid advice by talking to some local academics, especially folks like department heads who are in a position to know the likelihood of hiring an older new faculty member.
However, as you describe her, I'd guess she would make an excellent faculty member and teacher. Circumstances permitting it might be the best path. You only have one life to live. Make the most of it.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
PhD interview - short (!) presentation
I got invited for a PhD interview to the University of Edinburgh. I was asked in the email to prepare a 10 mins presentation on a recent research I was involved in. I did a sandwich placement year and it just so happened that this week I just gave a presentation about my placement project. I was given 30mins, which was still barely enough to cover everything. Now with 10mins, I might struggle to convey everything. What's more, what should I focus on in such presentation? I believe it's not to manage to show everything possible within the given (I don't want to try to squeeze too much data and speak ridiculously fast), but is it perhaps to show that I can present in scientific way? That's what my university tutor has told me. What exactly does it mean? Should I show that I fully understand what I present (which I believe I do), explain well my graphs etc? Any tips? What are they looking for in this short presentation?
I struggle a lot with presenting/public speaking, which is why I might worry too much over it but then again, I need to prepare twice as much as a person who is good at presenting.
Many, many thanks for help!
Edit: I realise that I'm still a bit stuck in the format of presentations I have given at the university and I wanted to ask what I should change to make this 10mins presentation as good as possible.
The format that I usually follow is:
introduction to the topic --> should I make it as short and simple as possible?
aims/objectives
methods/materials --> I wonder if I should skip it or make it very short?
results --> I believe I need to select most relevant ones
discussion --> this part usually takes some time in presentations, maybe I could combine it with conclusion to prevent repetitions maybe?
conclusion
further experiments
acknowledgement
references

Why do you think you are supposed to cover everything? I wouldn't be able to cover everything even if I had an hour.

Yes, you are right. I guess I'm still stuck in the format of presentations I have given at the university where I got plenty of time to cover well, pretty much everything. I do realise that for this presentation, it's way different.

Definitely don't try to cover everything. This is certainly not expected, and as you noted, is just not possible in a limited amount of time. What they likely would want to see is if you can explain the main points of your research in a succint way. Trying to cover too much will force you to rush trhough the material, making it difficult to follow. You can still show that you master a subject without getting into all the technical details. Indeed, it takes a good understanding of a research problem/project to be able to place it into perspective, to explain the main motivations and the most important results.
So what should be in the presentation? Different people will give different advice, but I think the following guidelines are sensible. First of all, you should identify the one or two main results of your research. Make sure that you have enough time to cover them, for example by addressing the main points in the beginning of your talk. You can go into the details (such as the methods you used) later on. Another important item is the motivation behind the research. Why did you research this particular problem, and why should people care about it? This might also be a good point to briefly mention the state of the art of the field, and explain how your work extends this. Towards the end of your talk you could go more into the technical details, but take into account that most of your audience may not be an expert on your topic.
And finally, make sure you practice your talk a few times. Ask a few more experienced people whom you trust (and can give good feedback) to attend a practice talk to give suggestions on how your presentation can be improved. Don't worry if it seems like you would have to redo the entire thing: this will only make it better.

Even an audience of rubber ducks or teddy bears will do for the first (or three) rounds.

Thank you. Yes, definitely, I will practise my presentation few times and I asked my university tutor to attend my practise talk.

First, you should choose the most significant research project you worked on. This is probably frustrating as you are likely to have done some other stuff you'd like to present, but put it aside. Focus on the selected project, and present it. Do not try to present every detail of it! Aim about one slide per minute, and one idea per slide. Adapt your presentation to whom you'll present (if they are not specialised, don't go too deep into the details and try to make something interesting). You can say that you managed to show that [blahblah] even if you don't have time to explain how. Keep in mind that often, judges might be sleepy, will not have read preliminary reports, etc. So be very clear. You can of course use graphs, but use them well.
From my experience, the most important tip is to question, for each slide, what do I want to say/show with this slide? and check that everything on this slide serves the objective (title, graphs, text, etc.). And do not write all what you are going to say, this is very boring! Only write the main ideas.
Edit Regarding your last paragraph: a lot of people give very bad presentations; questionning about how to present shows you are trying to improve, and that's very positive. You are probably a beginner; making and giving good presentations is a difficult task, and that's the right time to get on the right track. Moreover, making some efforts proves some respect to the listeners and avoid them loosing their time. So don't focus on the fact that others are more gifted at presenting, what matters is what you do and how you can improve your skills. I've seen people making quite poor presentations tremondously improving within one month.

Thanks a lot. I'm aware that I struggle a lot with presentations/oral speeches but I will keep practising. I already do better than I did last year but I aim to get even better.

As a PhD candidate in my group I was sometimes asked to join a committee that was interviewing a candidate for an open position. For the preparation of the presentation you already got some good tips in the other answers.
You are also asking about the intention of this presentation. It is not only about your presentation skills. That is a skill that you need to develop during your PhD as well. Much more important is the discussion afterwards. Especially if it is for a small committee, they will take plenty of time to discuss details of your research. That is the moment that they can evaluate you as a researcher. You should be able to defend choices you made, or suggest routes for future research. I think that the discussion is more important than the presentation (which you obviously still should prepare well).
The discussion is a lot more difficult to prepare. It is wise to read the thesis again, and think of the details that lead to specific conclusions. Especially if the research was executed a bit longer ago, some of the details may have faded.

Thank you. For my industrial placement project, it was often referred to the previous project and in presentation I had to explain quite a lot how it was linked to what was previously done. And I wonder if I skip that part, it might be confusing why we have conducted this research and why this pathway specifically.

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


text:
PhD funding - other sources
I found a lab offering the kind of research that I really want to do. I approached them and they were very happy to take me in. However, there is no funding and we all hoped I could get into a PhD programme at my university (their lab was on the list for rotation year). Sadly I was not selected for an interview, apparently the competition was very fierce this year. I contacted the lab again and now they are asking if I have other PhD funding? I wonder how I should reply to them, because I don't have any and I tried searching. From others I heard that you can get accepted and then look together for funding or there is a funding (the PhD programme that I was not selected for) and they just search for a suitable candidate. In my case they kind of ask me for the funding, is that right?
Self-funding would be very hard and I even tried looking if my country offers any government funding but I found none. I was told I could try getting maybe an assistant/technician job in their lab and hope that they might apply for grants? I'm very new to all the PhD issues so I'm not sure how I should deal with this but I would appreciate any help!

They are asking if you are able to self-fund or if you have received any of the (extremely rare and competitive) bursaries/scholarships. It sounds like the university thinks you would be a capable student, but unfortunately the other new PhDs were considered more competitive than you in the eyes of whatever committee decides funding. These decisions are made by a university committee, so this does not reflect on your prospector's adviser's opinion of you (most of the time).
What country are you in? This is a very common thing in (e.g.) the UK for international students. I wrote a very extensive answer about this topic here although the advice is UK-centric.
If you managed to get an assistantship/technician job, it would have to pay well enough to pay both your tuition as well as a suitable salary for you if you have no other financial sources (jobs/loans/scholarships). I think that parallel teaching/lab jobs are commonly done in the US to fund PhD students, but I'm not sure whether it would pay 100% of your needs or not. If you're in the US, hopefully somebody more familiar with the American system will chime in here.
Personally, I would not recommend self-funding unless you are rich. If you are good enough to get a position here and to have an interested adviser, you shouldn't have trouble finding a paid PhD elsewhere. Alternatively, you could enquire about a full time position with the lab, and use the experience gained during that period to leverage your application in the next admission cycle.
If you think that your adviser intends to apply for a grant to fund you, you need to ask them. Basically at this point, go to your adviser for advice.
Typically, students apply to a range of universities so that when something like this happens, they have other options. To give you an example, I applied for 6 PhD programs in the UK and whilst I had offers for most, I ultimately could not get funding (my tuition alone would have been 22k per year) and went to Europe instead where everyone has an equal chance at being funded.

