text:
Sample Research Grant White Paper
I am working on a research grant proposal and the funding agency requires us to turn in a white paper before the actual proposal. I have no clue how a research grant white paper should look like. I tried googling and searching in the university library, but could not find anything similar. Will somebody be able to give me a link to a research grant white paper, something which I can look at and learn the format? (my field is computer science)

In what field?  For what funding agency?

What's a white paper?

Hi @JeffE, this is in computer science, and this is for a government funding.

@picmate: I haven't ever written a white paper myself, but I'm sure the required structure depends on the specific funding agency.  NSF?  DARPA?  DOE?  NIH?  DHS?  The main trick is to find someone who has written a successful white paper or proposal for that agency (if not the specific program director).

Based on a little Googling, his white paper sounds like a preproposal. It is likely a short overview over your research project: the problem you are working on, your approach to solving it, how much it will cost, and what you and/or the agency will get out of it. Consider this white paper an outline of your full proposal.
Many agencies will ask for these if they expect a particular program or funding opportunity will have a high response or if the purpose of the program is to provide a single large award to one project. The prepreposals are used to narrow the field before they ask for full proposals from a smaller set of submitters.
I have not been successful at finding examples, since proposals and affiliated documents are almost never released unless they are funded. However, I have found some tips for preparing white papers from Rochester Institute of Technology and Purdue.

Well, the funded ones are the ones you'd want to see as examples.


text:
What are risks or disadvantages in uploading to figshare or related services?
Figshare lets researches publish figures and data for long-term archival and public access. I just found out about it and find the idea sympathetic. See for example their F.A.Q..
What risks are involved with publishing my data and figures at figshare? What are the disadvantages? Did anyone actively decide against doing so, and if so, why?

Well, some journals have a "no prior publication" rule in place. These rules often preclude publishing anything that has already appeared in online databases that are freely accessible, so publishing figures in advance of a publication in a medium like this could be construed as violating such a policy. Since anything publicly posted gets published under a CC-BY license, so this almost assuredly counts with those journals as "prior publication."
In addition, anything that could be considered "confidential" or "proprietary" information definitely should not be posted on such a site until you have secured the necessary permissions from project partners and affiliates. That would also apply to "private" hosting of the figures.
Your own university or research institution may have policies that have some bearing on the ability to use such sites, so check with them as well. Better safe than sorry.
(Note: Those cautions aside, I do think it's a clever idea, and I hope it can catch on!)

With regards to prior publishing, F1000 research has looked into this (http://f1000research.com/about/?utm_source=jrnlbtn) in some detail and found the following journals are okay with it:
BMC journals
BMJ Group journals
Elsevier journals
IOS Press journals
The Lancet journals
Nature-titled journals
PLoS journals
RSC journals
SAGE journals
Adv Clin Neurosci Rehabil
Bioinformatics
Cardiovasc Ther
Ecol Lett
Eur J Neurosci
Int J Eat Disord
Int J Obstet Anesth
J Clin Invest
J Neurol
J Neurosci
J Pain
J Plant Ecol
Neurourol Urodyn
New Engl J Med
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
PROTEOMICS J
Science

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How long before PhD graduation should I start applying for post-doc positions?
My earliest PhD graduation date is 10 months away. Funding permits me to stay 1–3 months longer, so the final date is still uncertain.
It is never too early to make contacts for possible post-docs. But how long in advance is too early to formally apply to post-doc job openings or funding opportunities? Depending on the bureaucracy, the path from applying to starting can probably be anything from a week up to a year — someone I know is applying with ESA which had the opening advertised in August, application deadline in October, will have interviews in December/January, and the commencement of work only in September, 13 months after the initial job advertisement. My personal guess is that the long time between interviews and starting is to create a level playing field between those who do and those who don't need to go through a visa application procedure.
If I'm too early in applying for a post-doc, a hosting institution might prefer someone who can start earlier and where the graduation date is more certain. For example, in my case the graduation date is still uncertain, so there is a risk in accepting even if they are willing to wait. Project funding might also require the money to be spent rather soon.
If I wait too long, there might be a considerable period where I'm between jobs. Having a long (>6 months) period between jobs is a disadvantage for me. Maybe it's also a disadvantage for a hosting institution (I'm not sure).
How do I find the balance? For example, considering the duration of funding and visa applications, does it make sense to apply e.g. 8 months in advance? Or is it in any case virtually inevitable to have at least several months before my PhD graduation and the start of a post-doc?

It is hard to answer this question objectively, it really depends on which position you are applying for.

Is it? In principle it should be possible to gather statistics on the distribution of time between application and starting date.

It may also vary by field and by region.  For instance, mathematics postdocs in the US almost always have a teaching component, and so are on an academic year cycle: apply by January, decisions in March/April, start August.  (Plus or minus a month or so in all cases.)

It doesn't hurt to apply. Sure, in some cases the hosting institutions might want to consider someone with a definite graduation date, but that's their decisions. It could also be that the hosting institution loves you and is willing to wait until whenever you are done, given that the funding will be available later still (I have seen one case like this). Just be honest/realistic about when you expect to graduate. Post-doc positions are pretty competitive these days and it is better to look for more options than less.
If you are not comfortable applying formally early on, then at least make sure to use your informal contacts so that they know you are actively looking.

Positions are often advertised on an extremely short notice, at least in my field (computer science). So applying much ahead of the graduation is not strictly necessary in my opinion.
Other positions are not (yet) advertised (e.g. the PI has some money and considers whether to pay for 2 PhDs or one postdoc etc). For those it is more important to be in some exchange with people in the field: typically through conferences/workshops; but also 'boring' project meetings organized by funding agencies are good opportunities to network. Other ideas include: contributing useful software to the community, internships, giving talks at other universities when you are traveling, etc...
If you do some of this, you will not have difficulty finding a postdoc position. Your application will only be a formality, after everything else is already decided.
Also, why not have a break after the PhD? Traveling the world? Decide for yourself for some while what to do with your time?
In my experience, employers both in academia and industry want good candidates to start rather earlier than later, and are often not planning far ahead with their personnel decisions.

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


text:
MSc with relation to Cloud
I wonder if there are universities having real-world MSc related courses. My focus is to understand cloud technologies and services(especially if it is Amazon). Preferably in UK, but can be actually anywhere around the world. Maybe general or specific like PAAS , SAAS etc. Could you suggest any?

This is a "shopping question" that dates from when the site was first forming, and didn't yet have a standard against such questions.  As such, I have voted to close.

There's an MSc specialising in Networks and Distributed Systems at St Andrews. There's also quite a large group that does cloud computing research and a cloud lab, so you would almost certainly be able to do an MSc project on that topic.

At the K.U. Leuven there is a lot of research done in distributed systems, with a recent focus on cloud computing. You could do a Masters in Distributed Systems and do your thesis on an issue related to cloud computing.  (One would need to first check that the course could be done in English.)


text:
what is RARE organisation in the context of hypertext systems?
I am digging "dead bodies" meaning that i analyse alternatives to the web system which were popular in early 90s and seems to be found the relevant report.
The problem is author is constantly refers to some unknown organisation called RARE which i found no information about. It existed 20 years ago and was mentioned in numerous examples such as the following with other famous institutuons:
"It is noted that the rapid growth of WWW may in the future lead to problems through the implementation of multiple , uncoordinated and mutually incompatible add-on features. To guard against this trend , it may be appropriate for RARE, in cooedination with CERN and other interested parties such as NCSA, to encourage the formation of a consortium to coordinate WWW technical development. "
So who are these RARE was it institution? I was around 3 when berners lee and all these fellas developed the web so i am out of the context.
Link: www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1614.html
Appologise for typos: posting from phone.

A little detective work reveals the following. From Chris Adie's Resume it seems that RARE is now called TERENA, which is "The Trans-European Research and Education Networking Association". Looking at the history of TERENA, reveals that RARE stands for "Réseaux Associés pour la Recherche Européenne", which is a little strange, as it is a Dutch organisation.
Incidentally, one of my old pals used to work for TERENA.

The RARE acronym is also listed in some of the drafts issued by RARE itself, e.g. here.

@F'x: That seems to be a quite COMMON practice.


text:
Could a "phantom" citation in WoS be a problem?
I have recently noticed that for one of my papers Web of Science shows that it is cited in a paper from totally unrelated area. This looked strange, so I checked the paper and found out that it does not cite my paper. (One of my coauthors has the same initials and surname as author of some papers cited there, so the problem might have be caused simply by automated script.)
I have contacted them using the form on their website, explained the mistake and asked them to remove the incorrect citation. The reply was along the lines: "Thanks for contacting us. Cited references have been reviewed. Requested cited reference already available in WOS." This reaction suggests that they thought that I am requesting adding a citation rather than removing it. I am not sure whether I should waste my time in trying to contact them with the same issue again.

Are there some reasons why having some superfluous citation in WoS or similar database could cause problems for me?

When I think of any situations where numbers of citations of my papers would be needed for some kind of evaluation, the list of citations would be very probably prepared by me and not drawn directly from some indexing service. So I can simply omit the incorrect citations indexed in WoS. And even if there were some situations where somebody uses WoS as a way to evaluate my work, being cited in one paper does not influence the total result too much.

