text:
How should I ask professor for letter of recommendation?
I'm a freshman undergrad student, and I'm applying for some programs that require letters of recommendation. I already have one professor who seems happy to write one for me, but I have another who I don't know how to ask. In the past when I've contacted the professor, he has neglected to reply. He's quite busy and disorganized. Most people I've talked with have also had trouble contacting him. In addition, I am worried about asking because I have only had one class with him and I'm not sure he likes me or can actually write much about me.
I have a class with him starting about 3 weeks before the deadline. Should I ask now over email so he has time to look at it? Should I include information about the programs I'm planning on applying to in the initial email, or would that seem presumptuous? Thanks for any help!

I agree it's not a very strong recommendation but the letters need to be from a professor in the field, so he's my only option.

I think you'd be better off with your 'head of school' or the equivalent. That person can at least talk about your academic record.

If he's really your only option, e-mail him and ask if he'd be willing. Keep it short and to the point, just tell him you're applying for a program and ask if he'd be willing to write you a letter. Be sure to mention you'll supply him with a CV and any necessary info to write a proper letter if he agrees.
Hopefully, he'll respond quickly and you can send the necessary info. But as @Roboticist mentioned, you'd really be better off finding someone else if at all possible, especially since he's ignored you in the past.

You probably want to mention which class you took with him and what term it was, hopefully to jog his memory. I agree that it's best to offer to supply any materials and info, but don't include them in the first email.

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


text:
How do I find a collaborator for a social science research project if I'm not in school?
For context: I know exactly the topic and have an idea for the methods. I have done background research and seen what similar research has been done (and how). I have an associate’s degree. I live in Boston where I feel confident there must be some professor or postdoc or grad student who understands the details of the scientific method and academic publishing around here, but I am not in their social circle.
For now, I am mostly looking for someone to at least look over my methods and critique how scientifically sound they are (or perhaps propose better methods). Ideally they would also help me to publish this in an academic journal and offer some guidance as I conduct the project.
I will be doing this research either way as it is about an important social issue. I will be sharing the results with (hopefully) in news media, with (small grassroots) advocacy organizations I work with, and with local legislators. I figure, if I’m doing it either way, it would be best to have the institutional backing of academia. But I don’t really know anyone, so how?

Does your study require IRB approval or is purely secondary data analysis? I don't know of anyone who would be super excited to add an IRB submission to their to-do.

What you describe in your second paragraph sounds like the supervisor/advisee relationship. It sounds like what you want is what you would get from doing a master's degree project. Have you considered that route?

@Azor Ahai At least w my current methods a standard uni researcher would need IRB approval. However, I am not in a university so I’m not sure whether IRB approval actually applies in that case

@GrotesqueSI I have considered that. I would definitely be open to that on another project. For this particular project, we are looking to have results sooner rather than later, and it would take me at least 2 years (probably 4 as I’m working) to complete my bachelor’s degree, to say nothing of master’s. Do you think people would not be open to that sort of collaboration outside of a master’s program? Because if not I’ll stick to asking for general advice on methods

Are you doing this as a personal project, or are you doing this as part of your employment for a company in industry? There’s a difference between collaboration with a random person, and collaboration with an industry partner.

@electriclady Any study that involves human subjects needs review, both to be publishable and ethically. I don't know enough about the social sciences (and you were very vague) to say whether that could mostly be expedited review or whether you need a real IRB.

@Azor Ahai methods would be most similar to the following project: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/0002828042002561 applied to sober homes instead of jobs

@nick012000 not really either, this is something I am tasked to complete as a member of a small political group

My understanding is that universities have IRBs, some companies have IRBs, places like hospitals have IRBs, but no organization I am a part of has an IRB. It is also my understanding that, say, Northeastern's IRB wants nothing to do with me since I am not a student. Is this incorrect?

@electriclady I'm one of the few social science people here and I must say I don't think you are going to have much luck seeking this sort of relationship with an academic outside of study. What you are looking for is time consuming, first of all, and second of all it's what people pay tuition fees for. However crass it may sound, the University doesn't want us to give that sort of supervision and training away for free when normally they would charge for it. Doing further study is how you learn how to do academia and it simply does take time: your time and the supervisors time.

@electriclady Regarding IRBs, a social scientists cannot get involved in your project if it doesn't demonstrably conform to accepted ethical standards, not even as an advisor. If you are doing any data collection at all from humans (even simple surveys) the academic you are working with would have to get ethical clearance to participate. It doesn't matter if you aren't involved with an org that has an IRB, THEY are...and they are bound to only conduct and participate in ethical work anyway.

@electriclady I unfortunately don't want to give any guidance to you on what to expect out of an IRB, but Grotesque is correct, and like I said before, I don't know anyone who wants to do an extra IRB for fun.

There are a lot of universities in and near Boston. They all have websites and the websites usually include lists of faculty and their specialties. Find someone that way and write to them with a proposal and offer to meet with them personally at their convenience. Introduce yourself and give a bit about your ideas, but don't make it too long.
Even if they don't want to work directly with you, many would be willing to give you advice about how to proceed once they know what your interests are. The larger institutions, with grad students, may even have a way for you to work with one of them. But academics are good at giving advice if nothing else.
But, your proposal will need to be pretty compelling, since such people are pretty busy with their normal tasks. Some people will just ignore you for that reason. Keep trying.

Research the local universities' research goals, then contact those which are compatible with your organization's area about becoming an industry or government partner.
You've stated that you're a member of a political organization that this research would be done on the behalf of, so, basically, the goal here is to avoid contacting the individual academics, and instead contact the universities as a whole, while acting as an official representative of your organization - and if you don't have the authority to act as such, either ask your superiors for permission to do so, or for someone who does have that authority to act in your stead.
You'd want to begin the process by researching the areas of research that each individual university nearby prioritizes; you said you were in Boston, and a quick Google search turned up this page for Boston University; I imagine that each other university in the area likely has similar pages on their website, though if you can find a document called something like a "research roadmap" that would also work. Once you find these, consider how your organization's nature would align with these research goals, and contact those universities that you think would have compatible goals, while explaining how partnering with your organization would help advance those goals and benefit the university. For Boston University, there is this page that includes information about how prospective industry partners can contact them; I imagine that other local universities would have similar pages.

