text:
Waitlist Game Theory - am I just overthinking?
So, I'm on the dreaded waitlist (PoI says I am "near the very top" of the list) for my top choice PhD program and naturally I've spent the past couple days driving myself nuts trying to game the process out.
As I understand it there are two general approaches a grad adcom might take: 1) making more offers than the program has spots available, expecting a certain yield which will produce the desired cohort size or 2) making as many offers as there are spots, and moving to the waitlist to achieve desired cohort size if necessary.
My intuition tells me that #1 is more common, but in that case I don't quite understand the purpose of a waitlist--it seems that there would have to be an anomalously low yield in a given year for the program to ever have to move to the waitlist. So, do you find that #1 or #2 is more common?
I have two offers in hand, but my heart is really set on this program. Adding to the stress is of course the cascading nature of the PhD waitlist (i.e. someone is probably holding off on declining their offer at my top choice program because they're waitlisted at some other school; the same goes for someone waitlisted at one of the programs I have an offer from, and so on and so on). Basically it seems like we're all waiting for someone to get into their top choice program, and set in motion the chain reaction of declined offers.
Intuition would also tell me that this all basically happens on April 14 or 15 because nobody wants to accept an offer from a program that isn't their top choice until it is absolutely necessary--so the cascade doesn't start until then unless there are a sufficient number of people who have top choice offers who then actually decline other offers in a timely manner.
Am I just overthinking this whole thing? Or is this entire process completely bizarre and up in the air until the last minute? Has anyone gotten off a PhD waitlist well before April 15?

Note that #1 often does not have a waitlist. So I would think that by having a waitlist in place, you are generally in situation #2.

Far more people already have the offer they want than you are thinking. They accept their offer and reject any others. Schools following #1 might still go to a waitlist if they get an unusual number of early rejects. Or not.

I think far more common that either approach purely is to have a mixture, where a department gives more offers than spots but not so many that it expects to completely fill all its spots.  For example, a department might admit so many that it is 95% confident on a statistical basis that it will not exceed the number of spots it has (and in that 5% figure out a way to stretch the budget for a year).

^ And if the go over one year, admit fewer the next

I’m voting to close this question because your problem is that you are on a waitlist and you want to be accepted.  Nothing we say can help solve this problem.

Anecdotal: I knew of a program that used strategy #1 for several years, knowing that making (for instance) 15 offers would yield 9 or fewer candidates, and they could then take people from the waitlist as needed to meet 9. 9 was thought of as the hypothetical maximum yield plausible in the first round of offers. One year, they made 15 offers and all 15 accepted. The higher ups fulfilled the offers, but said the situation could never happen again. So the department started using strategy #2 instead.

I strongly suspect that, given Covid, there will be a huge desire to go to grad school for many folks. I'm not at a university, but it would not surprise me if they saw a large increase in applications.

@JonCuster My dept did, but it has been trending upward for years, and I don't know if this year was outside the trend

What is an adcom? Why would 14th April be an important date for PhD admissions? It really really seems that this is a very location-related question so a location tag could help.

@penelope I added a united-states tag to the question. The reason the date matters (for US grad schools) is the April 15 resolution.

I don’t think you’re overthinking, you’re just... thinking. But basically, you’re thinking about things that are beyond your control, so in that sense any amount of thinking does not benefit you in any practical sense.
For what it’s worth, many departments hold events allowing admitted students to visit the department (virtually, these days) and meet with faculty. My own department’s event is today and tomorrow, and I had a pleasant meeting with several of the visitors. So I expect many students will be making decisions soon after attending such events. Keep in mind they don’t all know ahead of time their precise order of ranking the different programs (unlike what your intuitive “model” seems to assume), but instead go through a due diligence process where after getting admitted to several schools, they find out more information about each one and then make a decision. There is no reason why this can’t happen well ahead of April 15, and I believe it often does.
Good luck!

These days, in the U.S., in math, in R1-ish schools, more admission+funding offers are made than are expected to accept. If the unlikely event occurred that a surprising number accepted, I would expect that the program would act in good faith, and just try to average things out the next year and the year thereafter. I'd be shocked if an offer of admission+support were "withdrawn" after accepted. (Nevertheless, the pandemic does give people excuses for otherwise-unthinkable behavior...)
So, as in my program, we have lots of experience (at least for non-pandemic times...) about acceptance rates, demographics, etc. Each year we also have similar qualified financial info, e.g., about "unacceptable" over-admission, and such.
We do not have an literal "waiting list", but we do have a list of people who have a chance of getting an offer (admission+funding) if events transpire considerably outside of expectations.
The nation-wide April 15 convention has many positive features, but it does tend to discourage wait-listing, for game-theoretic reasons mentioned in the question. That is, even with an official/literal "wait list", unless there are unexpectedly-many rejections, we would not, and maybe could not, start making offers to people on the wait list, because rejections (from the students) are not binding until April 15.
Right, operationally, unlike 20+ years ago, at most places "being on the wait list" is not as positive as one might imagine.