I believe that you have answered yourself in your question:

And even if there were some situations where somebody uses WoS as a way to evaluate my work, being cited in one paper does not influence the total result too much.

Nobody expects databases to be perfect.  You are expected to do a reasonable job of self-curation, such that you are not, say, doubling your citation count by adding in many papers by other people.  Small percentage errors, however, will change nothing significant in any evaluation of you and your work.

It could potentially cause issues for someone else down the line, if said person is performing some sort of study of the graph formed by the citations and papers - especially if it links two unrelated areas of the graph together. Even if it might not harm you, there's probably no harm in emailing WoS back and telling them that they misunderstood you, and you were trying to get the citation removed since it was incorrect.

Basically, the problem comes down to weighing two different kinds of effort on your part: Either you personally have to sift through the citations to make sure none of these 'Phantom' citations exist, or you keep in contact with WoS to make sure they can improve their service. Considering that the latter may in fact result in a better experience for many users and seems less strenuous for you, it appears to be the obvious course of action.
Whether merely having these citations there could cause an actual problem for you... Well, even if you were cited or even miscited in an unrelated field that in no way affects the work you yourself produce. At worst, miscitations could be taken at face value as being representative of your work.
But such is not the case here, as you've already shown such citations do not actually exist. So this is at worst a clerical error that in no way truly misrepresents you or your work.

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


text:
What does "research activities" mean?
When a graduate/fellowship application asks about research activities, am I allowed to talk about expository pieces that I have written? For example, one semester I read a highly influential and important paper in my field. I then wrote a significant length expository piece based on it. Would this be considered a research activity? Or does this imply that it has to be original research? I looked everywhere through the application guidelines for the explicit definition of "research activity" but I couldn't seem to find it anywhere.

Writing an expository piece is not a research activity. Research activity in general refers to original research with things like systematic reviews and meta analysis falling into a gray area.

Strongly disagree.  For purposes of a graduate/fellowship applications, any creative intellectual work counts as a research activity.  Graduate applications are asking for evidence of research potential; do not sell yourself short. Just be very clear not to claim that it is original research if it isn't.

@JeffE Why not write that as an answer?


text:
Publishing results posted Stack Exchange
Recently, I asked a question on stack exchange, to check if something I am working on was already done. I myself could not find this specific thing, so I asked the community.
Then, a discussion about my problem followed, and some people provided (possibly inaccurate) proofs. Independently, I figured out a proof by myself.
Now, I want to publish the proof of my result. Is this ok? Can I post this on Stack Exchange and then still publish it?


text:
Dealing with irresponsiveness from far-away scientists
When meeting some scientists in person, I've had good conversations with decisions upon interesting plans for research cooperation and personal visits. But then, subsequent contact by e-mail is difficult, where the other party either doesn't reply at all, or very slowly (several weeks +). However, when I then meet them again at a later date, they are still enthusiastic about the project (where the bulk of the work is mine) and a short in-person discussion makes more progress than the past months of (lack of) e-mail have. So it appears that a lack of interest in the project does not explain the lack of response. The project is scientifically interesting, fits with my PhD, and the visit enhances my chances of finding a post-doc after my PhD (it's a very good institute for my field).
I understand that many scientists are very busy and flooded by e-mail, but it feels sad to abandon a potentially interesting project just because communication by e-mail is not working well. I'm quite sure it would work if I were in the same building. What strategies exist to mitigate this problem? I can think of:

Try to ask a common acquaintance to poke him/her (my local colleague has a shared friend with him/her). Pro: Might get indirect feedback as to why the irresponsiveness. Con: involves 3rd party (may or may not be on-site) not necessarily involved.
Send reminder e-mails (did you see my e-mail from 20 February?). Pro: increases chances of being noticed. Con: may be considered annoying
Phone. Pro: hard to run away. Con: I don't like phoning and I don't like being phoned.
E-mail someone sitting in the neighbouring office. Pro: neighbour has small step to irresponsive scientist. Con: a bit strange to involve someone I don't even know
Give up on the project. Con: means no project and no visit.
Try to do the project without their input. Pro: no need for communication. Con: might waste a lot of time by trying known dead-ends that I'm not aware of.

What other options exist? What advantages and disadvantages have I not thought of? What is wise to do?

This question is interesting. No wonder why I seldom get responses from e-mails I sent. Have you come up with the pros and cons for old fashion mails(real mail)?

phone them, i think it is the best option

I don't like phoning and I don't like being phoned — Some people don't like emailing and don't like being emailed.  Choose your poison.  (I recommend Skype / Google chat.)

First: that situation is common. Actually, that situation is very common. You listed a large number of options that come to mind, let's discuss them a bit:

For me, that's the best.

Reminders don't cost you much, but they can only go so far before you risk being annoying.

I would strongly advise phone or Skype. Don't get me wrong: I hate phone too. It has the inconveniences of both verbal communication (you need to reply fast, and have no time to smith your words precisely) and written communication (you don't see the other person's face and non-verbal indicators). However, it helps if people are unresponsive to email. Also, consider that maybe they like phone better than email (some people do!).
As I said, Skype (or any video-chatting tool) might be a useful alternative to phone. Some people hate it, some people love it, so be sure to ask if they would consider it.

No. You can ask a friend or common acquaintance to poke them, but don't use someone you don't know well. Unless it's their job, of course: if you communicate with a big boss or dean or whatever, it is fine to use his personal assistant or secretary to check up on things or remind him of deadlines.

and 6. It's your choice to make, not much we can say here.

To your (already good ideas) I would add an important one:
   7. Set yourselves (or give him) a goal and a deadline. On one occasion where you actually meet him, use his enthusiasm to set an (achievable) goal, possibly with an associated deadline: decide that you want to present this work at this occasion, or submit to a given special issue that has a deadline in 6 months, or want to have the project finished by September to hire a post-doc with funding from the John Doe Foundation, …
Whatever the deadline is, it will spur contributions from his side. The research environment puts people under a lot of pressure with bureaucracy and deadlines. If your project doesn't have any visible deadline, he will never get it done. So, create one, even if it's more of a pretext. Then use that deadline as a hammer!

I recognize this all too well and I do not have a patented solution. This is in part because the reasons will vary from case to case. I have found that collaborations will be easier in two cases: The first is when the collaborator is driven by their own agenda and can see a strong personal gain apart from the collaboration. This might seem a poor excuse for a collaboration but, I think, reflects the stress most are under. The second is when you strike up a true friendship and simply enjoy each others comåany apart from the science. This should not be underestimated even if it is hard to chose collaborators based on such premises. Over to the answer.
If you think you have a collaborator where a mutual interest to collaborate exists according to the above, the best way is to arrange to visit for a couple of weeks. This can be folowed up by a returnvisit at some stage. Under suchcircumstances you can work in relative pace and you can set up short and unintrusive meetings under a short period with your collaborator. Such a visit can be preceded by some homework but expect to do most yourself if the initiative is yours.
A visit is certainly possible in all other cases as well but if the personal chemistry/interest is not strong to begin with, I do not know how successful you will be. Uncertain in any case. You will also likely end up doing most of the work throughout the process.
The bottom line is that unless the project (paper) is priority one on everyones list, you run the risk of not getting much response and certainly not much drive from your collaborators. It just seems to be the nature of things. I am sorry if this sounds negative but the times when I have done work during visits (going away or receiveing a visit) have seen a much higher success rate.

I'm actually trying to fix a visit (although not a several-week one at this stage).

One point that I would like to stress is to set a new date for a live/skype/phone talk at the end of each meeting. In this way you avoid having to email someone for a new date, and you minimise the risk of your communication dying down until the next live meeting. There is still the risk of the appointment getting rescheduled, but at least a rescheduled appointment is more concrete than waiting for an email back that never shows up.

In addition to the fine answers here already, I've found helpful to get the ball rolling to do work on my own and then send that along to the colleague.
It seems to me that often a substantial block is if project has some ambiguity, and if a person can't devote a large amount of time to it they will put it off in favor of more concretely defined goals. Doing some work on your own can frequently help to refine the goals of the project and how the collaborator fits in.
Obviously you can't do the whole project on your own and need feedback, but often there are substantial amounts of work you can do on your own. A literature review, an extensive outline, writing particular sections of a paper, preliminary data analysis etc. are almost always good candidates.

@gerrit:  From a game theory perspective, this leads to you doing more work and the other person doing less.  If this is acceptable to you, go for it.  If not, you have fewer options.  If you can show this to promotion/hiring committees this may be a good thing.  It's hard-think rationally.


text:
Why do American colleges and universities have sports teams?
In the USA, college sports are popular, and colleges may offer scholarship based on athletic skills.  Yet, universities spend significant money on sports, and nobody earns as well as the head of the sports team.
Considering that the universities are losing money on it, and it's not their core task, then why do they spend big money on sports?  Who benefits, and how?  Do all major universities have commercialised sports teams, or are there major exceptions of universities choosing not to take part?

I think this is a really good question. Where I come from we do not have the tradition of college sports, and to me as an outsider it seems rather perplexing and, frankly, entirely non-sensical for universities to (as a side-gig of sorts) also engage in quasi-professional sports.