Why would an academic spend the time to develop your research skills and expertise for free? Not only that, expose themselves to media critique and potential political condemnation for your "research"? Could it be that what you think of as "research" is actually consulting rather than research. Your aim is publicity and exposure. Not to further the field of science? Will you be spending the time to write up your "research" for peer-review after all the media fanfare?
The aim of academia is not media exposure. Political scrutiny can also destroy careers and funding opportunities for the non-tenured staff? Have you considered political research groups? There are activist and non-governmental organizations with thinktanks and research expertise that can provide the support and structure that you seek. There are academic fields that are more "activistic" than others. Ecology, environmental science, etc all have strong "activistic" leanings, so you would have better luck finding supportive academics in those fields compared to the more politically sensitive areas with more precarious funding.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to Get Into European Grad School in Journalism with a Low GPA
I'm wondering if someone can advise.  I have a BA in Literature and a pretty low GPA under 3.0 from 2008.  I've worked in varied industries, teaching (preschool, ESL) and IT (Data Analysis).  I want to change careers and go into journalism.  I am planning to take some online courses and submit web content/start a blog, but a portfolio is far in the future. I am looking to get a master in journalism in Europe.  The schools I'm focused on are primarily in Germany (HMKW Berlin, Cologne) and CZ.  Also considering applying to France or Belgium.  I'm concerned that I won't get in due to my grades and will need to cast a wide net.
 Is there any way to make my application more attractive to prospective schools? How do I try to make a good impression with school heads on first contact?

Europe is not a uniform block and entrance requirements are pretty different from country to country. GPA is a US thing, each university in Europe may have their own grade translation conventions, and in many cases the GPA may be irrelevant or not particularly relevant. Moreover, what do you mean by grad school, master or PhD? In Europe, many universities require first a master's degree to enter a PhD programme.

I am looking to get a master (preferrably 2 years).  I was concentrating on schools in Germany and CZ, but wanted to cast a wider net (France, Belgium, Italy) because I'm worried I won't get in anywhere.  In the US, bad grades force you to rely on contacts/internships/letters/GREs I'm not sure how it works here.

Not my field or location, but do you need a masters to get in the door in journalism? Or can you get some experience first and then use that to help? It might also make it clear whether this is a good move or not.

Buffy- it helps for contacts and to learn the craft properly, also employers do look at that and I have no experience.  Experience is needed to get in the door and it's pretty competitive.  I tend to want more structured instruction. I picked up some udemy/edX courses in the meantime. I worked in IT (SAS/SQL) previously so I don't have relevant experience.

Related: How do you get a bad transcript past Ph.D. admissions?

Disclaimer: I will try to answer more generally, hence some of the examples will not apply. I have no experience in journalism.
Over the years, for graduate school applications in hard sciences, prior research experience became almost a requirement at the higher level of applicants. These usually present itself as a project done before the application and can add tremendous value to an application. Hard sciences also have serious limitations for undergraduate approach-ability to research. You may need equipment, prior knowledge and an understanding of the state of affairs in your field. Thus, these projects often occur under some form of supervision from a superior researcher / teacher.
In disciplines such as journalism or photography. These prerequisites need not apply. One can get into serious journalistic effort independently, with very little financial need. I know the act of journalism is not the academic study of journalism. However, field experience surely would be valuable. You can also show your eager and edge. For example, all the university newspapers I know are official publications of the universities and therefore subject to a serious amount of censure or whitewashing. Even worse is, their bloodstream is the volunteer work of students on topics that do not actually matter. Literally, any of these students can start a webpage within an hour of learning html, do their independent journalism in issues that matter. Yet to see anyone actually doing it... I had seen a story of systematic sexual assaults by a member of staff in an University broken by the women studies society announced over twitter. I wonder how much sooner, and better we would understand the problem if there was an actual journalist people could talk to.
There are countless things you can do. Write a story. Find something that you are interested in and talk to the people. It is the age of internet. Okay, maybe I can't afford to go to Iran to report on the state of affairs but for example you can find online Iranians will to speak about a particular thing. You can do something local. You can ask how waitresses whose livelihood entirely depend on tips surviving during the pandemic in US. You can get a small tripod and a wireless microphone, record some interviews on your phone, edit it and present. You already are technically capable. Just do it.
For the application end however, it is better for you to demonstrate quality rather then quantity. Maybe start with smaller more frequent stuff and then focus into issues more in depth. Admission boards are less likely to read pages and pages of reports per applicant. But they can maybe read or watch a medium sized article you worked really hard on. Ideally display your academic understanding of journalism. Not only stating facts but commenting, putting in perspective etc. (or whatever it is that proper journalists do, I am not an expert).

I recommend you start a blog, and then also maybe sign up for a journalism course. A lot of prestigious colleges offer extension courses that are accredited and you can learn about what you are trying to get into. It will help you decide if you really want to do journalism. I know that some schools have specific GPA requirements, but a lot say that they are not the required minimum. Look to see if they have certificate/test requirements and do well on the entrance essay. GPA isn't everything!

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


text:
What's a reasonable length of unemployment after finishing my PhD?
I finished my PhD one month ago. I applied to post-docs and I received three firm offers. Those offers are interesting but are (i) not in the field I would ideally like working on, (ii) are not the most strategic choice for my academic career.
What I would be more interested in, and what would be better for my career, is in another domain where the offers are harder to find (but not impossible, I already applied to two of them and I am awaiting their response).
How long can I be unemployed before it looks bad on my academic curriculum? What if, in the worst case, I am without job for one year? Important info: in the meantime I would continue working (I have to finish publishing 3 papers from my PhD). Also, money is not a real problem (the state is giving me money while I find a new job).

Are you sure your payments continue if you turn down offers? Some places they won't. After all, you did apply for them.

@Buffy if you mean the payment from the state, yes this is certain. The state doesn't even know I applied for those offers (and it is international offers). And overall the money is not a real issue (in the worst case I could go back at my parents house for a while).

@Freemp3 It's possible to commit fraud that has a low chance of resulting in any consequences, but it's still fraud. It's certainly possible that the unemployment payments in your locality are not contingent on being unable to find suitable work (suitable by their definition, not yours), but if they are then the worst case (even if it is unlikely) could involve criminal penalties. This wouldn't be something on-topic on this particular site, but it's an important thing for you to clarify for yourself on your own.

Maybe more research about the three groups offering you positions could be done? Do current postdocs publish regularly? Are postdocs regularly first authors? Maybe there is a way to reach out to some of the current group members and chat with them about their projects? Reading between the lines of what's being discussed there, one could deduce the general "postdoc-happiness" in the group. These things could all turn out to be more important than a perfect match of (current) research interests.