Thanks a lot for your reply! I'm actually an EU student but I could be counted also as an international one (I have dual nationalities EU/Asia). I'm not sure if they are expecting me to have a funding secured or they just want to check whether I have something or not and then consider other options (maybe apply for grants?). I kind of want to ask them if they plan to apply for grants to fund me but I don't know if that doesn't sound rude/bold as if I expect that to happen? Well I hope since I was not able to secure a scholarship.

Just to clarify, the university is in the UK right? Or where?

Yes, the university is in UK.

Okay, that's good actually. What's your field? Also, you told the university you hold EU citizenship, yes?

It's Molecular Biology and yes I told them I'm EU.

For now I guess I will reply that I don't have other funding source for PhD and try to ask whether they might plan to apply for any grants to fund me - but should I ask straight away (can't help finding it rude) or gently hint on that? I don't want to write anything they might take as being not proper. Again, I have this strong sense of politeness hence why I find it a bit tricky writing to supervisors, some are easy to approach, some less. Many thanks!

I don't know if ESPRC/STFC cover biology but I think they do. They fund almost everybody's PhDs in the UK. But those bodies (and others similar) cover the tuition fees of EU students, but not stipend. My old university matched the ESPRC/STFC contributions for students.
Are you replying to the university specifically or the adviser? I'd tell the university simply that you do not have other funding at this time, and ask them what your options are. Ask what you are eligible for given your nationality. Ditto the adviser really. Don't make assumptions but ask about your options / for advice. :)

If you feel that you need to specifically ask about a grant, I'd word it as "are there any other options that you are aware of? are there grants available for EU students?" rather than "are you applying for a grant for me?"

I've sent a message to my Czech friend who is doing his PhD in the UK. When he replies I'll let you know what he says.

To follow up: He is fully covered with tuition and stipend via STFC. He says you should get the same funding as UK students.

Thanks so much for your help, I really appreciate that! I tried to apply for the PhD programme which was partly funded by university and by Wellcome Trust. Since I was not selected at all, this leaves the matter just between me and the lab of interest. I will check ESPRC/STFC right now, thanks a lot! :)

Picking up on an old comment, EPSRC (engineering & physical sciences) and STFC (mostly physics) won't fund most biology research - this would be under NERC (natural environment), BBSRC (biosciences), or possibly MRC (medicine), depending on the exact topic. There are seven research councils in total, all discipline-specific with some defined overlaps.

@Andrew is totally correct on that - I just didn't know the names of the funding bodies outside my field. I'd guess (but don't know) that the rules would be the same.

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


text:
Emerging science citation index (ESCI) listed vs SCI listed journals - worthyness to publish
As I know 'Emerging science citation index (ESCI) listed journals' will not receive an impact factor from 'Thompson Reuters'. Further, Science citation indexed (SCI) and Science citation index expanded (SCIE) journals receive impact factors.
Suppose I'm gonna apply for a scholarship for a PhD and that scholarship requires me to have some contribution to the world as a researcher, is there a probability that they will ever consider a research published in a 'SCI' or 'SCIE' listed journal than 'ESCI' listed journal? provided those journals are from reputed publishers.
And is it worth to publish in a 'ESCI' journal? or am I just wasting my precious paper in a non-worthy journal? any other factors to be considered when publishing papers?
P.S: Suppose, my study area as 'Construction Management and Economics'

Never publish in unknown journals or with unknown publishers. You may like to check Beale's list of predatory journals before deciding plus there are many other such lists. ESCI is a confused indexing. Don't go behind it.

@Coder, I can not be agree with you. In mathematics there are many new reputed journals which are only ESCI

There is no one generally applicable strategy to select a journal to publish in. Metrics such as Impact Factor and Citations help but they vary a lot between fields. It also depends a lot on the content, quality, and scope of your work for whether you will get into a prestigious journal. Note that some smaller specialised journals are not necessarily easier to get in to, they may even have higher standards in technical skills even if they will accept work that is not so groundbreaking or novel.
There are many reasons that a journal could be "emerging" and they're not all necessarily for dubious reasons. Many subfields have emerged recently and of course new journals must be formed for the purpose of publishing this work. Similarly, there is a trend towards more interdisciplinary research and more demand for Open Access journals. You should still be careful with unknown journals as they can be "predatory". Some will publish almost anything to get your precious open access fees. If you are unsure and have not heard of the journal, it is probably not a good idea to submit there. However, there can be many valid reasons that a new journal has been formed that does not yet have an impact factor (it takes years to accrue citations so the IF is uncertain until the journal has been established). You can still assess the quality of the journal based on other factors: the quality of the existing publications, whether editors are well-known members of your field, or whether it is affiliated with an established academic society or publisher (publishers such as Springer-Nature and Elsevier start new journals quite often).
If you are unsure, you should consult with other researchers in your field. If you are a student, this should be one of the roles of your supervisor(s) and advisory committee. They are experts in your field and have more experience with this than you. Prospective supervisors will often also give advice on how to apply if you ask them. If you are a postdoc or above, you can still consult with your colleagues and get their advice. Generally, what matters is the reputation of the journal and publisher. If members of your department think the journal is okay, so too should your thesis examiners and future prospective employers. Impact Factor is just one of the considerations for the quality of a publication and a journal. Of course, they will also read your work and assess it on its own merits as well (as will your reviewers).

You have your ordering wrong. ESCI is the lowest-ranking index, followed by SCIE, followed by SCI. Journals listed in ESCI are being considered for SCIE, and journals in SCIE are being considered for SCI. The most prestigious journals are in SCI. Therefore, if you care only about prestige of the publication venue (and there are people who'll pour cold water on this, arguing that what's in your paper is much more important than where it's published), then you should publish in SCI journals and avoid ESCI journals.

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


text:
Defending A Thesis and Expecting The Worst
For over a year I have been developing my thesis and there have been many issues in the process as neither me or my supervisor are experts in the field I am working in. My supervisor has been aware of my model and has, routinely, told me that they think my model is okay. So, I carried on under that assumption.
It is one and a half months away from when I was supposed to defend and I was told that I need to make a big change in my model because the results are too 'intuitive'. So I am feeling like I have to scramble to try and adjust the model so that I can give better looking results.
I am not sure what to do. I have no results I can write about and I am a month and a half away from trying to graduate, and over the 2 year expectation, and at this pace, it seems like a possibility that could continue into the new year and approach the 2.5 year mark. I'm not sure whether I should try to just defend the results that I had originally, even knowing that they are intuitive, or keep trying to find a way to change how my results come out to be less intuitive.
My supervisor told me that if I don't change my model, I run the risk of getting 'major revisions' and in my defense, if surely probed about the problem, I can't respond with 'well, my supervisor and I agreed this formulation was okay, and then one month ago she asked me to change it, but I did not feel I was able to make the desired changes'.
So I am feeling like I am in a very difficult position and I am wondering if it is common for people to defend their work knowing that they might get sent back for major revisions, and how to deal with those revisions when you are not feeling supported? It's unfortunate, because had I been told that my supervisor disagreed with the model several months ago, I could spend the mental energy to make these changes, but now I just feel like i'm scrambling to put something out i'm not proud of.