@J.R. The question is specifically between the link to semi-commercial sport teams (as opposed to small amateur teams for "ordinary" people) and universities, a link that, as far as I know, doesn't exist anywhere else (perhaps Canada, I don't know).  I don't see how an athlete is favoured by his sports team belonging to a university, as opposed to being stand-alone.

@gerrit Canada has sports teams associated with Universities. I can't comment on whether they are as "strong" a presence as US College sports though (in my experience, University sports in Canada are proportionally not as big of a deal).

"are there major [] universities choosing not to take part?" Caltech for one.

I strongly question the assumption that college sport don't make money. I've heard that mens football alone pays for all the other sports cost deficiencies with (LOTS of) money left over at most colleges. If we ignore the money, most students are in their early 20s and if they start a lethargic lifestyle now it is going to be really hard to get back into shape 10 years down the road.

@dmckee but CalTech is a member of the NCAA.

As a European I see this as an excellent question, it's a bit like tipping, what the heck is going on?

Related: http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qsrmj/

Krowe is right. It is true that the majority of US univ sports don't make money, but the ones that do (football, basketball, hockey in northern schools) pay for all the others. Regarding CalTech, their sports booster site looks just like every other school's.

Kurt Vonnegut got it right in "God Bless you, Mr. Rosewater." The schools should pay the athletes for X years of competition during which time they do not attend class. They get a separate scholarship to attend as purely students at a later date.  BTW, even at D-3 schools grades and courses get skewed to keep the jocks from flunking out. I know: I was a grader.

It seems to me that (in part) that this is an American manifestation of the notion of the "renaissance man". However, this does not explain why this did not happen in Europe.

@krowe If the argument for college sports is that "it makes money", then why don't universities have whole divisions for exploiting other lucrative businesses like IT services, management consultancy, banking and brokerage? If the argument is public good (encouraging athletic lifestyle) then why does the US have such a high obesity rate and unhealthy lifestyle compared to European nations which don't encourage college sports? Why have countries like China and USSR been able to compete in the Olympics despite having much less emphasis on college sports?

The NFL and NBA have an interest in sustaining sports in US universities. The football team and the men's basketball team are the sports which dominate. Serious athletic programs in these sports serves as de facto development/minor leagues for the professional leagues (NFL and NBA) into which they feed. These leagues spend less on recruitment, development, and talent scouting as a result of the existence of university athletic programs. It is no accident that both resist hiring players out of high school (this has broken down in the NBA, in part due to the competition of European leagues).

@Superbest 1) Many of the various organization do participate in fund raising projects to make money. The major difference is that most of the other organizations don't have the draw to really make much money. You don't just walk into a chess tournament without a ticket and you don't compete without paying the registration fee. Yet the board and pieces cost less than either. If we could somehow figure out a way to charge the coaches we'd do that as well. Don't even get me started on the licensing.

@Superbest 2) I'd imagine if they did a study comparing obesity rates of US college athletes to European college students you'd find that atheletic competition does work for fitness. The # of student atheletes is very low compared to the total number of 20 somethings in the US so that isn't going to show in data measuring the overweight population in general. Another possibility is that while the US has a higher rate of obesity it may also have a higher rate of atheletic individuals (and therefore less average+underweight individuals).

@Superbest 3) Most countries are allowed to compete. I'm going to go ahead and assume that you meant to ask, 'why do they do well?'. The short answer is numbers. You are going to find a strong correlation between population size and wins. Also, the avg age of an Olympic athlete is 24yr old and the min age is 16. Many of the high skill\lower physically demanding event competitors are well above 32 years old. This means that a good portion in the more physically demanding events are not yet of age to be in college and those who are may put it off until after they go to the games.

I meant pursuing this activities with the same dedication as sports. If Harvard has a Football team to make money, why not a Harvard Investment Bank? 2) Perhaps the people who are college athletes would have been athletes anyway, so the college sports culture is not encouraging anyone to be more active, but only glorifying those who are already encouraged. 3) I meant compete in the sense of being competitive. My point was to challenge your assertion that college sports is somehow meant to encourage a more active lifestyle for the public. However, I feel we are filibustering the question

The only person who is going to give a college student money to invest is that students' grandparents. Even if they go to HHHarvard. 2) Athletic scholarships more than make up for that I'm sure. 3) Yeah, and yep.

The amateur statistician in me has to point out that graph is seriously misleading. Read the fine print: "Administrator figures are medians salaries, the rest are averages." It is true of salaries that they are very positive skewed. That is, the "top 1%" make a whole ton of money. An arithmetic mean (colloquially, "average") will be inflated much more by that top 1% than will a median. Thus, this graph makes it seem like non-administrators make more money than they actually do. (and quite likely, football coach salaries are the most skewed, of those shown)

@krowe - RE: most students are in their early 20s and if they start a lethargic lifestyle now it is going to be really hard to get back into shape 10 years down the road. This is a non-factor; a red herring. I'd guess that less than 5% of the students play varsity sports, so, to say that sports programs exist to promote a healthy lifestyle misses the mark. If long-term fitness were the goal, universities would spend more time promoting intermural sports where they could have a much higher participation rate. Fact is, we have sports because we are a sports-obsessed society.

@J.R. Just like the chess club or the drama club or any other student org. football exists at colleges mainly because students want it. Part of that reason is because the college life is otherwise fairly sedentary.

@Superbest I think they DO have organizations like the Harvard Investment Bank, only they don't go by that name. They go under the name of "research programs." From what I've seen, universities (and the professors personally) make scads of money from corporations based on research. It's a win-win, of course: the univ and profs get money, the corporation gets advanced research, competitive advantage, and (eventually) high-quality talent in the form of the best students passed to them by the profs.

As an American, I'm mystified by this practice as well, but also many of the theories proposed seem awfully weak and somewhat border on the feel of “conspiracy theories;” I don't see any that really makes sense proposed …

Regarding various comments regarding sports in general: European universities sometimes do encourage amateur sports as health/personal development/socialization side activity. In mine, there is a “sports and culture” center where you can do tango, yoga, piano and taekwondo. Students and staff have access at reduced prices and all this is funded out of the university's general budget. That's not what the question is about.

Wow, I'm impressed by the response this question has received!  Currently 111 upvotes and 17 answers.  I'm not quite sure about accepting a specific answer, as they're all valuable, in particular in combination.  Perhaps I will choose one, but if I don't, don't take it as the question is unanswered, but rather as I don't want to choose one over the other.

Somehow, USA culture elevated competition and team building (where competition is encouraged within the team as well, notwithstanding 'nice team playing' claims) to paramount values. Team sports promote these values: team building / team playing, competition among different colleges, competition within the team itself. In the USA, almost any activity is eventually turned into some sort of contest.

There are significant elements of prostitution in the ways in which universities are run.  Revenue-generating sports teams are one of those.  Nominally it's an extracurricular activity of university students. In fact it is the sports teams that spend money on making sure that athletes keep up with their academic work so they can stay on the sports team; in other words, in many (not all) cases, it is for the purpose of being on the sports team that those students are at the university. Sometimes they have athletes who have no actual interest in being students.

I come to this question after reading an article comparing American athletes and Chinese athletes at Rio 2016. It goes something like "many of the athletes that won medals for the US are currently or formerly a student of some colleges". Gosh, the comparison is totally out of context if we ignore such factors and traditions in American college environment. So this is an excellent question. E.g. "the one who won the gold medal for France is currently a college student" would be received very differently (and it is in deed a big deal).

Here is one side effect of a university having a famous sports team as mentioned by Federico Poloni in a comment: people know your name. This helps recruit new students, it helps alumni impress potential employers with a degree from somewhere they have heard of! I only know that Boise State University is actually a real university (and as it turns out a pretty good one) because their football field has blue turf.
One feature of American colleges and universities that is easy to forget is that they are often in the middle of nowhere. Pennsylvania State University is in a town named State College. You can guess which came first. So imagine you have thousands of young men and women in a place that is barely a town. What do they do on Saturday afternoon? Some will start organizing teams to play sports and then start going to nearby schools to play their teams. This grew greatly since the old days but the idea that a residential university is partly responsible for providing non-academic activities for their students take part in still exists as a real force. At smaller schools which do not have sports scholarships the sports teams are more about playing because the students enjoy it and it is just part of campus life.
Also at many schools the mission statements include character formation such as "building leadership skills." If this is the case you can actually argue that having some level of athletic competition on campus actually is part of the core mission. Maybe not an absolute vital part but one that contributes to the mission.
I am of course ignoring in large part the money and corruption that is part of the NCAA Division I level of college athletics. Of which there is an extraordinary amount of both.
Most schools, except for d3 schools, break even with their athletic programs. Americans want to be proud of something, that something for colleges is athletics. Most people wouldn't want to go to Harvard if they didn't have a good football team. I helps to bring diversity (age, interests, grades, and money) into colleges.

"So imagine you have thousands of young men and women in a place that is barely a town. What do they do on Saturday afternoon?" Ahem.

@Jon Tee-hee...They dance to the Bloodhound Gang's The Bad Touch. And by dance I mean... * coughs *

It would be nice to see actual evidence (in a scientific sense) that sports teams improve name recognition in any way that is useful to the university or its graduates.