If "(ii) are not the most strategic choice for my academic career" meant that one would hope for offers from more "prestigious" institutions, that would not be of importance for postdoc positions (at least from a STEM perspective in the US). A pedigree PhD degree on the CV matters on faculty applications, but for postdocs, prestige of the institution where the postdoc was done hardly matters (liking the research project very much does matter, though).

I don't think it is that important for finding regular "dependent" postdocs (i.e. where someone hires you to do a particular job). However, an important consideration is that many grants for further academic levels require you to have obtained PhD recently ("not later than 3 years ago" is quite common, for example). So if you wait for too long before starting the first position you might loose these opportunities in future

@BryanKrause this is not illegal. According to the law you are in your right to refuse offer if they do not fit for you. It is just that if you are un-employed for too long you finish by losing your rights (i.e the state stops giving you money). Furthermore I would like to keep the money outside of the discussion here, in the worst case I could go back live at my parents for a few months.

Please do not apply for jobs you do not expect to accept.

Of course you apply for jobs that you may not accept after all. It's a great way to practice and eventually you might even like one more than you would have expected (or have an option to take in the end if the ones you wanted badly didn't work out).

@BryanKrause, jumping to the conclusion that this would be fraud is both pretty highly charged and fairly toxic commentary on a relatively innocuous question.

@AnonymousPhysicist I am not applying to job I don't expect to accept... It would be a bad thing to apply to only the ideal postdoc. You need safety for the future. I applied for "many" (i.e about 8) post doc I could be interested in but (i) you realize some "hidden" things behind the offer the moment the contract is given to you (for instance its short duration), and (ii) if you have positive answer to the ones that are at the bottom of your list (in term of preferences) initially it is tricky to know if you should take them right away.

@conjectures: Bryan isn't saying "this would be fraud". Another user mentioned possible conditions on being paid by the state, and OP responded with (in part) "The state doesn't even know I applied for those offers". All Bryan is saying is that whether or not you get caught wouldn't change whether or not it's fraud in the first place, and reminding OP to be aware of their local laws in that regard.

@AnonymousPhysicist one should be applying to multiple jobs that one may accept. By definition, you are courting the chance that you will not accept one or more jobs. And, it is impossible to have all information about a job a priori. As you go through the process, you may learn more about the expected tasks, team, compensation strategy, work culture, etc which were unknown prior to applying which negatively impact your desire to take the job. Your advice not only is bad, it's contrary to most advice given to everyone regarding maximizing compensation and a good fit job-wise.

@iheanyi I agree with you and I do not see why you think I am wrong.  "expect to accept" is not the same as "are certain to accept."

@V2Blast that is a very convoluted explanation. If Bryan wasn't suggesting it was likely to be fraud, then there would have been no more point him writing that comment than writing, "it's possible to brew meth with a low chance of being caught, but meth brewing is still illegal." Obviously everyone knows laws are local and it's entirely redundant to say so. This kind of commentary is liable to just needlessly stress someone out at a difficult point in their life when they came somewhere for help.

@AnonymousPhysicist Reading today, I think I misunderstood your original comment. It seems that I read it as "only apply to a job if you will accept it if offered" which now does not seem like what you were saying.

There is no max, really, but the longer you stay out, the harder it gets to get back in. If you skills get cold/old, if you lose contact with recommenders, if the market changes, then all is uncertain.
You seem to be letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here. Another thing is that you have three "birds" in the hand, but wanting the one in the bush. The old saying works the other way round.
There is nothing that prevents you from changing areas after you have a secure position. But hoping for the perfect outcome in this employment market seems a bit optimistic.
But it is your assessment of risk that matters here.

Edited to add a couple of points.
In the current market, upset due to COVID, and other constraints, I think people would be more willing than in normal times to accept a longer gap. But everyone reading an application makes their own decision. If you aren't doing anything during the gap to increase you skills it will harm you.
Also note that most academic jobs are on an academic year schedule, so a one month gap could actually end up being a year, or half a year anyway.

Also just in general, long gaps become a red flag in hiring decisions, at least in industry (assuming the same is true of academia?). For me a gap is starting to become long as it exceeds 6 months, and is definitely long if it is measured in years not months.

@bob, yes, but it can also depend on what you do with that time, even if it isn't employed work. Keeping skills and contacts can help a lot.

I agree. I think the key is having an explanation that can allay the concerns of the hiring manager if the gap is a long one, though if it's long enough you may not even get to the interview stage (e.g. a 2 year gap).

I don't know your field, but at least in my area (chemistry):

Postdocs almost exclusively last two years or less. Some are for as little as 6 months. Even the two year postdocs are often phrased as "one year, with the option for two if mutually agreed upon".
On the academic track, it is expected to do multiple postdocs before trying to get, say, a tenure track position.

With these in mind, my response would be "why not do both?". Take one of these less related post-docs if it is a short enough stint and continue applying for more relevant post-docs.
It depends how certain you are that you can secure an offer in a short amount of time. If you think it will take 1-2 extra months to get this more relevant post-doc, its probably better to wait. If takes 6 or more extra months, you probably would have been better off taking the less relevant post-doc during that stretch.

Thank you for your answer. I am waiting for three answers on those other post-doc and I might get them in January so it is not very far from now. But again there is a chance I don't get the position. About your remark: my PhD was very multidisciplinary and now is the time for me to get specialized. I think it is important that I start to get really focused on a topic in order to get a strong expertise. Especially because the topics in question are quite technical and require a good investment to be understood properly.

Good point. +1.To OP: I would like to add that if you are still working on your PhD results, in a way you are not really out of academia. In particular if you keep physical presence at your PhD institution. Every visitor will perceive you as an active member of the group, or you can probably go to conferences and meetings as before, etc. So a few months stop won't be seen as a stop in reality. For a prolonged period take almost every post doc you might get (logistic not taken into account, here).

I think this is a good answer as the OP has only finished their PhD a month ago so there is no real pressure to decide right now and is specifically asking about time-frames.

After finishing my PhD i had a six month contact with the lab next door to my PhD lab. I was unemployed for a year after finishing that, very much like you i published two papers (and a textbook chapter) during that time. I kept up with the field, keeping in contact with the lab i had a six month position with.
Nobody has ever questioned that one year gap in my CV. Perhaps it weighed against me in hiring decisions, who knows? But i always found a job when i needed one after that, so it can't have weighed too negatively.

Good there are positive examples, that one doesn't need to give up hope for an academic career just because of extended gaps of employment. In fact, if it's sufficient to only specify the starting and ending years and leave out the months, and the OP starts a postdoc a year from now (i.e., in November 2022), the CV will show PhD obtained in 2021 and postdoc start in 2022, i.e. no gap visible without further information.