I doubt it is so common this late. But certainly it is common enough for setbacks to occur at any time. You learn as you go. Sometimes the lessons aren't happy ones. Research is fundamentally dealing with the unknown and it is difficult to schedule. It is impossible to schedule successful completion, actually.
I suggest that you have some options. Perhaps more than I can think of. But, for example:
You could take your chances and leave it as it is. Your advisor might not be happy and the committee might send you back to work.
You could give it (model updates) your best shot and hope for the best. This makes your advisor happy. Maybe it results in success and maybe in some fallback plan, but you can't know that now.
You could, perhaps, just reschedule your defense for a future date to give yourself time to get to a better result. For a doctoral thesis this would be the necessary option in most cases, I think. Perhaps less viable for a masters.
My own sense is that it is important to keep the advisor happy as they are an important part of your future success.


text:
Having A Third Committee Member From A Different University - How To Pitch To The Third Member?
I’m starting my PhD this September in an Interdisciplinary degree that would fall in the realm of “resource economics” + “mathematical biology”. FWIW, I chose the interdisciplinary route because I want to carve out my own niche in the bioeconomics literature and my undergrad was in economics / math, my masters in renewable resource economics.
Speaking to my two supervisors, I was told I can bring a third advisor on that is not necessarily at my institution - and this offered a world of options to approach authors who’s works have encouraged me. However, while there’s so much benefit for me to have a third committee member from, say, the United States (my PhD is in Canada), it’s not clear to me what value there is for the third member. One of my supervisors is an established mathematical biologist, the other is an economist with a similar interest in bioeconomic modelling.
So I’d be curious to know, from an academic’s POV, if they were to be approached with something like this, where would the potential value proposition be for you? Keeping in mind that everything would be mostly virtual, and maybe at best case I could do a visiting appointment to work on collaborations.

I suggest two things. First, most important, is that you don't make the pitch. Let one or both of your advisors do so, perhaps to a person you suggest. You might even give them a couple of suggestions and get their feedback.
It is harder to turn down an invitation from a peer than from an unknown student. The email, if that is the communication mechanism, will be read and likely not ignored.
Second make sure you lay out the responsibilities of the advisor early on so they are comfortable with the task they are taking on.

This is my suggestion too.  I had a committee member who was a subject-matter expert from an outside university, and my chair handled the initial communication.  Over the course of the dissertation I did generally leaned a little more on the two members from my own department, but it worked out well.

Yes! One other consideration is that the committee members will need to communicate well with whoever the outside person is (and vice versa). Having them make the pitch establishes that baseline of communication.


text:
Relative Advantages/Disadvantages of Interdisciplinary Degree vs Discipline-Specific Degree
I am applying for a PhD and when I was speaking to my potential advisor they discussed the possibility of me applying for an interdisciplinary degree that is offered by the institution as an option instead of the discipline specific degree in applied mathematics. The supervisors field is in mathematical biology and my dissertation work would be as well, and working under the assumption that they will take me on as a student, I am wondering what the advantages and disadvantages of the interdisciplinary degree might be relative to a degree that focuses on a specific discipline.
For example, how would a PhD in an interdisciplinary field affect paths forward for a PostDoc position? There are probably some particular advantages and disadvantages that are not obvious to me, so I am putting this out to the community.

The main reasons are pretty obvious, I think.
A narrow field of study will (probably) make you more suitable for employment in that field and less in others.
A wider field of study will (probably) give you more options, but those who have specialized in something will have the upper hand (again, probably) over you it their specialty.
None of that is necessarily true and you can always either broaden your outlook later or specialize further as necessary. So, I suspect that any effect is most important only for your first job.
But it also depends on the individual program. I can imagine one in which the mathematical techniques are pretty generally useful, but also one in which they are not. This might be worth exploring with you proposed advisor.
On a different dimension, an interdisciplinary program might leave you more grounded in applications, where a straight applied math program might (not necessarily) leave you wondering how to actually use what you have learned.

This answer is for the US academic job market in mathematics, where the majority of positions are more focused on teaching than research and where many colleges and universities have combined departments of mathematics rather than separate pure and applied mathematics departments or even more specialized departments.
A specialized interdisciplinary degree program is a good way to prepare for a  focused research career in that interdisciplinary area of research, particularly if that area is new and growing.
A more traditional program grounded within a discipline may be more helpful in preparing you for a faculty career within a typical mathematics department.  As an applied mathematician teaching in a smaller department at an institution that isn't focused on research, you'd be expected to be able to teach a broad range of courses in mathematics, from calculus to linear algebra, ordinary and partial differential equations, mathematical modeling, mathematical biology, numerical analysis, and maybe even some probability and statistics.  It's likely that a more traditional degree program with a broader range of graduate courses would better prepare you for this kind of teaching work.
Some specific things to consider:

Do graduate students in the interdisciplinary program work only as research assistants or can they get experience as TA's within the math department?

How broad is the course work that you'll take as a student in the two different programs?

What areas are covered by the preliminary exams in the two programs?

How have previous graduates of the programs done on the job market (both immediately after graduation and after some years (say 5-10) in the profession)?

Whomever gave the down vote, could you elaborate please and thank you?


text:
Acknowledging data sources used for creating an image
For a conference paper, I created an image compiling data from multiple sources. What is the correct format for acknowledging the sources?
Map showing road condition (Data source: Esri, OpenStreetMap) or,
Map showing road condition (Data sources: Esri, OpenStreetMap)
In most of the literature, I observed authors commonly using 'source' when they mean 'sources'. Shouldn't it be 'sources'?

Unless there is some standard that I am unaware of in a domain specific application, either should be fine. Such semantic details are unlikely to affect the validity of your paper. In fact, if they do, someone needs to settle down.

I had to look at it three times to see the difference. I think few would notice and fewer would care.

As others have pointed out, the choice is likely arbitrary since it will not affect the readability of your article much.
If you want to keep the formulation as is, I would personally go with "Data sources" as I think it makes more linguistic sense. If I would ask the reader to check out two published articles, I would write: "see the papers by Uncle Tom Cobley (1889) and Alan Smithee (1968)" and not "see the paper by Uncle Tom Cobley (1889) and Alan Smithee (1968).". Similarly, I would write "see the data sources Esri and OpenStreetMap" and not "see the data source Esri and OpenStreetMap".
However, one possible workaround would be to side-step the issue by chosing a different formulation. For instance, perhaps by writing "Data from",  or just simply "Data".

As long as you give proper credit to all images you’ve used and have not violated their terms of use, I see no reason why anyone would mind (or notice!) a little ‘s’.

While I agree with your statement here, I would like to add that I think the question is within the scope of this stackexchange site.


text:
Marie Curie fellowship - family allowance
Am I entitled for a family allowance if my family (a husband and children) don't live in the same country where my host institution is?

Yes you are. Source: Been in the same situation.