Wouldn't an emphasis on sports discourage the majority of academically brilliant students who are not athletes? I'm admittedly not American (nor brilliant), but when I see a school's website try to sell itself with things such as "student life" (Lame bars to go to and get laid 2 days before your finals!) and sports (Hope you don't need to park on game day, sucker!) I roll my eyes and skip over. It seems like a rational person would care about alumnus outcomes, quality of faculty and student resources (such as counseling and healthcare) rather than having a famous football team.

Frankly, all the points in this answer are attempts at justification in hindsight, and failed attempts at that. A side effect is not a reason, it is a side effect. And all of these side effects can be accomplished by other means, and in fact are accomplished by other means in other countries. Countless universities in Germany, France, Russia, you name it, are literally in the middle of nowhere, too. Yet somehow miraculously they make do without a sports team, let alone a professional sports team known nationwide or even outside the country.

@TylerK.: see, that is the answer right there. Sports are central to the American culture. Bingo. So why not just say that, rather than think up reasons that clearly aren't reasons if you look at other cultures.

@TylerK. But surely sports is not less central to other cultures, which still don't have sports teams at universities?

The last paragraph is incorrect.  Of the top tier 1-A football programs, of which there are about 120 (~1% of all football teams in NCAA), only 22 made a profit or broke even in 2010-2011 according to The System by Benedict and Keteyian.  Even if they are significantly wrong, college football and basketball are actually cost centers for the vast majority of universities.  What is appalling, is that there has been a severe contraction of public state university funding and of research grant funding over the past few years, and these sports programs should be eliminated to save academics!

"Most people wouldn't want to go to Harvard if they didn't have a good football team" -- Harvard doesn't have a good football team (the Ivy League is D-1, but it's the lower half of D-1; Harvard's good relative to the Ivies, but compared to actual top football schools, not at all). Assuming it's anything like at Yale, the Harvard-Yale game matters, but most people don't care about the football team at any other time (their stadium generally isn't even half full except for Harvard-Yale).

-1 (not really, didn't downvote) for supporting the claim that a semi-professional sports team is in any way significant in helping students develop leadership skills.

@ЯegDwight: that's demonstrably untrue. Almost any university in Western Europe is located in a town/city that already had an established presence before the university came along. It is true that some of those towns are not particularly exciting places to live in, but they don't come even close to places like Storrs (flagship campus of UConn), where if you remove students and university workers (faculty, janitors, etc), you are effectively left with a ghost town.

@Superbest agreed, if I were looking at the poster promoting the school and I can read is about their sport teams, (or at least, that's their pride or what the focus the most on), it would be a big turn down for me. Becoming a sporty freak (not to mention a successful sport career after college) is not for everybody. I think people come to college and expect many other things other than the availability of sport teams they can join.

Most people wouldn't want to go to Harvard if they didn't have a good football team really? I would have thought that an Ivy League school brings people that will be interested in the curriculum, university sports being a far removed concern (I am Frech, we do not have academic sports in the US meaning)

@WoJ not students don’t go to Harvard, full stop. But small state universities and even mid-sized state universities is where to most noticeable changes in applications happen. The bulk of students attending college in the US do not care what the curriculum is so name recognition is much more important. Anyone in this forum does not belong to that bulk of students.

This "state college" is a terrible thing, I believe something needs to be done. It breaks lives and kills a University. Renaming the city would be likely a good idea, for example "Educity" would sound quite well for my non-native ears. Alternatively, the University could open a campus in a better location, what could become its legal HQ, and from that point its diploms would be given from that city.

The University of Chicago's president (can't remember which one) chose to not have sports teams many decades ago.
I think the practice of having college and university sports teams arose from one of the older functions of "colleges" and "universities", namely, as finishing schools for children of the wealthy, especially young men. (As opposed to theology seminaries, or medical or law schools, or teachers' colleges.) Just one more entertainment for them, but/and obviously the degree of quasi-professionalism was much less.
In any case, it seems that alumni generally are more entertained by sports than by science or literature, say. I think it is believed that maintaining general alumni enthusiasm via sports may spill over into donations for other things. Certainly the box office revenue and alumni donations make sports programs close to self-supporting, sometimes running at a profit, depending on how one does the accounting.

As opposed to theology seminaries, or medical or law schools, or teachers' colleges — do medical or law schools typically not have sports teams?

I think that medical, law, and business schools in the U.S. seldom have sports teams, yes.

Indeed, because those schools are for students at the graduate level, whereas it's the undergraduates who play sports.

The Maroons are now a member of the NCAA and have a number of D-3 teams.

@StrongBad, thanks for the fact-and-correction, but I am a bit disappointed by this turn of events.

@paulgarrett I think you're referring to the Chicago pulling out of the Big Ten (but according to the NY Times headline, it was reported as "Chicago Withdraws From Big Ten Because of Weak Athletic Teams"). But "The Maroons helped establish the Big Ten Conference ... in 1896" according to wikipedia. In any case, it sounds like sports has always been part of the experience at Chicago.

@fool4jesus, possibly I am mis-remembering, but I had the firm impression that c. 1910 the president of U of C made the decision to avoid intercollegiate athletics. I hadn't paid enough attention to see the entire trajectory of the sports program there.

@paulgarrett That Big Ten withdrawal was 1946; maybe what you're thinking of is that in 1949 "[president] Hutchins abolished the football team, citing the need to focus on academics rather than athletics. Varsity football was not reinstated until 1969" (according to UC site). So there was still sports after 1946 (just not Big 10) and in 1949 Hutchins went one step further and dropped football, but presumably not other athletics. BTW have you been to the Robie House at U of C? It's a beautiful Frank LL Wright house there, though (when I saw it) not open to the public. Good discussion, this. :)

@fool4jesus, aha, your recollection) or googling of this is much better than mine, but, yes, Hutchins was the guy. Only football, hm? Tsk. (I haven't been to U of C for so long that I have only dim memories of the architecture.)

@paulgarrett Mostly Googling. :-) Although it is certainly a beautiful place and certainly known for a lot more (and much more important) things than sports.

@DavidZ actually grad students play sports at the NCAA level. This is especially common for undergraduate students who only played for 3 years in undergrad (due to a redshirt year or an early graduation) and want to get a free masters degree.

@Paul: You're thinking of Robert Maynard Hutchins.  He pulled UofC football out of the Big 10 Conference circa the 1940's and felt that athletics were a distraction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maynard_Hutchins.  I attended the UofC in the 1990's: they had a football team, but not like other big American universities have a football team!  In my last year there I lived across the street from Stagg Field....quite peacefully.  It is not possible to live peacefully in the town of Athens when there is a football game, let alone across the street from Sanford Stadium.

...And of course, I am confident that you know what I mean by "a platonic ideal" because we both went to the UofC!

There was also the idea of "mens sana in corpore sano" - sound mind in sound body - which many traditional liberal arts schools would have believed in. So having athletics was not only a diversion for wealthy students at elite institutions, it was viewed as a key part of the university experience.

A partial answer is that the proposition that universities lose money on sports is controversial.  Some sports bring in large amounts of money, making the athletics department as a whole not lose too much money, and most universities believe that the alumni donations brought in by the existence of sports teams more than make up for any remaining loss.  (For public universities this is even more extreme, since the state legislatures that apportion money are often very fond of those athletic programs, to the point that state universities do better in state appropriations in years when their most important teams are doing well.)

Also, free advertising.

For an example of free advertising, look at the influence of Stephen Curry on Davidson College.

@FedericoPoloni I don't doubt that college sports is an effective form of advertising. But "free"?

@DavidRicherby good point...

"state universities do better in state appropriations in years when their most important teams are doing well" - really?! I don't disbelieve you, its just that it so fits my world view that I thus immediately am skeptical because it's almost too good to be true. :)

But even if university sport teams don't lose money, this is no explanation of why they exist. Oil extraction platforms don't lose money, but most colleges don't have their own oil extraction platforms.

Butler's another example of the kind of advertising success at sports can bring.  This article estimates the value of Butler's two trips to the NCAA finals at over $1 Billion to the school.

Your assertion about the ROI on Alumni donations seems to have been disproven by the studies referenced here: http://www.knightcommission.org/collegesports101/chapter-8 (although, it doesn't say anything about the influence of those team sports on State funding for State universities, so that part of your argument might still be valid).

@StephanBeanczyk: My assertion was that universities believe that sports bring in enough alumni money to be worth it. (Though, as that link hints, the point is that universities believe sports bring an assortment of indirect benefits of which alumni donations are only the most concrete. The link points out that the universities may well be wrong about that, too.)