Since the OP has three offers for postdoc positions and is considering to risk to be without academic employment, rather than being unemployed due to current lack of offers beyond the control of the OP, my advise for an academic career would be to follow @Buffy's advise and to be very cautious about rejecting offers when the future is uncertain.

An additional point to consider: for an academic career, the publication output after the PhD is crucial. One of the typical measures of success a hiring committee will look at is how many publications there are in the years after the PhD (besides obviously the quality of the publications and if the candidate had a leading role, etc.) So if it's more than a few months break (say a year), it can already give a disadvantage in the competitive academic job market. The OP mentions three publications to be finalized from the PhD; that is good, but what really matters is the research output one is able to produce independently from the PhD advisors. That being said, "follow-up" postdocs to bridge time of up to a year at the PhD institution aren't uncommon (although not a good way to establish and demonstrate independence).
For job applications in general, anything more than a few months of gap in a CV typically would require some form of explanation. If there are many applicants for a competitive position, the hiring committee members can make their busy lives easier by sorting out CVs where something 'seems slightly off'.

Thank you for your answer. But aren't the comittee looking at the time worked after the PhD: if you have a break of 3 months, then a contract of one year, for them they will consider that you only had this one year of contract to evaluate your experience. For instance I am aware that in France (my country), for permanent positions, they remove from considerations the un-employed periods, they only include in consideration the time where the person has actually be employed. But indeed I don't know if that is the case everywhere.

I don't know the French system, but in others (USA and Germany, e.g.) it is often the years that have passed since the PhD that matter. This can apply both to hiring committee evaluations and cut-off dates for fellowships and award applications with such limitations (awards often within a few years to 10 max. after the PhD). Eligibility for positions under the German tenure track program from 2016, e.g., generally require the PhD degree not to be older than 4 years, and time taken off for childcare needs to be documented so that the 4 years can be extended.

In the context of the French academic system, this question could be relevant: is there a maximum age for assistant professorship applications? If so, being a year "out of the system" could be a big disadvantage due to fewer publications. @Freemp3, if you know more about the French system, your comments or answers to the linked question could be helpful.

Thank for the comment. Actually I agree with you I think we are just talking about different things. I am thinking about the evaluation of a committee of your performances (i.e paper published per year). From what I understood they only take into account the worked time (but information to be taken with some care). Now I agree with you that for fellowships or things like this they take the time since the PhD ended. Do you have any information regarding this first par of my comment or you indeed only thought about this second part of my comment ?

I don't know if there are specific academic systems (as maybe the French one?), where paper output would be normalized by employed time for the purpose of identifying whom to hire from typically a huge pool of applicants to the few faculty positions out there. In practice (unless there are very specific rules that force the committee to basically give the candidate credit for time of unemployment for lack of publication output), one would pick the most productive and active candidate possible, and the only thing I know of (USA) that is taken into account is the age of the PhD.

A three month gap between completing your PhD and your first postdoc does not look bad, especially because of the pandemic. Since there is no guarantee you will get an offer in January, I think it is a mistake to not accept one of your three current offers. A one year gap is certainly far worse than one year spent in a sub-optimal postdoc. You should expect your career and other areas of your life to have zigs and zags. It is never a straight line to your planned destination.

How long can I be unemployed before it looks bad on my academic curriculum?

Two months will not look bad.  More than six months is likely to look bad, assuming there is not a reason for unemployment which is beyond your control.  In between two and six months is a matter of personal opinion.


text:
What can be disclosed in letters of recommendation under FERPA?
I rarely hear of students signing FERPA release forms when asking for letters of recommendation. Yet letters of recommendation commonly talk about student's performance in a class, projects they did in a class, their GPA/courseload, etc. Mentioning such things imply that a student took a given class (which I understand to be something protected by FERPA).
Are letter writers just assuming students asking for letters are implicitly waiving their FERPA rights?

I myself certainly do imagine an implicit waiver/permission from the student when they ask me to write letters of recommendation... but I'd not thought of the possible necessity of having a signature on a form... I've not heard any such thing mentioned around my university, here in Midwest U.S.

You’re supposed to ask each student to explicitly waive their FERPA rights via a written form before writing a letter. For example, see this explainer. This is highly impractical, and my impression is that 99% of faculty ignore this and just write letters that don’t follow FERPA anyway. It’s a very annoying and unsatisfying situation.

Prior to asking I was trying to search for the answer and came across such forms. But I have never seen them actually used, hence my question.

As an initial disclaimer, I am a professor, not a lawyer, so my position here certainly should not be relied on as legal advice. FERPA is a law in the United States with potentially harsh penalties (generally falling on the University) for violations. I have formed these opinions reading articles on the Department of Education website, directives from my university, and questions on this stack.
There is little or nothing I could write in an undergraduate or masters-level letter of recommendation absent a FERPA waiver. All of my interactions with these students are somehow related to their academic record. I could confirm directory information about a student, but as a faculty member, I am not the responsible party for confirming that information. Further, since I only teach a couple of undergraduate courses, even confirming I know a student  would likely reveal protected information on their academic record.
The case is slightly different for PhD students who are entering the job market. Lack of a FERPA waiver would certainly restrict what I write. However, these letters usually contain objective evaluations of the student's research, which in my field will be at least public working papers by the time I write the letter. I feel that I could discuss my impressions of these papers without disclosing details of that student's academic record. I may (I am not sure) also be able to comment on details of their employment for me as a research assistant or teaching assistant. Again, these points are moot in my case because I require a waiver as a prerequisite to providing recommendations.
I will add that I am likely an exception in that I require any student I write a recommendation for provide a completed FERPA waiver prior to my writing the letter. I further include a notice at the end of each letter that I have provided the information in the letter under a waiver of FERPA rights. Anyone writing a letter for someone they knew as a student in a US university should be doing these things, but I am under the impression many don't.

How do you handle students applying to countries where these rights can't be waived ? If they are applying to a UK university (e.g. for a PhD or postdoc), a Freedom of Information request to the receiving university would almost certainly require the university to produce these letters.

@Marianne013: There's two separate issues here, one is whether the student has the right to see the letter, and the other is what information you're allowed to put in the letter. I took this question to be asking about the latter. Technically according to FERPA you need a waiver from the student to share that they took your class or anything about their performance in your class with a third party. I don't think UK law effects whether students can waive their right to stop you from writing about their class performance

@Marianne013 [Usual INAL disclosure] Only recommendations that I submit for admission to US academic programs would have the expectation that they would be covered by FERPA stemming from the receiving university's obligation to keep application materials private. Likewise, a letter sent to a US university by faculty in a country where a the student could request a copy via FOIA would still be protected from disclosure by the US university.