You have to read carefully the instructions, I think that it doesn't matter where they live, you have to show proofs that you are part of a family, but I do not think that when you start working, the host asks for proofs that they have moved to the host country. But I'm not 100% sure. Check also with the host institution, I am sure they already had similar experiences.


text:
As a student, how can I negotiate comfortable and appropriate sleeping arrangements with a stranger for a conference?
I'm an undergraduate student that was offered a role researching for a grant. I was able to get authorship status on a paper and will be attending a conference for it later this year. The professor I am working for connected me with another student at a different university in order to share a hotel room. We will both be staying for the entire week and are responsible for booking our own reservations. Unfortunately, the centre the conference is located at is booked, with only a single-bed room available that we would be required to vacate on Wednesday then move back in.
This student was fine with booking the room and asked me if I was okay with it, but after I realized that it is a very small, dorm-like room with a small bed and no futon I counter-offered a reasonably-priced room at another hotel a half-mile away with two beds that we would not need to move out of midweek. I thought this would be well-received, however the student pushed back saying that the other room had a better price (of course, as it was intended for one person or a couple) and we would have better involvement with the conference (doubtful, as long as we show up on time).
Besides already being an incredibly poor sleeper, I'm otherwise just uncomfortable sharing a small bed with another student I don't know, and the room is small enough that I can't confidently say a hotel cot would fit. However, I also don't feel comfortable making this a bigger conflict than necessary, and I don't want to upset my professor by costing our grant more money than necessary by booking my own room at twice the cost. On the other hand, I do feel I have the right to request sleeping accommodations that I am comfortable with. How can I handle this appropriately without offending anyone?

Would a hotel even allow two people to share a single room? I think you are well within your rights to ask for a bit more money to get a double room.

I think this question is better suited for interpersonal.stackexchange.com

@atronat the OP said it's a single bed designed for a couple, so it's not a single person.  It's often possible to request a cot, which I think may be the easiest solution, and whoever gets the cot pays a smaller share since it's likely more uncomfortable, but I agree with problemofficer that it's better suited for IPS

And IPS referred me to Academia on the chance that someone here has had a shared experience.

My 2 ct: dump this cheapskate professor. But why did you ask that other student about the other hotel? Is he paying for himself?

A quick tip - get on the waiting list at the hotel for two-bed rooms. Also - have you let the professor know there are not two-bed rooms available at the hotel?

@Karl that seems extremely premature. There's nothing in the OP that even indicates the professor is aware of the conflict.

@Jared who would be paying for the room?

@beldaz I am unsure via his end, however my bill was being payed for by the university via the grant. We would have told the hotel at check-in to split the bill in half.

@Jared that's what I figured. I think the other student is being overly precious about the cost their university would pay. Hold your ground and go with Nicole's answer.

I'd say that the "share a bed with a stranger" thing is non-negotiable and completely inappropriate. Sharing a room with a stranger would be inappropriate.

You don't mention what country you're in and perhaps it might matter, that what's acceptable in one country might not be in another.  Here in the US, it's not uncommon to be asked to share a room at a conference or in other professional situations with another attendee of the same sex.  But it would never be considered appropriate to ask anyone to share a bed.  Never.  Period.  It would only happen if a supervisor, e.g., your department chair was unaware it was happening.
So, if you're here in the US, I would be firm.  Send an email to your professor, pointing out that sharing a room is okay, but sharing a bed is not and insist on your solution, the room with two beds at the other hotel.  I would not feel guilty even for one second about the extra cost.  You're entitled to your own bed.  If your professor insists you share a bed, I would report this to your department chair and request help.

Agree. In fact, OP probably doesn't even need to explain that sharing a bed is not okay, it's enough to just say "the room we were looking at only has one bed, so looks like sharing it won't work. I proposed this other, double room half a mile away, but the other student didn't go for that. What do you think?"

While I agree with your answer, I'm confused about something: are you saying there are countries where it would be reasonable to be asked to share a bed with a stranger?

@Kimball That's not what he said. If US -> not OK does not imply If Not US -> OK. And as long as one does not know cultures of all countries around the globe, I strongly support using the qualifier.

@FooBar The answerer (who I guess is a she) indicates a belief that it actually is different in different countries, though they didn't spell out what part depend on the country.  I would be surprised (and interested to know) if there are countries where the "sharing a bed with a stranger" aspect is acceptable.  Hence my request for clarification.

@Kimball My qualifier was as innocuous as yours, "guessing" I'm a she.  From my picture and name, you shouldn't have to guess.  I tend to add them defensively here on this site because anytime I don't, I can pretty much count on someone jumping on me for forgetting that the US is not the only country in the world. In this particular case, I'm not aware of any differences, but it seemed possible that in extremely poor countries, perhaps one might be asked to share a bed.  And perhaps there are very wealthy countries where it'd be unthinkable to be asked to share a room.

Actually, I don't agree that "sharing a room is ok" if the OP finds it uncomfortable. This is an intensely personal situation and no one should object if the person wants to maintain privacy for any reason or no reason at all.

Don't be coerced into a situation that is against your principles or your personal sense of self. I realize that the prof may have been trying to be helpful, of course, but the decisions aren't for him or her to make.

@Kimball the answerer never implied that it was different in different countries, she pointed out that the US is the only region she's familiar enough with to give an answer and that she's aware that social norms vary from place to place. She's saying she doesn't know how it works in other places, not that she knows it's different.

I'll note here that the OP hasn't been part of the comments. I haven't actually read anywhere that the professor is "insisting" on his solution. However, I agree with your suggestion in the case that he is. It may just be he is trying to be helpful. It could also be that he thinks for whatever reason that the two people would find value in some association. But all that matters, in my view, is the comfort of the OP in the situation.

@Buffy Okay, fixed.  "continues to insist" → "insists".

Why is sharing a room ok? It can be disgusting, snoring, smell, bathroom privacy, ...

AlexandreAubrey and @FooBar: I think Kimball has a point. While of course US->OK does not imply NONUS->NONOK, this kind of thinking needs one to be comfortable with mathematical reasoning (which is a skill obtained eg in STEM-studies). In conversation with non-stem people (which are also hopefully also in the audience of this site), it might, depending on the context, be better to write explicitly ("and I don't know the situation for other countries" (as N. Hamilton did in the comments)).

The professor I am working for connected me with another student at a different university in order to share a hotel room.

I think this is the key point. The professor, who is your supervisor and is in charge of the grant funds, is sending you to the conference, and it is their responsibility to ensure you have safe, reasonable accommodations during the trip. Their proposed solution involving shared accommodations with the student they connected you with might have seemed reasonable when they suggested it, but it is becoming clear that it isn’t. Certainly asking that you share a hotel bed or other uncomfortably close quarters with a complete stranger is way outside the norm in almost all areas of academia (the only exceptions I can think of being a few disciplines like archaeology, paleontology and such where hardy researchers sometimes go on field studies in very spartan environments), and not something you should be expected to accept as a condition for attending a conference.
The conclusion is simple. You should email the professor, explain that you have not been able to find an acceptable arrangement to share accommodations with the other student, and ask him to help you find an alternative solution involving an acceptable level of comfort and privacy. Such a request, if phrased politely, would be completely reasonable and professional, and I’m sure any half-decent professor would not be fazed by it or have any trouble addressing the problem.
Good luck, and have fun at the conference.

This, except for the part of asking the supervisor to help you find an alternative solution. Email him the details of a single room you found online (rather cheap, for you alone) and ask if that would be okay or ask if he knows other students who are interested in finding a shared room.

@Sabine agreed, thanks, it’s indeed a good idea to proactively suggest an alternative solution.

You may just need to come to the conclusion that no negotiation is possible and make your own arrangements. No one should be offended by someone who wants to preserve their personal space and privacy.
I doubt that your professor, who is the only one, other than yourself who matters much here, would think less of you if you don't yield to a situation you find somewhere between uncomfortable and untenable.
There is the financial issue of course, but your privacy is likely worth the cost and you will have a much better experience at the conference if you are comfortable personally. While cost isn't a factor for me anymore I often tell family (cousins, kids, etc) I'd rather get a hotel than use their guest room. Privacy, comfort, personal space.
That said, you might take a bit of time at the conference to see if the other student is someone you might want to be friends and colleagues with generally, but that is a question for the future.