There are good answers already for why does there continue to be a huge emphasis on sports in American academia but none really answer the question.
The fact is that sports in America were introduced at universities out of necessity.  Where in most parts of the world there has been long traditions of clubs or the local handling of games/sports, America had nothing.  One small town might play another small town in a "sport" but that didn't satisfy everyone.  You had elitist or exceptional athletes that wanted to compete against their equals, not Gary the blacksmith.
So this is mid 19th century and America is boiling.  A nation divided on many subjects.  So instead of a local rowing club or in today's terms playing for your company team, the easiest thing to gravitate to is a local university.  They had the money, organization, place to play the game, and so on.
And back then universities had opinions and power concerning government and policy.  So the elite universities (most were in this group at the time) wanted to take their debating and add physicality to it.  Races, rowing, simple games.  It invoked pride and if Harvard won the rowing competition then they must be right about slavery.
I didn't even ask who has time for games in mid 19th century?  Well you are probably a male, somewhere between 20-35, you have lots of money, and no job - you go to school.  This is the epitome of sports culture.  Where are all of these people stacked at... Universities.  So it was just the perfect storm.
Now once it started the early collegiate sports scene really was much like we see today - except it was admittedly like that in the late 19th century and early 20th century.  What do I mean?  Well players were old.  You might not have many players on your football team under 20 and a few in their 30s.  Some players student-status was highly questioned.  There weren't really any rules at first and when they started the rules in the late 19th century there were ways around them.
Players were paid, sometimes "pros" went back to college, there were boosters... the schools were driven by pride, power, and money.  Maybe the only things different were (lack of) media and that they were not preying on teenagers.
And the evolution of sports in the 20th century has gone from we have money and power so we will form the best teams, to we will get money and power from having the best teams.  The big D1 schools are the worst.  They hide huge huge earnings by allocating costs to sports teams so they can make millions/billions on tuition and licensing - yes everyone buys Texas Longhorns shirts for their Economics department.
Some universities "claim" to be losing money.  There have been economic impact studies done showing that almost none that made the claims were even near losing money on sports.  When they factored in advertising, enrollment, exterior sales, and so on.  Really the only thing that makes sports somewhat costly for universities now is Title IX.  Very few women's sports make money and most women wouldn't go to a university because their softball team is good.
So now we have the NCAA, colleges, tied-in businesses getting profits and tax breaks for players that are playing for free.  This may change now that there has been talk of unionizing but could be years and years down the road.
Even if this happened and the landscape changed were the big sports went to a club system there would still be sports in American universities.  They would function because students expect this now.  Things would probably work like they do for club sports at current universities or how things work at most DIII schools.  You play local teams, you drive to the game, pay for your equipment, maybe offset a little by entrance fees or a nice booster.
So why are there sports in American colleges?  Pride, money, free-time of students, and the fact that there weren't other organizations to handle these things in the new America.  Why will sports be played in American colleges in 100 years?  Same reason they are played at clubs in France.  Tradition.

I don't buy your argument that universities were the only organizations capable of organizing sports clubs. None of your reasoning is specific to the US so it should hold equally true in Europe. Except it doesn't, as you know. Most European universities have sports teams but almost all of them are just "Greg the blacksmith, well, er, metallurgy student". If there is a "long tradition" of sports clubs in Europe (I'm not sure that's actually true: few sports clubs are more than 150 years old), why didn't the dominant population of the US, European immigrants, continue that tradition?

Where in most parts of the world there has been long traditions of clubs or the local handling of games/sports, America had nothing. Actually, college sports have been a tradition here for quite some time, and I'm surprised tradition hasn't been mentioned yet. It deserves its place in the discussion. In the U.S. college athletics stretches back well over a century. To ask why we have what we have now is to ask why things evolved the way they did.

@J.R. inter-collegiate sporting competitions started with Harvard-Yale in either 1852 with rowing or if you are a traditionalist 1875 with American football.

Universities were definitely NOT the only organizations who had sports teams. If you look at the history of baseball, for example, throughout the early part of the 20th century, many companies had their own traveling baseball teams. Also, I don't know that it's right to say that European sports teams are/were just "Greg the blacksmith, well, er, metallurgy student". In C.S. Lewis's book Surprised by Joy, it's clear that the same kinds of boys who are said to have gravitated to sports in US schools did the same in English ones at least. Maybe it's US-and-England vs Europe, but I doubt it.

@fool4jesus My reference to "Greg" was referring back to the answer, which stated that town/village teams made up of ordinary people ("Greg the blacksmith") weren't good enough for elite athletes. I modified the quote to suit European university sports teams, which are composed almost entirely of ordinary students.

@StrongBad: I am a real traditionalist. (Un)Fortunately, that rivalry did not last too long.

@DavidRicherby - They weren't the only organizations at the time capable of organizing sports teams.  However they were the best equipped.  Do you want to row for Middleton township or Harvard.  Also those who mention baseball and the traveling clubs... Collegiate sports in America were first.

@fool4jesus - You bring up good points.  Maybe I should have spent more time comparing the athletic level.  D1 schools in the US have elite athletes.  These athletes - not all but a lot of them - are good enough to get paid to play in other parts of the world.  I spend a lot of time in France (and have been offered a McDonald's salary to play club basketball) and I can tell you that no college age boy would be playing for his university basketball team if he were good enough to play for a local club.

@blankip That's interesting. This kind of reminds me of the history of rugby in England, where you had the split between union (played by amateurs in university) and league (played by professionals on local teams).

@DavidRicherby When you say "European universities," are you talking primarily on the continent? From what I know (having spent most of my time in the US, I am definitely not an expert), the US situation is really quite similar to the situation in England. Namely, that sports have long been fairly big business, and the athletes elite. I think either of Lewis or P.G. Wodehouse's novel "Mike" (published in 1909), both of which show that public school athletes were indeed an elite breed. Maybe things are different on the continent, but we in the states are incorrigible anglophiles. :-)

@fool4jesus No, I'm talking primarily British universities and, to the best of my knowledge the rest of Europe is broadly similar. Sport in British universities is not "big business" or, in fact, any business at all. The only British university sporting event that the average member of the public might even be aware of is the annual rowing race between Oxford and Cambridge. For anachronistic reasons, 5 or so university cricket teams play matches against professional sides and those get literally a couple of column-inches in broadsheet national newspapers. Everything else may as well not exist.

@fool4jesus So, in summary, the UK situation is absolutely different to the US. It's hard to find even any similarity.

@DavidRicherby I'll take your word for it, as I'm sure you have better information than I do. I just know what I've read in literature. Also, the BUCS doesn't look that much different from the NCAA's.

@fool4jesus The difference between the BUCS and the NCAA is about a bazillion orders of magnitude of exposure. Ask 1000 Americans what the NCAA is and my guess is that 950+ will give the correct answer. Ask 1000 British people what the BUCS is and I'd say you'd be lucky if even one of them could tell you. I'm pretty well informed and I've studied/worked in British universities for nearly 20 years: your post was the first I've ever heard of the BUCS.

In addition to looking at this from the perspective of universities, it's also worth looking at this from the point of view of professional sports leagues.  In Europe soccer is based on a free market system with intense competition for players between leagues and between teams in the same league.  As a result, teams sign younger and younger players.  Thus top soccer players don't go to college (or even high school).  In the US, by contrast, the leagues are strong cartels who collude to keep down the cost of talent.  Both football and basketball in the US have strong salary caps (limiting how much a team can spend overall, and in basketball on how much they can spend on each player), revenue sharing (where the richest teams have to give money to the poor ones), etc.  In particular, the leagues are able to enforce an age minimum.  In basketball they require that americans be one year removed from their high school graduation date, and in football that's 3 years.  This means there's a huge pool of future professionals who are barred from working in the professional leagues.  In steps the NCAA, which is again a cartel which keeps down labor costs, and who has barred any member schools from paying their athletes.  This seriously decreases the costs of running a sports team, and thus makes the cost/benefit analysis more favorable.

In the US, you're less likely to have multiple professional teams in the same sport representing the same city. The number of franchises is set by the professional leagues themselves (with the US government exempting them at different times from antitrust monopoly regulations).
The cities in the US that have two teams have either stolen an existing team from another city, or they've been able to convince the professional leagues to expand the set number of teams (the latter of which very rarely ever happens).
In Europe, there are no such restrictions, if a homegrown team is good enough, it will just start moving up through the ranks even if the city it inhabits already has other teams that are playing at that level. This artificial scarcity is what's providing American Universities with the opportunity to have semi-professional teams.

Unlike major team sports in North America, where franchises are
  awarded to nominated cities, most European teams have grown from small
  clubs formed by groups of individuals before growing rapidly.
...
Clubs therefore had an equal chance to grow to become among the
  strongest in their particular sport which has led to a situation where
  many cities are represented by two or even three top class teams in
  the same sport. In the 2011–12 football season, London has five teams
  playing in the Premier League, while Liverpool and Manchester also
  have double representation.
[source]

If you think about it, in the case of American Football, 32 franchises is not nearly enough for a country like the US (which has way more than 32 cities potentially capable of supporting one or more real football teams at the professional level). And the cities could all battle it out with their own football teams, to see which ones are the better ones that should enter those leagues, but the professional leagues do not want teams selected that way.

I think you may be overstating the relationship between sports and the government/military.

It may be noteworthy that the US military has been all-volunteer for quite some time, now, regardless of the various quasi-wars in which they're actively engaged. I'm really not sure I see any particular relationship with sports team, though; as you pointed out, after being in the military perhaps one might get one's college paid-for, but if you can afford college yourself, you probably won't join the military; ergo, sports scholarships are competing against potential military recruitment…

Yes. After doing further research, I think you're both right. And I've edited my post accordingly.