[Still not a lawyer] Non-US universities or potential employers (even US universities) do not have FERPA obligations on the recommendations I submit. And they may willingly or through FIOA be compelled to release letters. The FERPA waiver allows me to disclose records but it does not grant rights to or create obligations on the party I send recommendations to.


text:
Can I intern at my own company?
So I founded a company as a PhD student and I want to work on company products over the summer times. Do I take a leave of absence or can I take an internship at my own company during that time?
What's the right way to do this?

Leave of absence from what? The company or the doctoral program?

This sounds like an XY problem to me. Can you maybe start with explaining what the problem/goal is? What is it that you want to achieve? I think that will be more effective than starting from your solution ("interning at your own company", whatever that means).

I want to spend time on company products instead of working as a researcher over the summers

A possibly minor point is about letters of recommendation later: probably your own letter for yourself from such an internship wouldn't carry much weight?

There is some question of if I am expected to work as a researcher over the summer. If I am making really compelling progress I would probably try to take another 3+ months off to continue working on it.

Are you paid to research for the university during the summer? Will working on your outside project slow your time-to-degree? I do not understand your comment - if you are unclear on whether you are expected to work on research over the summer how do you expect others to answer your question?

It would slow my time to degree obviously, the question is what the best approach to take to do what I want while following university policies. There is already a rule saying people can take internships so I am considering if interning at my own company is the best approach or if taking a leave of absence would be better. I guess the question is, can I be stopped from interning at my own company vs some place else?

@FourierFlux Guessing it's going to be between you and your university whether or not it's okay to use their internship rules. They may define what exactly an internship is, and limit it to particular companies or experiences providing certain educational benefits like training, which you can't provide at your own company.

What country are you in? I'm in physics in the UK and a friend of mine did exactly this. He was allowed to pause his PhD for the duration of the internship and got funding from the research council to pay for it.

I am in the US.

It looks like you've clarified what problem you're trying to solve in the comments, but that really needs to be included in the question itself. Would you mind editing the question to make it clear what problem you're trying to solve and why? That will make the question more helpful for others in a similar situation.

can I take an internship at my own company during that time?

As a matter of pure semantics, I think the answer is that you cannot logically intern at your own company, in the sense that being a founder, owner, and regular employee (let alone CEO or some other high-level function which presumably you have) of a company is a distinct status from that of an intern. So being an intern at your own company is simply a notion that doesn’t make sense.
However, this seems to be just a matter of how you phrased the question. What you really seem to be asking is a slightly different question, which is, if I’m understanding correctly:

will working over the summer months at your company satisfy your school’s requirement that students in the program you’re enrolled at do research or an internship over the summer?

The answer to that is:

Only your school can say for sure. You’ll have to ask them. But also,

I think it’s very likely that the answer will be yes, at least if your school is reasonable and your company can be convincingly shown to be doing interesting things that are related to the kind of research your program wants students to be doing.

What's the right way to do this?

Explain the situation to the people at your school and ask them whether they would approve for you to keep working at your company over the summer months in lieu of the usual internship/research requirement. Be prepared to explain what kind of work you’ll be doing and to provide evidence that the company is a real company working on real things. It might be helpful if you have other people who are involved and can attest to the nature of the venture, such as a co-founder or investors, since trying to convince people based on your word alone might come across as a bit sketchy, at least if the venture is new and still hasn’t produced anything substantial.
Good luck!

I'd say that "no" can also be a rather reasonable answer. For example, if they don't believe you'll get the guidance they want at your own company, or if they expect to be able to talk to your superior at the company (or perhaps even if they have doubts and don't want to spend the extra time validating that you'll be getting the things they want). It very much depends on what the aims of the "summer internship" are.

@Jasper if they “expect to be able to talk to your superior” and that’s the only reason for denying your request, then, respectfully, they are idiots. Starting your own company shows a much greater level of industriousness and entrepreneurism than interning at someone else’s, so yes, denying the request over such narrow-minded concerns would be unreasonable IMO. The only reasonable reasons I can think of for denial would be if OP’s company is not a real venture but something that exists only in OP’s head, or is based on an clearly foolish idea or one that’s in a completely different industry.

It really depends on the region you live in whether this is allowed. I've had a classmate who had himself and 5 of his classmates as interns. That was sufficient, I would just ask your school about it.

@DanRomik Well, if they already had confidence in your industriousness and entrepreneurism, and working in a team is a focus of the summer program (and getting unbiased account on how that's going is considered important) it makes perfect sense. And that's my point: it all depends on what the aims of the program are.

What are your school's policies and practices for summer activities?
The university where I received my MSci required summer work in order to receive full funding. My PhD institution only required work for the main nine months of the school year. Summer work was optional and funding was limited.
This is very much dependent on what your school requires. If they require you to do research in summers to receive funding, then you will need to work something out with them and no one here is going to be much help specifically. If you are free to do what you want in the summer, then I guess that solves your problem.
If you have to go through some loophole such as one where your school requires you to either do research or an internship, then maybe you will have to do an internship for your self. That would be a really strange policy though.
Do keep in mind a balance of goals. You only have so many semesters to work through your degree before your school begins to push back. Most places (at least in the US) do not like their PhD students taking more than six years (or so) to complete a PhD. Summer research can be an important component of timeline management. On the other hand, industry/"real" experience can be very vital long term for your career.

I will add that you may need to examine how substantive your business idea/company truly is. I have no idea one way or the other how significant your work is. Maybe it will be the next Google. Maybe it will be an app that has fewer than 100 downloads. Be careful to balance credible research experience with experimental personal projects.
(I only bring this up because I recently had a job applicant who essentially "interned" for himself for a year. He produced an app with fewer than 40 downloads and it was only very loosely tied to his actual field of work. He acted like he should be given credit for a significantly impactful work, when it was in fact an app that essentially already existed and to which he had just added some gingerbread).

Agreed. My PhD stipend included research during the summer. In the early years summer was the time to focus on getting projects going.

I have some ideas involving sensor fusion and computer vision for DoD and police applications. I would consider making it as part of a PhD but I don't want the university to make money off my idea.

@FourierFlux Never say never of course. But I do wonder if you will be able to successfully sell a product to DoD while also pursuing a PhD on a separate topic. I get that universities can be black holes for privately created IP, but you may have a very hard path ahead of you if you try to balance two independent projects like this. (For reference, I work for the DoD as a researcher, so I am decently familiar with how this works). Again though, best wishes. Maybe you will surprise someone.


text:
How to generate credible research in a non-academic setting
How is research normally done in corporate settings or other settings outside of an academic environment? More importantly how do you get the research to be given credit to you by those in the academic community?