Due to a comment, perhaps I should be more clear and explicit. This is not something you should accept if you have any reservations. You are perfectly correct to reject it.

I do not know this person, but I would simply say it honestly. It's perfectly professional. Say something like "I understand that the room is a bit more expensive, but I would much rather find a room that accommodates two people and does not force us to share a bed. This room is the best I could find, but if you can find a similar one for a better price, send me a link."
This is a perfectly normal and reasonable thing to want, it places no obligation on you to pay a greater share, and it should not offend any person who is there in a professional capacity.

This is a good suggestion, but I think being even more firm in saying that you don't want to share a bed would be a good idea. Just say, "I am not willing to share a bed" in there somewhere.

@sgroves Can do that too, although it shouldn't be necessary. My guess is that most people would get the point from this. It takes quite an unpleasant person to insist on sharing a bed in this situation.

"Would much rather" doesn't get the point across; it makes it sound like you're okay with either, but prefer one option to the other. Need to be clear that sharing a bed is not an option.

@R.. As i said, I think it does get the point across - but, as I also said, being more firm is probably fine. Which one you would rather use may depend on what kind of person you believe you are dealing with.

authors: Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні


text:
What should I do if my advisor urges me to do a project that I have no interest or faith in?
About a year ago when I was a first-year graduate student, my advisor wanted me to follow up on a project left behind by an honors student. I agreed because, at that time, I thought the topic was important and the findings were rather interesting. However, over the past year, I was busy with other projects and my qualifying exam, so this project was put on hold for almost a year. This summer, my advisor urges me to get it done as soon as possible.
I'd be more than happy to, had I not realized the original project is not methodologically sound. My RAs who re-coded the original data share the same feeling: The experimenter made various mistakes and was overly flexible, yet all data points entered into final analyses. I don't want to spend months chasing after effects that don't exist. Moreover, due to the complex study design, I can foresee what a nightmare it can be to build computational models in the future.
I suggested radical changes that make the experiment more rigorous and subsequent modeling efforts more tractable, but my advisor refused my proposal several times, arguing that making any changes will only delay the starting time. I feel stuck: On the one hand, I don't want to pursue this project as it is since it's most definitely going to fail; on the other, I don't have the courage (or "moral capitals") to defy my advisor because I have put off this project for so long. To make matters worse, I only have one advisor, so if our relationship deteriorates, I have no one else to turn to.
Any advice on what I should do is much appreciated!

I wonder if it would help to rephrase your objections as being related to the review process . I sometimes have more luck saying “I am worried that a reviewer will say ...”

Sometimes it is necessary to "bite the bullet" and demonstrate that the method doesn't work. But you need to provide clear and irrefutable evidence in a way that can actually convince people, not just a vague claim.
A classic example of the failure to do this is the Challenger explosion: all of the information needed to delay the launch was known, but because the engineers who had the data didn't present it in a clear manner–just a raw output of data—their supervisors overruled them. If they had come in with plots showing failure of the O-rings as a function of launch conditions, anyone could have recognized the danger of the situation.
So if your advisor is insisting, you probably need to demonstrate why his approach  is infeasible or he will continue to insist upon it.

Not only the Challenger, but also the Columbia exploded for the nearly same reason: the Powerpoint wasn't presented clear enough

@Ooker No PowerPoint back for Challenger, but a carefully prepared handmade graph would have sufficed.

You seem to have answered your own question. If you can not discuss this matter with your advisor without your relationship deteriorating, then you are in for a truly terrible advisor relationship as time goes on, and anything is preferable to this, changing advisors, universities or dropping out.
Unless you are convinced that your advisor is incapable of understanding what is wrong with the project, its worth stating that you dont want to work on it because of X, anx see what happens, he may have an idea worth listening to.
The worst outcome is to do a useless project to keep your advisor quiet, since that is likely to result in being assigned several more useless projects between now and when you graduate, which will take longer the more useless things you do.

You are in a hard spot. I'll try to offer more than sympathy here. You seem to have tried the main direct approach (changing the problem) and indicate that the other (changing advisors) is closed off to you, so the advice will need to be a bit, well, subversive.
"Subversive" is probably the wrong word, so don't take it too literally. But note that proving that something isn't true is (or at least can be) just as valid as proving that something is true. Knowledge is advanced in both cases. If you set out to prove that "Dingledorfer's theorem proves the Smittyburger hypothesis" and learn that it doesn't, you may still have the basis for a thesis: "Dingledorfer's theorem doesn't imply the Smittyburger hypothesis". It is hard to speculate whether you have an option like that or not, but consider it.
The second option is that you can make the original study a very subservient part of the whole of your work. You can even, in the thesis, provided that your analysis here is correct, say why the original formulation is incorrect, make a correct formulation and work with that. Unfortunately that sort of thing costs you time as what was originally major is now minor.
However, I don't know exactly what you mean that you have "only one advisor". Is it the situation where no one else is available at all (small department...) or just that you have been assigned only one advisor from a larger pool. In the latter case, again costing you time, you can probably appeal to a higher authority and change advisors. The correct way to do this, I think, is to approach someone else with whom you believe you would be more successful and ask them to permit (and assist in) a switch. You could then go to the department head to make it a reality. I failed to do this once and it cost me more time than making a break would have. In my case it was extreme introversion and a fear of rocking the boat. But the boat needed rocking.


text:
How do I regain my momentum in research after a long period of slacking off?
I'm two and a half years into my PhD program. Recently, I finally worked up the courage to admit it — I've been slacking off for over a year and it's my fault. Now I'm determined to be productive in research again but realized that I forgot how to.
It was sweet in the beginning. I got a paper accepted at a top conference after my first semester, which was quite something for a first-year. I was enthusiastic about research back then, devouring papers in and outside my field and conceiving of new research projects even in my dreams.
Sadly, things changed quickly. At the beginning of my second semester, I took over a project left by a visiting scholar in my lab. That project was complicated and beyond my expertise. I poured hours and hours into it but barely got any useable data. Meanwhile, my own projects began to go nowhere. My advisor didn't offer any concrete help (e.g., giving advice on how to improve my experiment equipment or design, pointing me to people who might be able to help, etc.) but just asked me to keep going. After a streak of failed experiments, I felt disillusioned and started to spend less and less time on research. I spent what must have been 40 hours a week on my hobbies and social activities. I feel ashamed to admit it but even when I was in my office, I wasn't thinking about research — most of the time, I was just randomly browsing the Internet and waiting to go home. I only worked hard before major deadlines and managed to get some papers/posters accepted at major conferences. These achievements, however, paled by comparison in front of those of my cohort. My advisor noticed and mentioned several times that my research is going slowly.
This semester, I came to the realization that I've squandered half of my PhD career and decided not to continue on the path of self-destruction. I want to make the most of what I have left but feel disoriented about where to begin and what to prioritize. For instance, should I first catch up on basic research skills that I lack or come up with new ideas? Speaking of the latter, what are some good practices I can follow in order to regularly come up with research ideas? — I used to be good at this but have now lost touch with what good (or at least feasible) ideas look like. How mature should an idea be before it's a good time to talk to others about it? Should I ever share my concerns with people in my program? — They may look down upon me and I'm not sure what good it does, but it feels so painful to keep pretending that I'm right on track.
Any suggestions would be much appreciated!!