It is simply not true that the US can't have multiple teams in the same sport for the same city.  Chicago and NY each have two baseball teams, NY has two football teams, and NY and LA have two basketball teams.

@Henry, I've just corrected my post. You were right.

In order to understand why big college sports exists in the US, I think it's important to understand the role that they play.  For someone coming from Europe, I think this is the best explanation:

Big conference American Football is the closest U.S. equivalent to international  soccer in Europe.

The Ohio State-Michigan game is our equivalent of a Netherlands-Germany soccer match.  It's what gets millions of people of all ages across a state out wearing team colors and rooting together.
It makes a lot of sense that states should be running sports teams to play each other in the US the same way that countries in Europe run sports teams to play each other in Europe.  (Remember that many US states are larger than a lot of European countries.)  That the states happen to run their teams through their state-run universities is a bit strange, but the underlying concept of state-based sports teams makes a lot of sense.

But that's not true, there's Pro American football teams based on states and cities as well, NFL likely being the most recognizable and the NFL arguably attracts more attention. For example, the Denver Broncos and the Seattle Seahawks are not associated with any University and yet, both the University of Washington and the University of Colorado: Boulder both have their own American football sports teams.

City-based pro teams are like European city-based pro teams while college sports are more like national teams.

I agree that the rivalries are similar, but I don't think that really has much to do with the "why" part of this question. Also, I don't agree that "it makes a lot of sense that states should be running sports teams." In fact, I think that's what prompted this question – that really doesn't make much sense. I mean, it's not like a bunch of college presidents sat around a table and said, "You know what this country really needs? Athletic rivalries, like they have in Europe. And what better place to do that than on our college campuses?"

@StephanBranczyk, actually NYC has essentially no college teams worth talking about in any sport (and I say this at Columbia!).  However it has 2 pro baseball teams (Yankees and Mets), 2 pro basketball teams (Knicks and Nets), and 2 pro football teams (Jets and Giants). So I agree with (my former professor) Noah Snyder

We shouldn't forget that most American universities were founded at a time when there was great admiration for classical culture.  Academics in the mid 1800's would have been well aware of the Athenian ideal of "A Perfect Mind In A Perfect Body". The Apollonian and Dionysian ideals were very alive for these people.
It was only the demands for a relevant education in WWII and the 1960's that ended the classical educational curriculum with it's requirement that all students learn Latin or Greek. American universities remain a forest of Ionic columns.
You can get a good sense of the position of 'sport' in the culture of the upper class in the 1920's by watching Fritz Lang's 'Metropolis'.
I'd remind that one criterion for Rhodes scholarships is that of athletic prowess.
Even as late as my own adolescence in the 1970's there was an assumption that the 'best' [male] students were the athletes. The ideal was Tommy, the quarterback of the high school team, and Suzy the cheerleader.
Also remember that many universities in the US were training grounds for the military.
In Europe, universities were more likely to have grown from the church.

Most of these answers address the existence of large sports competing at the highest level, or historical reasons for why sports first appeared. Here, most of the major points have been covered. It's important to note that the effects on alumni donations and new student enrollment (quantity and quality by standard metrics) are not speculative. See this paper and this paper. At the college where my dad teaches, when the basketball team makes the NCAA tournament, their applications increase both in quantity and quality. For this reason, the president loved the basketball team despite not caring a whit about sport.
I'd like to address why smaller colleges would choose to have sports programs, despite negligible ticket sales and no TV contracts or media coverage. The rationales they present are typically in the form of character building, and this aspect should not be ignored. As a college athlete, I learned a great deal about social interaction and that awful buzzword 'teamwork'. At our athletics department banquet, someone always quoted the (apocryphal) words of the Duke of Wellington, "The battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton." As institutions pride themselves on crafting the whole individual, it makes sense that they provide the opportunity to play sports.
Another important aspect is recruiting. My choice of college was heavily influenced by the opportunity to play volleyball. Since graduating, my alma mater has added six new sports teams, all of which are sports traditionally played by the children of upper-middle class families. This is not coincidental: colleges are competing for students, especially those who can pay full tuition. For an explicit discussion of the economic benefits to the institution, scroll down to the Division III section of this article on why colleges are adding football teams (the first section addresses the financial and aspirational benefits to larger colleges).
Lastly, the role of sports in helping students identify with their college is immense. This is larger at universities with major sports programs, but still non-trivial. When we played our rival, people came out and watched (which they almost never did otherwise). At those competitions, students identified with our college in a visceral way. As seen above, this can significantly influence the student's relationship with the institution.

Do all major universities have commercialised sports teams, or are there major exceptions of universities choosing not to take part?

In the U.S., most major universities have sports teams, but not necessarily "commercialised" sports teams. For the most part, the bigger and more well-known the school, the stronger the commitment to big-time athletic programs, although there are some exceptions – a few very well-known universities do not have major sports programs. For example, MIT and Carnegie-Mellon are known for academics first, and sports teams second, although even these schools field intercollegiate squads in sports such as tennis, track, and volleyball.
As for why they have sports teams, that is rooted in tradition. Collegiate sports rivalries go back into 1800s, and grew from there. It's part of campus life, in the same way other extracurricular activities are. The U.S. is a sports-obsessed society, and, to some extent or another, sports programs attract a rather strong spotlight in both high school and college.

Why do they spend big money on sports?

Not every school spends big money on sports, and not every school spends big money across all sports equally. In the U.S., universities form athletic conferences. Some of the more well-known athletic conferences include the Pac 12, the SEC, and the Big 10. (The Big 10 so rooted in tradition that it still calls itself "The Big 10" even though there are presently 12 teams in the conference). Other conferences, such as the Mid-American Conference, are comprised of teams that would not be considered athletic powerhouses.  Teams in the same conference compete against each other in several sports. The Ivy League consists of some of the oldest and most prestigious schools in the U.S., and they compete against each other in both major sports (football and basketball), as well as other sports (such as volleyball, golf, and ice hockey).
A key thing to understand is that not all schools devote the same amount of resources to their athletic programs. Conferences are generally made up of universities of comparable size, in roughly the same geographic region, with a commitment to athletics commensurate with other schools in that conference. Moreover, some schools might be known for having a very strong team in just one or two particular sports (for example, Wichita State University usually fields a very strong baseball team).
Joining a major conference means a major commitment to athletics – you wouldn't see Eastern Texas Baptist University trying to join the Big 12 unless they were prepared to dedicate the resources needed to field competitive teams in that conference, and the conference wouldn't let them join without that commitment, either.
As for why a vast amount of money is spent on sports teams, that is rooted in prestige. In a sports-obsessed culture, a well-known sports team can put your university on the map. The average person on the street couldn't tell you much about the chemistry program at USC, or the computer science courses offered at Notre Dame, or the economics department at Michigan State, but five men in a barber shop could talk about their football teams all afternoon.
There are hundreds if not thousands of universities in the U.S. The state of Georgia, for example, has about six dozen places where a student could obtain a degree. Most of these schools probably have sports teams, but only about four or so have have big-time, big-money commitments and nationally-recognized sports teams. The rest of the schools have athletic teams with everyday students who just happen to be on the diving team, or the wrestling team, or the softball team, participating in what amounts to an extracurricular activity, rarely playing their sport in front of more than 50 fans.

Considering that the universities are losing money on it, and it's not their core task, then why do they spend big money on sports? Who benefits, and how?

Big money is only really spent on Football, and to a lesser degree, Men's Basketball. Football generally does turn a profit, provided you are a successful enough team. Think of it as an investment. Pouring money into your football program is a huge risk. What if the team performs poorly? What if there is a lack of interest from students and the community? Your money could easily be wasted if this were to happen. That being said, if the team wins and the community supports it, there is a great deal of profit to be made.
The money that lost in athletics usually comes from other, less popular sports. College football teams have multi-million dollar TV deals and merchandising rights. Certain programs have helped develop a brand for their university and in turn generate a demand for everything from t-shirts to admissions.
Less popular sports however, do not generate such buzz but still require money to stay afloat. When Title IX became law in the '70s, it did amazing things for women's athletics and civil rights as a whole. Unfortunately, public interest is not that high for many "Title IX" sports. These teams, by law, must exist and while more popular sports such as football and basketball can generate profits, the less popular sports consume more than they can generate. This is where the losses come into play.
Now, why do colleges and universities bother to host athletic teams if in the end they only cost money? It comes down to branding. Each college and university in America is competing for the best and brightest students. American higher education is a business, and a great majority of these schools exist in order to turn a profit. Why would a student choose to go to the University of Alabama over Harvard if he or she were accepted into both? Because of Alabama's brand. Harvard may offer a better education and hold a more prestigious position in the academic community, but Alabama wins national championships and that appeals to the youth of America. This also entices kids from the opposite of the country to attend school there. Each state hosts multiple colleges and universities, so a popular sports team can be a good reason to lure a kid out of his or her home state.
Plain and simple, college sports teams (as a whole) are loss-leaders. They are investments in marketing and allow the schools to have a national appeal. This appeal allows schools to justify higher admission costs and creates a demand among high school graduates nationwide.