Publish in academically reputed venues.

Do you mean corporate labs (e.g. IBM Research Lab), corporate development (say, Novellus for semiconductor equipment), national labs (e.g. Los Alamos), or what? Very very broad.

@JonCuster, and some of those places have some of the same characteristics as academia, especially in promoting collaboration.

@Buffy - one could perhaps say that any environment doing research will have many characteristics in common with academia, since that is where folks came from and what the organization wants to emulate. Things get fuzzier as you move to more engineering and development parts of the operations. Either way, conferences (even trade shows) and publications are needed.

corporate development I assume,

For most people, doing good research requires some level of collaboration. Perhaps a lot, perhaps only a little. But you almost certainly need an environment (physical or virtual) in which you can bounce ideas off of others and get some feedback on whether they seem worthwhile to pursue. Many minds are more powerful than one (unlike cooks).
Some organizations like Google and IBM Research provide this collaborative atmosphere and have many opportunities to gain perspective and share ideas. They will have research "groups", just as a university has groups and seminars. Even in an R1 university in the US, the coffee room can be a most valuable asset.
If you are in academia, but at a small Liberal Arts College in the US, it can be hard to find enough people locally to share ideas with. So you have to cast a wider net to find people interested in the same things you are. One way, perhaps, is to have visitors come to talk to students and give you an opportunity to share ideas.
If you are still a graduate student it is a good time to start to build a collaborative network. You can draw on that of your professor(s) but also among students in the same sub-fields. Conferences are also a good way to do this, provided that you are willing to be outgoing with your peers. Having "business cards" with contact information is good in such environments, though "tapping phones" is probably the modern equivalent.
Another thing that helps you write the papers that makes you "credible" is to make sure that you don't get stuck on individual problems. Your collaborators can help, but so can a simple notebook of research ideas that you develop over time. If one project seems to be blocked, perhaps all you need is to spend some effort on another to "free up" the blocked synapses. Sometimes pushing too hard on a problem just results in spinning the mental wheels. Have a way to take break, either a productive one or, perhaps some aerobic activity.


text:
PhD Partial thesis and changing advisors(or transferring universities)
Suppose you have written part of a thesis(normally a PhD thesis in my field has 2-3 parts, each part may be different from the others).
How is it handled if you change advisors? Can you keep the parts of the thesis you have completed?
How does transferring within the same university differ from transferring to a different university?

Ask your new supervisor.  Likely depends whether you changed topics.

The answer depends entirely on your advisor and program/university's policies (especially the 'new' one of each).
I know of several people who changed PhD advisors for a variety of reasons: loss of advisor's funding, advisor moving to a different university, unexpected inability of an advisor to continue advising (illness, death, etc), personal conflict.
In these cases, when students had made substantial process, their prior work was included in their thesis when they moved to a new advisor within the same program. Some of these advisors worked closely with the previous advisor, or were part of the student's thesis committee.
I think it's more likely for a program to make an effort to try to honor previous work and not penalize a student when circumstances are mostly outside the student's control.
I don't know of any examples where someone transferred from one university to another and used prior work towards a thesis, but transfers between universities are rare for PhDs in general.

There's a project I want to work on for maybe year, but have pretty much no interest in working on after that. I'm interested in another sub area of the same general field though.  I'm considering how difficult it would be to finish up this project and then move onto another advisor if mine isn't interested in working on this other area.

@FourierFlux That's not usually how a PhD works. I wouldn't recommend starting with an advisor you don't plan to finish with (and doing so is incredibly rude), changing advisors is for situations that cannot be salvaged. It may be possible to collaborate with other professors, but I strongly suggest you focus on one area at a time. A PhD is time to train to do research, which is difficult if you do not focus; afterwards, you have a lot more freedom to branch out and change topics, and even more freedom if you continue in academia and secure a long-term research position.

I will finish the project I started, but I won't continue after that in this area. I have no responsibility to continue and don't see any obligation. I wouldn't mind using the same advisor but if they aren't interested in my interests I see nothing wrong with switching.

@FourierFlux Based on your history of questions, I suspect you don't really care what people think so I don't know why you keep asking here. You may see it as not wrong, but I reiterate to you that it seems quite rude to me. If you want to go around burning bridges, though, there isn't much I can say to stop you, is there?

The question isn't on your opinion of what I owe an employer, it's simply asking how much of my project I will likely be able to transfer over.

@FourierFlux A PhD advisor is not an employer, they are a mentor and resource to your learning.


text:
Interesting vs tractable PhD topics
When one starts a PhD, should it be based upon interest or tractability of the project? If a project fails is switching advisors a reasonable option within the same department?
I have a couple options for PhD, one is an area I am more interested in but it's a more open ended problem with potentially less straightforward solutions. It also gives a background in more areas I am interested in learning and more industry applicable(focused on making novel system which works).
The other I don't think I want to work on for 4 years but probably will be more straightforward, it's also less useful to industry(I think) and more theoretical in nature. It is a continuation(mostly) of what I already know.
I'm not sure what to do, I have no interest in staying in academics so a PhD which is more focused on an applied topic which could be used to spin up a company is a lot more interesting to me but I obviously don't want it to fail.

What is your motivation for doing a PhD?

It sounds like you should just do a start-up if you're not that interested in doing research? If your main goal is to do a start-up then why wait 5 years to do it? You should also be aware that earning PhD does not imply you will make a high wage, in fact, in the long run, economically you might be better off just not doing a PhD.

I don't have all the skills for a startup and the PhD will cover additional classes and give me more hands on experience with a few systems I wouldn't normally have access to. I'm interested in research but I want it to be transferable to a physical product.

So why is the more straightforward/theoretical topic even an option? It seems entirely disconnected from your motivation.

The more theoretical project is more straightforward?  That's a new one.

The bar for theoretical projects is arbitrarily low in so far as you can nearly an unlimited number of assumptions. On the other hand if you want to build a system which has predefined goals it's much harder

You give a false dichotomy, because you should be doing a project that you are interested in and one that can be completed. There's no point in choosing a topic you hate working on for 5 years but is solvable just as there's no point in choosing a topic you're passionate about but not even those who have studied it for decades could solve (possible, but highly unlikely). Therefor, the answer to your question is to choose a solvable problem that you are interested in.
However, if you're interested in living in a binary world, then choose a project that is tractable and you hate. If you are concerned about getting a PhD, then it's better to complete a project and receive the degree than to work hard on a problem and receive no degree.