You have got some papers (say 2-3) accepted at major conferences in one year, and this is nothing compared to what your peers are doing? This begs the question, what are your peers doing?  I thought that publishing 2-3 papers per year was a very good pace. Of course it depends on the quality of the papers, but still

@Ant Unlike CS or the likes, my field values journal articles far more than conference presentations. Each year in the past, I used different pieces of the same project for 1-2 conferences (mostly as posters) while my peers presented different projects (mostly as talks) at more venues. Also, many have published/submitted their work as journal articles but I'm still quite far from my first submission. My advisor pointed out that I'm not making enough progress towards my dissertation.

Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification (and good luck!)

I thought that I would just comment, since this doesn't rise to the level of a true answer. It sounds like you said "yes" too many times and burned out: "yes I will take that big hairy project over from you." Instead of, "Sorry I can't do that, I'm focusing on this other thing over here." And then you have too much on your plate and it disgusts you to think about eating as much as you're committed to eating. Sound about right?

This may sound stupid, but a good place to start when confronted with a seemingly unsolvable problem is just to start doing something. There are always some simple experiment/simulation one can run, some related papers one can read, or some results that can be written up. The point is to get back to making consistent and incremental progress, no matter how trivial it may seem or how many mistakes you make. Once you get the ball rolling everything else should follow, given your background.
Don't worry too much about coming up with research questions. Good research problems are not dreamed up in a vacuum. You have to immerse yourself in the literature and your research problem to see the gaps that others have overlooked or come up with new methods to tackle old problems. So when you are still trying to get back to speed don't expect brilliant ideas to just pop into your head.
Another thing you should do is to set up weekly meetings with your advisor. Or if your advisor is not available, then write up regular progress report, both for yourself and send it to your advisor. The fact that you can slack off for years and get away with it means that there is a lack of structure and discipline.

Concentrate on something easy that will end up being an "LPU" (least publishable unit).  It won't be groundbreaking, it won't be cover of Nature.  But it will be progress.  You just need to get back into the swing of things.  Avoid anything requiring building apparatus or that might not work.  You need to get a small win, a base run, "selling a used car, not a new Jaguar".  I don't know your exact field but a chemical example might be to just replicating a system you have done before and been published on with some different element or compound.
Keep it simple, keep it small, get something done and published, even if very "datapoint" type learning.  You won't get some huge attaboy from it, but at least you will be back in the game.  If you try instead for some Hail Mary (hard problem) to compensate for past issues, it will be too tough and you will sputter out.
Actually I even normally give the advice to grad students to start with (and maybe even stick with) easy stuff throughout their program.  Picking the right problem is probably the key thing to having a decent grad school experience.  [After that picking a decent advisor (that you get along with, not who is famous).]  Chasing the Holy Grail, failing, and then not getting your Ph.D. is a bad feeling...or just sputtering around until they take pity on you and push you through.  Once you have tenure, it is a different set of incentives and you can push the cutting edge projects (and/or even burn through grad students sending them after Holy Grails).

I am not sure if you have multiple "guest" accounts, if you do, please follow https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts to merge them. Thanks

I think that the other responses on here have been good, but I would also add that having the attitude of "Do it today, rather than tomorrow" can be surprisingly effective in boosting productivity. What I mean, is that there are always experiments or problems that don't have discreet time limits on them, meaning that it doesn't really matter in essence if you try the experiment today, tomorrow or sometime in the near future. However, you would be surprised how much more you can actually get done if you take the attitude that those types of experiments should be done as soon as possible, rather than delayed ("today" even). As scientists, we often learn more from our failures than we do from quick and easy successes. As a result, getting to those failures faster might seem like it's not worth it, but actually pays off in the long run.
With regards to sharing concerns, I would definitely reach out to your lab-mates and other people you know the program (but maybe not your advisor depending on that relationship). I think you will find more sympathy there than you would expect, especially with an attitude that you would like to improve. Also, in my experience almost everyone in research is happy to discuss potential project ideas, at almost any stage.

Make priority on the tutoring and lecturing parts of your schedule.
Put all projects aside.
After you regain strength from lecturing, go into new field.
Do not turn back into old work. It will not work. You will get drowned again.
Remember always: PUBLISH OR PERISH. Because you never go back.


text:
Is it possible to get accepted in RISS CMU with low CGPA?
I'm a student in Birla Institute of Technology & Science (BITS), Pilani, India and am starting my 3rd year. My GPA is as low as 5.5/10 and I don't expect it to improve much by the end of 3rd year. I have done a lot of robotics projects and hope to publish a paper this year (not in robotics though).
What are the chances of me getting accepted in the Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) Robotics Institute Summer Scholars (RISS) program? Please tell the truth out bluntly. Also if there is any chance that I can get accepted by doing something please let me know.

On their website it says, "RISS is among the best and most comprehensive robotics research programs for undergraduates in the world." This should not deter you from applying but I would advise that you strongly apply yourself in raising your GPA, if that is at all possible.
The first filter for rejecting applications of any type is often based on the language used in the applications. It needs to say, "I am serious about my work. I am dedicated and focused. I make the effort to do a good job." by setting the right tone with the formatting, grammar and language style (and not by explicitly saying, "I am serious ...").

Also, note that it is very competitive, with a lot of applications. If there is nothing to make a candidate stand out from the crowd it will be very difficult under these conditions. However, if you don't apply you are assured that you won't be accepted. +1


text:
PhD at top department (path - MS (unfunded) to PhD) vs mediocre dept (path - funded PhD) , differences in experience?
At the present, I have got MS at Uni A (rank 16 usnews dept grad school)w/o funding for tuition and on the other hand I have a fully-funded PhD offer from uni B (rank 69 usnews dept grad school). At B the research is interesting, the advisor is a great person but the few drawbacks would be that he's relatively new (i'd be his only student in the lab apart from a few UGs, i'm the 2nd PhD), many of his grants are pending, ranking of the dept is relatively low. The reason I didn't apply to PhD programs was due to my avg U-GPA. So, my plan after masters, at least as of now would be to apply to PhD programs (looking at northwestern, upitt, emory, uofchicago, jhu). If I take CWRU, the advisor that I have lined up is willing for me to do independent research, write grant proposals, and work on a number of collaborative projects.
Can you tell me the main factors to consider when choosing where to do PhD apart from research interest and advisor relationship? I am trying to look at whether this risky choice of MS->PhD (which I am more inclined to) would be better than the PhD offer that I have right now. Risky because i'm not sure if the MS would better my chances at those schools for PhD and if it's worth the 2 years which I could have used for maybe a post-doc after PhD at B. Do top dept's have an edge over relatively lower ranked one's?
One reason that i'd probably want to do a MS would be to maybe expand my research focus and work under more renowned researchers in the field. Though I could do the same in UH by collaborating with great professors in other dept but would have to work much harder. Any thoughts or inputs?

Sorry, but while I recognize uofchicago, I have no clue what upitt, jhu, emory might be and where in the world they are. you could make the question more self-contained by adding a US tag and explaining the US abbrebiations (UH, U-GPA, GWRU) for a wider audience (this is a worldwide site).

@user111388 I apologize, it looked like you were joking so I responded sarcastically.

To.further clarify, you are only interested in US unis? Or were does just examples? And how is or money situation? Would you have enough money to work/study "for free"?

Not a problem!..

Yeah, I'm interested in the one's I mentioned. For the PhD at uni B, it is fully funded. But for the MS at uni A, I only have stipend and would need to take a loan for tuition but I could potentially get funded for tuition after the first year. Finances, are the least of my worries right now as I can get funded through grants and other modes as well.