I am gong to assume that the NCAA is a reasonable proxy for "commercialised sports teams". The NCAA has 1,200 members which while large is not every accredited US university. A quick check of your list of major universities reveals Pomona, with an endowment of 1.6 billion, is not a member of the NCAA. Despite its sizeable endowment, with only 1,600 undergraduates I am not sure it qualifies as a major university.
As for the who benefits part, I will just quote the NCAA

The result is that NCAA student-athletes are graduating at a higher rate than other college students. More than eight out of 10 student-athletes will earn a bachelor’s degree.
Student-athletes work hard throughout the year to be among those who qualify to compete for 89 NCAA championships. That experience teaches them time management, leadership skills and the importance of working toward a common goal. They are the tools for success that last a lifetime.

The reason that colleges run athletics programmes is certainly not that athletes get better grades. Better grades for a handful of students for so much money spent would be a terrible return on investment.

When we speak of the "college athlete", what often springs to mind is Division I football or basketball. That seems to be a world of its own, where college campuses are essentially training leagues for professional sports. However, that's a minority of college athletes, the bulk of which compete on swim teams, on crew teams, on fencing teams, on polo grounds, on lacrosse fields, etc., often with hardly more than 30 or 40 people in the stands (mostly parents and significant others). Even college baseball (though baseball is a huge sport in the U.S.) has a relatively small following.

@DavidRicherby - I don't think StrongBad or the NCAA are making the claim the athletes get better grades. Rather, they are trying to offset the stereotype that college athletes are nothing more than dumb jocks taking watered-down courses. Though I won't deny the existence of that, it doesn't tell the whole story. There are many athletes who excel in the classroom and have a more fulfilling college experience due to their participation in athletics – that's all that's being said here, I think.

@DavidRicherby you are correct. I was answering the "who benefits" part. I edited to clarify.

@J.R.: Your comment above makes a good point, and would IMO be a good answer (or at least the core of one). From a non-U.S. perspective, pretty much all we see of American college sports is the high-level "semi-pro" stuff; it's easy to miss the fact that it's only the tip of the iceberg.

@IlmariKaronen Sure but it's only the "semi-pro" stuff that's unusual to the US. European universities have plenty of sports teams but they're a minor feature of university life and nobody outside the universities cares about them.

The NCAA is not a reasonable proxy for commercialized sports teams.  A much better proxy would be the "Football Bowl Subdivision" which is 125 schools.

@DavidRicherby in the UK there is no undergraduate teaching on Wednesday afternoons so the sports clubs can compete making sports far from a minor feature of university life.

@StrongBad I've worked, taught and studied at four different UK universities and never heard of this supposed fact.

@DavidRicherby This search turns up links on the first page to Kent, Dundee, Manchester, Birmingham, and Newcastle all freeing up Wednesday afternoons. Glasgow seems to be a mixed bag with the official policy being no classes, but students complaining.

Colleges admit athletes in "minor" sports because by law they have to have some sort of gender parity, and because they want the GPAs of athletes to look good. Your typical athlete works hard and is disciplined, so is an above average student. Also they get a lot more tutoring than most students. If those GPAs were only from the football and basketball teams they wouldn't be so high. I've had a second semester senior in class who in addition to being the starting fullback on the football team was functionally illiterate. But he graduated from a major state university.

@DanFox - Just to offer some contrast, my roommate was a two-sport college athlete (lacrosse and swimming). He was also a mechanical engineering major with a GPA over 3.00. He didn't get any special tutoring. It was a small state school that played Division I in only one sport. Big-time sports may be big business, but smaller sports are more about offering students a chance to participate in extracurriculars, not too unlike the school-run newspaper, the school-run radio station, the Greeks, and the organized outdoor rec programs found on our campus and on the many others like it.

I'm going to start here with a disclaimer, This is my opinion based on how I think it came about. I have no references except life experience from which to draw this opinion.
To me, sports teams came about because they needed to tire out their students. A large group of young people with nothing to do except study need an outlet. If all they did was sit in their chair and study all day, students would become restless. Restless powder kegs of young people developing world views is not good for stability.  Provide a healthy distraction that keeps people fit and active. If you aren't a member of the teams at least you can go out, get some fresh air, watch and play vicariously.
Sports also provide a method by which people goal oriented can be motivated to remain strong and healthy; similar to Shaolin monks developing their exercises to enable them to stay awake during religious lectures(sounds like college to me).
Once these sports teams were in place, a desire for organization and status essentially lead to formation of leagues and regulations. Arms race capitalism happens and here we are today.
Also, above people mention there are places in Europe, far from everyone else that make due without sports teams. To put some sizes in perspective, Penn State, mentioned above, in the city State College, is in the center of Pennsylvania and surrounded by barely populated farm country. Pennsylvania as a "state"(technically, commonwealth), is literally half the size of the United Kingdom. If you were on that campus back when the school was founded back in the 1850s, there was really nothing to do and no where to go.
my 2 cents, thanks for reading.

Only a small percentage of students on a college campus play for their college sports team. If the goal was to "tire out students", that would have been done with mandatory gym classes, not organized sports teams. If the end goal is to provide an outlet, why bus 12 people 350 miles or more, instead of having them play in their own gym?


text:
Must an "academic reference letter" be from a university-employed researcher, or will other researchers do too?
I'm applying for a post-doc where they ask for two "academic reference letters".  Does the adjective "academic" strictly mean they must be from people working in academia?  In my field, a good deal of research is performed at meteorological agencies, and I've co-authered several papers with a researcher employed at such an agency.  Would a letter from a researcher who publishes lots of papers (5 1st-author articles in 2 years), but is not associated with any university, be considered an "academic reference letter"?  Said researcher has a PhD, but further academic titles.

Better safe than sorry: check with the institution you're applying to, they may have formal requirements about this.
However, I don't think it's likely to be very narrow. The important points are that the recommendation letters come from people with a good track record, i.e. people who clearly perform high-quality research, and that they have worked closely with you in the past. Whether they're affiliated with a university, a meteorological agency, the NASA, a museum, or even (may God have mercy on your soul) The Industry… it doesn't matter much.

I've never known of an academic program that didn't accept letters from employees at research laboratories.  Depending on the field, demonstrating such contacts can be a significant plus.  Of course, some academics are only impressed by other academics.

In particle physics a "staff scientist" at a national lab is an academic. The position is treated in every way as equivalent to a tenure track professorship. But the structure of particle physics is that scientists employed by universities will be working beside their lab employed colleagues regularly, and often knew them when they were both grad students or post docs.


text:
Manuscript in pipeline, corresponding author between jobs
What happens to manuscripts needing revision while the corresponding author is between academic jobs?
Not every academic will always find a new position seamlessly after the previous one. For example, PhD students may still have papers in the pipeline after finishing their PhD, before finding a post-doc. What do academics do when a manuscript needs revision under such conditions? Note that I'm exclusively thinking of people who do aim to remain in academia; if people leave academia, the situation is different in any case.
Some alternatives I can think of:

Wait until one has a new position. This implies a considerable delay, possibly meaning resubmitting a manuscript needed only minor revisions.
Make another co-author corresponding author.
Finish it in their own time. This might have practical issues; for example, they will have no affiliation and might not even have an academic e-mail address (depending on how quickly the previous institution removes accounts).

There may be other alternatives that I'm not thinking of.
What are peoples' experiences about this?

I don't get the problem here. One can use one's personal e-mail. Also, the affiliation need to be related to place in which work was done, so there is nothing to be changed. So, why do you think that someone should proceed differently in such case?

Hi gerrit, you may want to accept an answer to this question, or add a comment related to why the existing answers aren't satisfactory…

Finish it in their own time (that is, if they want to) The only downsides you mention are of a practical nature. I'll explain below why they are not actually relevant.
You don't need an academic affiliation in order to publish in journals. But, I believe you might have a misconception of the affiliations listed on paper: affiliations listed are institutions that provided resources for the job. In particular, while your current employer should in most cases be listed as an affiliation, it doesn't mean that stops when you leave. If part of the work was performed with their resources, they should be listed as an affiliation. In particular, if your performed at least part of the work under their employment, you should list them.
As a special case: if an author (not just the corresponding author, but any author) has a new employer, but the work was entirely done without their resources, it is not an affiliation but they can usually be mentioned as a footnote with the text “Current address”.

I have done this exact thing recently. I have a separate log-in and identification with the publisher that is independent of my previous institutional affiliation. I edited the manuscript on my home computer. I was fortunate that the graduate student who took over my project who was willing to do the additional experiments suggested.

I have been in the situation where my past work has been published while I have been between academic research jobs. Here is my view on your list of alternative actions.
Waiting for a new position.
No. Publish as soon as possible. What happens if another researcher, a competitor, scoops the findings? While the work may be relevant still, one has lost the intellectual primacy. Another publication to the author's name can only help in his/her job search.
Make another co-author corresponding author.
This seems to tied up with your third point, where you consider not having an academic email address to be an impediment to publishing.
When between academic research posts, I use as my affiliation the institution where I carried out the majority of the work - the "invention" if you like. I have been in the situation where work that I started was completed and published following my departure - both with me contributing to the completion of the work and also where I did not add anything. In both cases I listed the former institution as my affiliation. I also gave my gmail address for contact purposes.
I have also been a co-author on papers as a member of a large research collaboration, again during a period where I am not in an academic research post. In this case, I affiliate myself with the institution through which I derive my affiliation with the research collaboration.  I also have my gmail address as part of my contact details.
If the journal won't accept a non-academic (e)mail address one could make the argument that the research is still to be accepted for review and eventual publication regardless of the present contact details of the author. The majority of the work presumably was carried out in a recognised research institution and therefore should be treated with the appropriate respect.

one can have more than one affiliation… all institutions that contributed resources (including salaries, office space, CPU, etc.) should be listed as affiliations

@F'x: Agreed, good comment.