Hmm I see your point, I think the real question is - suppose I work for 2 years on a problem and don't make much progress but can exit with a second MS. Should this be viewed as a failure or not? If I am getting something from the PhD process itself, independent of the degree it seems that should be factored in.

Also what about changing advisors if it goes bad? Doable?

What does it matter to us if you gaining a second masters is considered to be a failure or not? It’s really up to you to define what you consider to be success and what you don’t. Second, changing advisors is a serious thing you shouldn’t take lightly. What would be the reason you would be switching advisors? Furthermore, how do you know you’ll be able to switch to the advisor you want when you come to the decision to switch? And what would you define “goes bad” to be?

If the projects ended up as either intractable or unsupported, I would think switching advisors would be a reasonable course of action. In the departments own handbook they said switching advisors was fairly common within the first few years.....

It’s not uncommon, but that doesn’t take away from the seriousness of the implications in doing so. For example, you may end up on a new project you don’t like, you may end up with a prof who doesn’t tailor to your style, you may end up burning more time than you’d like, you may be in a position where what you think will happen doesn’t pan out the way you’d like, you may end up developing skills you don’t want to be developing. I say all of this because it sounds like you haven’t considered the implications too carefully of switching advisors.

choose a solvable problem that you are interested in — If you ever figure out how to identify such problems, please let me know.  (I've always worked on multiple interesting problems at once, in the hopes that some of them might be solvable.)

@JeffE I find that hard to believe if you're a full professor haha! You must have identified a problem, at least have been somewhat interested in it, done research, and published your results at least once to gain tenure. If you’re only researching problems you’re uninterested in AND publishing, then I applaud your perseverance for staying in the game for so long.

@GrayLiterature Oh, no, I've found lots of interesting open problems to work on.  I made progress on enough of them to be successful, but most of them are still open and interesting.

I think that a good PhD adviser will guide you to a project that is interesting and doable. Look for potential thesis advisers and see what their past students have done.


text:
Secretly switching research topics and funding oddities
When I joined my current PhD program I talked to my advisor about wanting to work on a different research topic than the one I was to work on initially and he said yes. I made clear I wasn't interested in working on the initial topic long term.
A year has past and I talked to him about switching over to the topics I am interested in - he says "OK" but wants to continue funding from the initial project which is a large multi-university research project with frequent meetings. He wants me to continue to go to meetings associated with the first project and basically told me that we can jerry rig the funding into supporting what ever we want. This sounds good except the rest of the people on the initial project continue to think I am working on the initial topic full time and are expecting results. I'm not really sure how to handle this.
The outcomes I can see are.

The advisor starts complaining to me about not working on the "funded" research topic when the rest of the team starts complaining. If this is an issue, I will find a different advisor or exit with MS and enter into industry since I have no interest in working on the initial topic long term and I made that clear upon entering.

The rest of the team starts complaining to me about not making enough progress on the topic under the idea that I am working on it, when the reality is I have no intention to work on it and the advisor knows this.

Basically, I feel I am put into a difficult situation where my advisor wants to keep funding under the guise of working on this project while not working on it and I feel I will take the brunt of the inevitable blowup that will come eventually.
This wouldn't be a problem if the topic was broad in the funding documentation but the writing for my advisors role in the grant is very specific.

This might be field-specific, but nonetheless: in my field (cond-mat), it is very, VERY common that people (phd students and postdocs) officially employed withing certain funding schemes bound to specific projects spend most of their time working on other stuff. In the end, what counts is that your supervisor is happy with your performance and your results, and lack of progress on the "funded" research topic is going to be his problem, not yours. It is very unlikely to hear a supervisor complaining about their students not progressing well on one topic while doing really well on the other. Of course, a certain level of mutual trust between you and your supervisor is necessary, but that is good to have in any case.

Thanks, a problem is this extends beyond other universities to involving at least 60% of my department faculty and a couple professors are obsessed with pushing it. This faculty I am sure is going to develop a poor opinion of me as incompetent unless they know that we're basically working on other things.

@FourierFlux You know, at first I was going to reply with smth like "you are worrying too much, it's all your supervisor responsibility". Indeed, if your PhD is going to be "successful" (I mean not just you get your diploma, but you also get good results and publish good papers on your topic of interest), no one is going to judge you on the progress within the other topic you did not want to work on. Literally no one. So, by switching topics you - sort of - "raised the stakes" during your PhD. Do it well and it will be ok.

If the supposed contribution is very specific there might be problems, but they should concern your supervisor rather than you.
This is valid assuming a coherent behavior from its part.
It might be unpleasant go to meetings with no updates but this happen to some of the participants nevertheless. Trust your supervisor. S/he is the one responsible and the one potentially loosing collaboration or future funding. Not you. Just try to be as brilliant as you can during the international meetings, so that people have a good impression of you.
Edit: of course you and supervisor must still play. A situation in which you go to meetings just saying "we are not interested and do nothing on this" is almost untenable. I experienced such situations, just they were natural outcomes of projects. They were not cold planned as in your case. Indeed my answer has nothing to do with the overall correctness of this choice.

And I've also upvoted Earl Grey and sleepy answer below.

For clarity: I answered before the other answers had appeared. Otherwise I would have upvoted both of them, only.

It sounds bad, it is bad, it is reality: if the multi-university research project is an european funded project, you need only to formally deliver the deliverables and respect the milestones on time. There are no other duties. Then every partner in the project will do its own research, publications and so on, which may or may not aligneate 100% with the project.
So yes, your advisor is setting to sail along course 2, if the other partners get very loud then switching to course 1.
Take fundings for granted, do research on your theme, ask directly your advisor what to do with the multi-university project.
From the way your advisor is acting, it looks like they are not really waiting for your results to progress in the project, but the results will be needed at the end to present a nicely done project.
However, results in science are publications and papers, not some figures in some report sent to the bureaucrats evaluating the goodness of the project (hint: they cannot, they can only evaluate the form, not the substance).


text:
What do master's programs look for in candidates?
I've read at quite a few places about criteria for admissions to graduate programs.
A common theme was that a typical PhD program's admission committee looks for evidence of research potential in the application.
However no such thing is said about a Master's program. So, I want to ask the academia folks: What does a typical Master's program's admission committee look for in an application?
If this is too broad: the field is Computer Science, and the countries interesting universities are based in are US/UK/Switzerland. General Answers are also welcome.