Comparisons and recommendations of specific universities is off topic here as a "shopping question". I'll restrict this answer to the question of getting an MS first.
In the US (unlike many other places) getting an MS first isn't necessary and will probably lengthen your total program, especially if you switch programs after the MS. Also, not every MS program will be research focused, though some will. But some are just advanced coursework, even applied coursework if most graduates enter industry.
If you take the direct PhD path you will probably have an opportunity to get a sort of "freebie" MS along the way, perhaps by doing a small project and writing it up as an MS thesis.
The main requirements for a doctorate (US) are that you pass a set of comprehensive examinations and that you write an "acceptable" dissertation. There is normally advanced coursework, mostly to prepare for comps. But if you do an MS elsewhere, there is no guarantee that the courses there will give good preparation for comps at the doctoral institution. Maybe they do, maybe not.
If you can find a good advisor and a good and compatible research program that interests you, I would suggest the direct PhD path over any other. Whether your institution ranks 10 or 110 won't matter nearly as much to your overall career as what you do and what relationships you can develop while studying. And being a top student as the 210th ranked institution is probably better for your career than being a mid-level graduate of the 10th ranked one. At least in obtaining your first job. It is about what you do, not about what others have done to affect rankings. There are good advisors throughout academia. They aren't all at MIT and Berkeley.

But, there is also the question of the experience of the advisor. I neglected that in the first version here.
The one thing I'd worry about with an inexperienced advisor is where they are in their tenure process. If they are tenured it is not so much of a problem, nor should it be if they are a shoo in. But an advisor who is at risk of not getting tenure may prioritize their own work over helping you. I'd advise against that scenario.
But if they have a lot of ideas and like to share them, it should otherwise be fine. But look also at the other people in that group. Do they have an effective regular seminar for a few faculty in that field. That is a big plus, again if they share ideas.
I was once "stuck" with an untenured advisor who wasn't helpful.

Are you saying that if I got a PhD offer from a school ranked 20 and from another ranked 80 both with interesting research areas, professors at the same level and good relationship. Then the outcome would be the same in either. What I want to know is the distinction from a prof at a top ranking dept vs a lower one, there has got to be something. Why do good prof's even join lower ranking depts then? Also the student cohort will be very different which based on what i have read on this site is an important factor.

Not everyone wants to live in Cambridge MA. But, again, it depends on what you do. The ranking of an institution (within some limits) means far less than most think it does. I'd suggest that between 10 and 80 the far more important consideration is the advisor and the research program you are interested in. Rankings, even of graduate schools are based on a variety of things. But you are looking to specialize. And some places with "good" student cohorts also have cutthroat competition.

Let me rephrase my question, I wanted to know if I should go straight into the PhD with an inexperienced advisor or should I do a masters and then go to a PhD with a more established advisor. Is the two years worth it? There have been multiple answers related to experience and most have concluded that research under an experienced advisor seems better for career prospects and PhD experience.

Is a tenure hard to get? He seems to be doing decent research and the one's that rake in the most citations are the one's where he is works with his post-doc advsior, his past students weren't involved in those. He is 4 years in the tenure-track, not sure if that is close to finishing the process or not. He does have a ton of ideas based on my conversations with him.

Answer edited to address the advisor's experience.

It normally takes seven years and is hard to get at good research institutions (especially). But if he is making good progress and is also helpful to his students it should be fine. It isn't being untenured that matters, but being frantic about getting it. The flip side is that a tenured faculty member with lots of students may not have a lot of time for each of them. Hard to judge from a distance.


text:
Will a MS with ~3.7GPA with good research experience and strong recommendations offset my horrible U-GPA to get into PhD?
My u-GPA is about 2.8 and GRE is 330, from now on is a hypothetical scenario as I haven't done my masters yet so if you could treat it as an actual case and give me subjective answers that would be great. For the masters I have found this growing researcher who is doing amazing work and is eager for me to join his lab from the start of the program. Assuming that by the end of the MS, I get ~3.7GPA, a couple co-authored pub and 1 first authored pub in reputed journals along with going to conferences to present my work, altogether getting strong recommendations from the advisor and his colleagues. Will this in any way offset my u-GPA. Also apart from research in masters I have had about 2 years of research experience during undergrad (in and out of school) and have published a paper in a peer-reviewed journal.
I am looking to get into the biomedical engineering PhD programs at university of chicago, northwestern university, university of pittsburgh, john hopkins university, york university, and university of pennsylvania. Do you think that I am aiming too high? If so, what else should I look to do to improve my chances? Also if I start MS this Fall should I apply for PhD at Fall 2022 or Fall 2023?
Additional Info:

I did a decent undergrad thesis (not great, 8 months), soon after I did a 2 month internship a another research lab. During my undergrad I worked w/ a prof for 1.2 years (Got two papers out - one in a conf and another in a journal). Currently I am working in a top research lab, now remotely due to covid-19 outbreak.
Some people have mentioned other questions thinking that those had the same information that I wanted. But, they did not as the questions talked about how to get into "a/some" PhD Program after a low U-GPA and maybe decent masters. The schools that I have mentioned above are ranked pretty high and  would appreciate if you could tailor your answers to my specific question of getting into these schools.
I picked these school not to show of the "rank" or "prestige" which seems stupid honestly. I chose the because of the strength in the field (F1) that I'm looking to do research in. In one of my previous questions I had mentioned that I got a PhD offer from university of houston which does the research in F1 but it isn't very strong in other area such as: number of grants that they pull in to do amazing research on large patient populations, intellectual cohorts, and industrial connections and startup resources. I picked these schools as I believe them to be the best in F1 and NOT for the main purpose of prestige. So if you don't have anything to suggest I IMPLORE you to not ask me to look at other schools as I did not ask for alternatives but solutions or ideas

Where are you planing to do your masters?

Case western reserve university (it's ranked in the 50s for eng and 20s for med). Though I didn't mention this in the question as It may have looked personalized and possibly closed. Does the masters school make a difference?

last 4 questions you posted revolve around your low GPA... This question asks if you have an MS with 3.7 GPA, does it cover your low GPA.. how many years do you have till you finish your bachelors... Can your GPA go slightly high in the coming semesters?

@PraphullaKoushik Indeed my last 4 questions revolve around my low GPA but everyone that had answered seemed to have ignored that fact and did not include any explanation. I'm done with my bachelors, have been working in research labs (now remotely cuz of covid outbreak) and will be starting Masters this fall. So, I can't increase my GPA. I want to know the things, no matter how ridiculous or tough, that can increase my chances for a PhD at the mentioned schools. Before anyone mentions choosing schools based on research Interest; I picked out these schools cuz of strength in research.

@astronat Not really, they talk about compensating poor GRE, GPA and SOP. I have 330 GRE, low undergrad GPA, and hopefully a decent MS GPA; my SOP is strong to my knowledge. Also I don't consider myself to be a weak or borderline student, I excel in tough, competitive environments and in research.

The top answer to the linked question states "A low GPA can be offset by a strong research record highlighted in the SOP and letters of reference". If you manage to write 3 papers in your Master's and get strong references as you state, your low GPA is going to be offset by this research record. Can you explain how this doesn't answer your question?

Please add those details in the question.. mention that you have already finished your bachelors.. I don’t understand how you are guessing that specific GPA of MS programme which you have not started yet... You said, you excel in tough competitive environment.. That is a nice thing but you should add that in the question body... Also mention you are working for some lab... Mention when did you finish your bachelors, what you have done from then.,, More details will be useful for answers.. If you want to keep your profile discreet, please ignore this suggestion.