If the journal won't accept a non-academic (e)mail address ...publish somewhere else.


text:
Which among an LoR for startup work and a "good student" LoR, will be more effective?
I am applying for Master's program in CS. I have the following two alternatives:

An LoR from a startup founder for significant and relevant work. The possible problem is that the entire team consists of final-year undergraduates including founders, however they are from a relatively well-known university in the country that I am applying to (USA).
An LoR from one of my professors with whom my interactions have been only during courses and labs which are not directly relevant to my area of specialization.

Which of these would be more effective as part of my application?
My other LoRs are from a professor with whom I have worked on a relevant R&D project for almost a year, and one from a professor about coursework and labwork, which is relevant to the field.

Why not get both?

I have to submit three, out of which one that I have decided on will be pretty similar (professors' whose classes and labs I took) as mentioned in the last line of the question.

I want to second what @PeteL.Clark said which is that even though they only ask for three, you can submit four. At worse they will just ignore the last one, at best they will read it and it will strengthen your application.

If the startup is showing evidence of success (e.g., it's actually raising significant venture capital or making money from clients), then if it were me, I would absolutely go with the letter from the startup.  They may be have been undergraduates, but now they are a Small Business Success Story, and you are part of that story.  It will help you stand out as unique, capable of taking initiative, and capable of working on ill-bounded problems as part of a team.
If, on the other hand, the startup is still little more than a collection of nebulous hopes, dreams, and semi-finished software, the professor (who is essentially neutral as far as recommendation value goes) is a safer bet.

Our startup has got some initial money and our beta product is up and running; we have consciously restricted the initial launch to a small user base to gain experience before moving forward; with most of out activity being documented on our website/blog/couple of news pieces.

Given that it's got funding and an active beta, it sounds like the startup is "real" enough for a recommendation from the founders to be valuable in setting you apart from the crowd.  If I were the professor reviewing, I would certainly think well of that letter.  Good luck!

Thanks for the advice. Certainly helps. Out of curiosity, hypothetically, why wouldn't work experience from a startup that failed be considered equally? Even if the company failed after releasing a finished product, the engineering team did invest as much time and effort and probably learned on the way. There could be any number of factors that worked against them.

In essence: success builds credibility.  If a startup failed, but was led by people with a track record of success then it would be more possible to take their recommendation of an engineer seriously.  But if a bunch of young unknowns try and fail, how can the reader tell whether their evaluation of an engineer is really sound or if it's just a product of wishful thinking and friendship?


text:
Mentioning accepted conference papers that were not presented
If I have a paper accepted in a known conference of my field but am not able to present it at the the conference due to certain factors, should this be mentioned on my Master's application?
Also, where/how should this be mentioned?

Related: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11428/the-fate-of-an-accepted-paper-not-being-presented

Was the paper withdrawn? Did someone else present it? Are you in a field like CS, where conference papers matter?

Field:CS. Not withdrawn, just that the funding process from the university is fairly long-drawn and may not get completed in time.

If the paper isn't being withdrawn and will be included in the proceedings then yes, definitely include it!
Otherwise, you could list it as "In Preparation" in your Publication section if you plan on resubmitting it.

If a paper is being withdrawn, then I would not give it any weight if I were reviewing a grad school application. The publications & presentations section of your CV is evidence of scholarly achievement, and so if the presentation didn't take place, there was no achievement -- I know of many conferences that have a nearly 100% acceptance rate, so having the paper accepted may simply be evidence of your ability to write coherently.

To counter your statement, presenting it isn't evidence of achievement either if the acceptance rate is 100%.


text:
Publishing an algorithm that may not have many applications?
Suppose I came across a problem, say in graph theory, that I need to solve for my application, or a problem that I just created out of the blue. I find that it is not a standard problem by any means. Also, it may not have many applications. I then solve this problem with some algorithm. The algorithm is non-trivial. My questions are:

Is it possible to publish such algorithms?
Does it even make sense to publish it? Since it may not even have any applications. And if it did, it is likely that other people have solved the same problem for their respective applications without ever publishing it.

I am sorry if such speculative questions should not be asked here, but I was curious. Thanks!

It sounds like it has one application.

If you're not aware, look into the Association of Computing Machines (ACM).

Is it possible to publish such algorithms?

It's not only possible, it's far more common than the alternative.  Most algorithms papers do not have real applications.  The vast majority are motivated by applications, but there are usually several layers of abstraction and/or simplification between the problem actually solved and the motivating application.  But even this "motivation" is often post-hoc rationalization, added by the authors to help draw the reader into their paper.  Most people who study algorithms do it primarily because algorithms are cool, not primarily because they're useful.
Or maybe that's just me.

Does it even make sense to publish it?

In principle, sure!  Of course, to be publishable, your algorithm needs to be both novel and interesting, not just to you, but to the algorithms community as a whole.  You need to be sure that your problem hasn't been solved before, and in particular that your algorithm wasn't already discovered and published by someone else.  You also need to sell the problem, the algorithm, or both; it's not enough for your algorithm to be "non-trivial".
I strongly recommend running your algorithm past a local algorithms expert, if possible.  They may recognize your problem or your technique under a different guise.  At a minimum, they should be able to help you start the necessary literature search.
Good luck!

I see. Thank you! You mention some good points. As for your point about applications being post-hoc rationalizations, I have done the same once when in university, but believed it was just me, even though they turned out to be genuine applications.

Yeah, it's amazing how often those "applications" turn out to be real applications after all!

If you needed to have a direct application to get published, most scientists would never acheive tenure! :)

I can't answer (1), but regarding (2), I definitely recommend publish.
I would venture that any individual academic is a moderate-to-poor judge of how useful their own research is in practice. While your situation may seem very specific, there may be more general applications that are not immediately apparent to you. Additionally, there's a non-trivial likelihood that someone else will encounter the same problem that you're currently trying to solve, in which case your work will be more useful. Just because you don't think someone will need it doesn't mean no one will :)

That is a very good point, about being a poor judge of usefulness of your own research. Thinking along the same lines, I think I am (and a few other individuals might be too) a poor judge of deciding how good trivial or non-trivial an algorithm is. But then if it is trivial, it probably won't be published in any case.

@Paresh If it were trivial, it would already have been published or even be considered common knowledge

@TobiasKienzler Maybe not if it has little use. But I get the point, literature survey is a must. If the algorithm is trivial, chances are it will be found, maybe under a different guise.

@Paresh Even then it's better to accidentally re-publish something than having it end up as a "it is impossible to separate a cube into two cubes, or a fourth power into two fourth powers, or in general, any power higher than the second, into two like powers. I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which this margin is too narrow to contain." sidenote...

You should definitely consider publishing the algorithm, but not before you could say something more than merely a pseudocode.
You should start with a proper literature survey of relevant journals to check if the problem has really not been tackled elsewhere, even under a different avatar. If that is done, you could try building value to your algorithm by checking its complexity or by considering variants that could speed it up at the cost of some efficiency, maybe. You could then think about extensive simulations which could test and validate your algorithm. Finally you could conclude by thinking up some practical applications where it could be relevant.
The applications part sometimes may not be present, but it is perfectly acceptable for a paper to extend the theory alone, leaving it for future researchers to develop it appropriately.

Thank you! Yes, I realize just a pseudocode is not enough. And you bring up some good suggestions.

You should publish it. History has shown that articles that have no real-life application at the time of their publication can have a real-world application identified in the indeterminate future. A good example is the prefix/postfix arithmetic operation format. When this was created, computers did not even exist (1920s), but 30 years later it was used by Djikstra and others for efficient in-memory representation of arithmetic operations in computers.
So, I repeat, do publish. Maybe someone uses it after you and I are dead, but it will still be useful.

I would say that it depends on the computational complexity you get out of it.
A naive implementation can always be made for any algorithm, but an algorithm with an efficient (or at least better-than-naive) complexity is always interesting, no matter if the problem it solves is very specific or not: a lot of algorithms are very specific, and generally the most efficient are very VERY specific, sometimes working for degenerate cases that nearly never happens in real life. Later on, somebody else can always enhance your algorithm,  generalize it to other cases or build up on it to solve other related problems.
So my rule of thumb based on what I have read from algorithmics litterature:

if you can make an algorithm that solves a problem,
and the complexity is better than naive implementation (and, if you're not the first to solve this problem, possibly better than any other algorithm for the same problem under the same conditions),
and you can prove it (see Computational complexity theory),

Then go ahead and publish it, for example on arxiv.org or vixra.org which are free scientific papers pre-publishing services.