Are you asking about professional programs (intended to train students for industry workforce needs) or academic programs (intended to educate generally in the subject and prepare students for PhD programs or community college teaching)?

@AlexanderWoo  If the answer talks about both and also generically (i.e sometimes programs  don't specify/do both, sometimes they give the student that option (research vs coursework) in their second year, etc.)

Master's degree in CS / Information Science (and many other fields) are a big revenue source. Some ethical universities will want to restrict admissions to students who have a good chance of succeeding in the program. They will also want to ensure that graduates of the program are likely to increase their value in the market place, at least sufficiently to set of the costs of going back to school. Some ethical universities use the caveat emptor principle, which means that they will give good and honest information to applicants, but accept all applicants that fulfill the requirements. And then there are universities who see the MS program as a purely commercial transactions. They will not lie, but leave it to the applicants to figure out whether they are a good fit and whether going through the program is going to lead to a better job. And then there are unethical universities who give out misleading information. One way to protect against falling victim to these programs is to look at reputation, because academia is pretty good at finding out what others are up to.
(Why are MS degrees a revenue source? The number of undergraduate student is stagnating now and going to fall soon. Ph.D. students are expensive, since they take up a lot of faculty time and maybe lab spaces. But there are many people in the work-force that are "stuck" in their current level and therefore are looking for new capabilities that are certified. These people often have paid of their student loans and now have disposable money. They might also remember their college days fondly and look for a repetition. At the same time, the workforce gets more and more specialized and cannot find employees with certain capabilities (like right now data analytics). Thus, from the university's point of view, there is a big market, they can serve the needs of the prospective students, and they do not need to lay out money for financial support. For a public university, they are not restricted by legislative mandates.)
In short, in my field, a MS is mainly a commercial transaction. Universities in general try to offer a good value for the money and time spent on the students. Some will want to ensure a high success rate, others rely on the students themselves making a good decision, and there are some who will admit anybody with a breath and an undergraduate degree.
The difference to the Ph.D. is that a Ph.D. student is initially a big investment of time and money, and a later pay-off once the Ph.D. student has become productive. A MS student pays for their way through school as they go.

For a coursework Masters program the admissions are generally determined by performance in a related undergraduate degree, or failing that, equivalent professional experience.  For a research Masters program the admissions may be slightly more geared towards the assessment of "research potential" but with a lower expectation than admission to a PhD program.  Aside from that, there are many universities with these programs, so many varitions on exactly what they require/prefer for incoming students.

I'm not sure that "typical" masters degree program is a valid concept, actually. There are several kinds. Some are considered terminal degrees, though not usually in CS (MBA, for example).
Most look for undergraduate success and, in the US at least, probably good letters of recommendation. An expressed "eagerness" is probably also a plus, though subtle.
Some programs are purely course based, not unlike an undergraduate degree but with more advanced topics. Some have a research component, though usually time limited, restricting what can be attempted. But a research background in undergrad is unlikely to be required, though treated as a positive.
Some programs are a stepping stone to a doctorate, and some are awarding during doctoral study, perhaps for some extra effort, though not always even that. Asking is enough in some places. But those students were accepted using different criteria than the others.
I've known of programs that are primarily for employed students, perhaps in an area with specific needs to advance the skills of some industry/industries. Places with high-tech concentrations for example. They might look for experience in one of the industries served.
But, it probably boils down mostly to "Will this student benefit from the program and contribute in some way."
And some just treat masters degrees as a revenue source. Some take nearly every applicant, though the applicants are self selecting to some extent. Those who hate schooling and are bad at it are unlikely to apply.
And a "typical" admissions committee, when used, looks for indicators of success in that program whatever its characteristics. If a program accepts nearly all applicants, there might not even be a committee, treating admissions as a clerical function, checking boxes against admissions materials.

Swiss (public) institutions do not care about your money as the tuition fee is heavily subsidized by the government. The acceptance rate for international students is surprisingly high, even at the best institution ETH Zurich. (high) GPA/ranking in your class, graduation from a reputable institution, recommendation letters will be the main factors contributing to the chance of getting accepted.
You also need to fulfill some prerequisite requirements regarding relevant courses taken at previous institutions. For CS Master it is expected that you have already done some CS courses (Data Structures/Algorithms for example), some maths courses (Real Analysis, Linear Algebra, Discrete Maths, etc), etc.
The living cost is cut-throat... There are highly competitive full scholarships. At ETH Zurich there is the ETH Zurich Excellence Master Scholarship, but you have to prepare an excellent research proposal, and even if you have a good one, as I said, it's competitive. It is good to know German. There will be more TA opportunities available to those who are proficient in German. The hourly wage is quite attractive.

This does not apply to Executive degrees, diplomas for professional people by the way!

I would also note that Swiss Master's are more of a continuation of undergraduate studies and heavily course-based. Additionally, the access to master degrees, even at EPFL and ETHZ, is not selective for Swiss university graduates; acceptance to most programs is guaranteed by law if you have a corresponding Bachelor degree from a Swiss university.

Yes that was the reason why I only mentioned international acceptance rate @xngtng.

You should be aware that the UK Masters/MSc market is different from the way things work in other countries, courses are almost exclusively one (calendar) year long and primarily taught (usually about 2/3rds of the overall course weighting).
Since the teaching style isn't too different from undergraduate patterns, admissions panels are broadly looking for similar things; good grades, evidence of interest in the subject area and no obvious weaknesses on the technical side of things. Letters of reference don't usually play a big part unless the author is known & trusted, or the letter is written in a way which damns with faint praise. As with Buffy's answer, some departments use MSc students (particularly international MSc students) as a major revenue stream, leading to fairly large (i.e. undergraduate size) classes.
A small number of institutions offer Masters by Research (MRes) courses, which have a far smaller number of classes and include more training in how to conduct primary research. These are frequently linked to PhD places as an integrated degree, running a little bit more in the US style.

Keep in mind that, at least in the US, the commitment a university puts into a Masters student is much less than that put into a Ph.D. student, from recruitment expenses until the day they graduate.
If a university admits a Ph.D. student they shouldn't have, they've "wasted" (not quite the right word) any money spent bringing that student to campus for tours and interviews.  They've wasted a fairly limited slot (departments often have a limit on how many Ph.D. students they can accept). They've wasted tuition waivers.
For Masters, all of this is of much less concern (in the US).  A student gets admitted, and a year or two later, they graduate, or don't.
Mostly, what admissions committees look for for Master's students is a feeling that they can handle (i.e., pass) the courses in the curriculum.  There's a higher bar if an individual Masters program is highly competitive, of course.