@astronat The top answer mentions that a low undergrad GPA can be compensated with strong research (during senior-thesis) but it never mentioned anything wrt with Masters (but logically makes sense as you said). Though I don't want to get into "a" PhD program, but instead a select few as mentioned in the question and would appreciate inputs that can help me work towards higher admission rates.

@Anyon Again like astronat, these questions talk about getting into "a" PhD and not specifically one of the top schools. Can you please tailor your answer to my specific question.

This website it not a substitute for a graduate admissions councilor.  Questions like this get closed as duplicates all the time.

@AnonymousPhysicist People have asked similar questions about getting into PhD with low GPA and good MS scores and research but none have specifically answered to get PhD in top schools w/ this situation. I'm not sure if those answers apply to my scenario but there has been no clear answer; hence not a duplicate. I have tried to make this questions as general as it can be with a few personal details but this is a question that people could benefit from. I would agree it to be a counselor type question if I actually included the intricacies of what I had accomplished and where I had done them.

@AnonymousPhysicist Come on, I don't get why my question has been closed. I've asked a clearly distinguishable question w/ general details. I have seen people ask these graduate counselling type questions which got closed but there were a few chaps out there that were helpful enough to answer the question or advise the person. In my past 2 questions I tried to seek out some advise through indirect and direct means but everyone kept ignoring the question or side-tracking it. I'm just a poor guy here trying to get some help and be helpful to others, would appreciate some guidance.

No point in debating me.  I don't make the rules.  The explanation is here: https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1560/what-should-we-do-with-the-can-i-get-into-x-program-with-3-xx-gpa/1563

Is there any way to appeal for a revoke in decision?

@Roshan flag for moderator attention. Ask them to see if they can open it... post a question https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/ asking for support to open the question.. As far as I know it takes five votes of users with reputation (high enough) to open a closed question..

It is good to aim high. It is also good to have broad target. If you apply to only a few schools with very similar profiles then being rejected by one will probably have a similar outcome at the others. So, I recommend a range of schools if you really want a degree and not just bragging rights about a top 50 school.
But, about your GPA. It isn't a plus, of course, but most (not all) people who evaluate your application will weight the more recent work as more important than the earlier work. Therefore, if your recent work is good and you have letters that attest to the quality of your work and your dedication, then the older numbers will be discounted by most.
But, the competition is still very strong and the slots are few. If someone has to make a choice between two candidates, the choice has to be made and lower priority things may bear some weight.
However, the only way to know whether you have a problem is to actually make application to some places and then evaluate the feedback. There are some questions, like this one, that can only be answered by actually trying. But, you will be more likely to get accepted somewhere if you don't target too narrowly.

Thanks that was sort of the answer I was looking for. Can you perhaps give me some advice on what to do to get into the mentioned schools even if it means working for a year in a research lab after masters. The reason that I am set on those school is because of a couple reasons: the research which perfectly matches my interests, the large number of grants that they get to perform amazing research on large patient populations, intellectual cohorts, and more industrial connections and startup resources. In my previous ques I mentioned PhD at UH, which has research that I like but not the others.

I doubt that taking a year away is a good strategy.

It was a suggestion, I was looking forward to you advising some strategies apart from looking at other schools. And you did mention "weight the more recent work" so I thought the additional year could add additional value.

"being rejected by one will probably have a similar outcome at the others" Highly misleading, and even more misleading in lab-based sciences where need for PhD students with particular specialties fluctuates a lot.


text:
How good is the Google Scholar search Engine?
I've been using Google Scholar search engine for a while in order to find scientific articles for my master thesis, but I've come to notice that the search algorithm is not as good as the real google search engine.
I feel that Scholar requires quite specific search terms in order to find the right articles. Does anybody share my experience and is it true that the Google Scholar search engine is worse at searching than the main Google Engine?

I do not believe such question considers Academia. This is a technical question about search engines.

This topic was discussed before. Try this link.http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9276/google-scholar-vs-other-academic-search-engines?rq=1

It's not so much "worse" as it is "different".  The base Google Scholar search uses a number of defaults that may not be optimal for a given search.  Check out Publish or Perish which uses the Google Scholar API and provides a number of additional means of searching such as citation counts, journal sorting, etc. that can be a lot more useful.  It also has an alternate option to use the Microsoft Academic Search API, which provides an alternative set of results.


text:
Coauthorship across communities with differing standards
One of the PhD students in my department is writing a paper and has listed me as a coauthor. I'm not sure if I deserve to be a coauthor.
I have been loosely involved in the project. I attended meetings and made suggestions and I actively proof-read the manuscript. But I don't think I had any significant input beyond that.
The student is in a different subfield and it seems their community has different standards for coauthorship. (The paper combines both subfields.) In my community, I would definitely not deserve to be a coauthor. However, the other community is less strict. In fact, there are other coauthors listed (more senior people) who, as far as I can tell, contributed even less than me.
I said something vague along the lines of "I don't know if I deserve to be a coauthor" and the student and their supervisor brushed it off. So it seems to me that, from their perspective, there is no issue.
I'm wondering what I should do. Surely others have experience with this sort of cross-community coauthorship.
On one hand, I can just let them list me as a coauthor, as there does not appear to be any reason not to. On the other hand, if the situation were reversed, I as the lead author would not include so many coauthors.
Are there any potential downsides to being a coauthor? Do I have future obligations to reciprocate? Or am I overthinking this?

You say the work is done in their community, and two people in that community (including a professor) agree you meet their standards for authorship.
I see no reason to apply authorship criteria from your field to theirs.

+1. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. If it is "their" paper, primarily, then the standards of that community should be an appropriate guide. In some labs everyone in the lab gets on every publication. There is at least one instance in which the list of authors of a paper was longer than the paper itself.

I don't think there is per se an ethical problem with you being listed as a co-author, given that the lead authors think you have reached the level of contribution required in their community. I can see some practical problems, though:

If you feel like you are "padding" your CV with a paper that you, following the norms of your own community, don't really deserve, you may want to explicitly denote in your CV that this paper is in a different field. I have seen some people (especially in theoretical CS, but I assume this should also be possible in other fields) add a separate subsection in their publication list "Contributions in other Fields", where they added their "non-standard" papers.
If this is a longer collaboration, you may run into an expectation problem, when you write a paper that you are leading. Your collaborators may assume that they will also be on your paper when they make similarly small contributions, despite not meeting the standards required in your field. Really the only way to address this is through very open and honest communication. However, more realistically, if you plan to write such a paper, it may indeed be better to insist not to be part of their paper upfront, otherwise it may be difficult to avoid hard feelings on the side of your collaborators if they always write you on their papers but you don't add them to yours, for the same levels of contribution.

Are there any potential downsides to being a coauthor? Do I have future obligations to reciprocate? Or am I overthinking this?

1) Perhaps decades ago there was a stigma against multiple coauthors.  In my technical field, this seems to have degraded and multiple coauthors (even 8) is not looked down upon. As such, my advisor and National Academy of Engineering (NAE) member had a policy that any meaningful contribution to research was rewarded with coauthorship.  If your idea provides the breakthrough for someone else, you were a coauthor.  Not everyone will agree with this and different fields may have different standards.
2) Are you concerned with reciprocating?  I agree with others here that open and honest communication (direct) will clear this up.
I think as a community, us academics can overthink this to the point of being very strict with coauthorships where it is detrimental to the human side of the work. I think the human side is worth considering.