The April 15 resolution is voluntary, and not at all nationwide.  Carnegie Mellon is a notable non-participant.  https://cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/CGS_April15_Resolution_Oct2020Revision.pdf

I know for sure my PhD program routinely accepted more than they had funding for, and dealt with the resulting small fluctuations. I also know for sure people who still got in off the waitlist, so all is not lost even in that case.

Has anyone gotten off a PhD waitlist well before April 15?

I got a rejection letter and was accepted afterwards. The rejection letter was sent by the system automatically (it was the end of April). However, my acceptance was 100% conditioned on my advisor getting a grant, and that was delayed due to the government shutdown. So I kept waiting for another couple of weeks until I got the good news. A few of these experiences turn you into a silver fox.
Now, what really matters:
You should email this graduate program and politely let them know that: 1) You already have offers from other institutions; 2) Their school is at the top of your list; 3) You would appreciate them letting you know about their decision ASAP. This may increase you chances of moving toward the top of the waitlist, presenting you as a stronger candidate.
Good luck.

Actually, I expect that #2 is more common and is actually ethical. The number of slots is determined by money and faculty (and other) resources. It isn't especially flexible and telling someone "sorry" after "accepting" them is pernicious.
You say you've been accepted at a couple of places and your deadlines are in the future. You should just wait to see what happens. Accept something by the deadline, but otherwise just relax.
Note that at the institutions where you've been accepted, others are likely on the waitlist and hoping for you to decline.
Is it bizarre? Hard to say. The decisions are made by thousands of different people all with their own needs and priorities. Before a (more or less) common deadline was set it was chaotic. People were inclined to accept an offer (with an early deadline) and then later decline when they got a better one later.
But #1 would be unethical if such an acceptance could be rescinded for other than bad actions by the candidate such as failure to graduate. The common deadline was set to avoid such situations as having to turn down someone after accepting them and making the process a bit less bizarre than it might otherwise be.
So, just relax. Your trying to "game" the system is going to result in sub optimal outcomes, very possibly for yourself. It is what it is.

And if you do accept an offer, you should immediately decline other offers as a courtesy to others like yourself who are worried, worried, worried ....

I agree with all of this except the unethical part. My program admits 15 with and expected yield of 3-10. We figure that the numbers will work out over time to be about 6 per year. Not sure why this would be unethical as long as everyone who is accepted would be allowed to attend (with funding) if they accept.

@Dawn, it is ethical as long as you really mean "accept" when you accept and work out how to make it happen. I hoped I was clearly speaking of turning people down after accepting them. There are one or two questions here, I think, where that happened.

Note I do still think #2 is better, because having varying cohort sizes is obnoxious for many reasons.

@Dawn edited to clarify, I hope. Fifth paragraph.

@Dawn, I read "spots available" as the maximum possible, not the desired or average outcome.

I don't know that OP is trying to game the system (but I do think they are causing themselves stress by imagining the games of others). They have until the deadline to wait for an offer that may not come or accept the one they have.

@BryanKrause. I noted "game theory" in the title. But "culturally appropriate beverages" are called for, not stress.

In the title, yes, but "game the system" implies some underhanded attempt to come out ahead. In the body it seems that OP is just nervous and worried about a situation they haven't been in before.

In my department, TA slots are a budget line item that we cannot overspend.  We maintain a waitlist and regularly draw students from it.

I am waitlisted by one of the public university. I checked gradcafe and a few yrs ago someone was waitlisted by the same program, on the top#1 of the list of 2, begging ppl to decline offers so that this person could attend, which did not happen.
The same year, according to the university's official website, the program has a 45% yield rate with a few receiving acceptances but did not attend.
I would say for this program #1 is probably more true than the #2. Because on gradcafe I have never seen ppl talking about being waitlisted other than that one post but the program yield is pretty much ~50% each year.
Also because of funding, I don't have my hopes up - someone else turning down an offer tied to an RAship with a faculty not in my research interests is not gonna help me get off the list. But different programs will be SO different.


text:
Quoting/Citing Footnotes in APA
When directly quoting from a footnote, I have sometimes seen authors indicate this by including something along the lines of "n", "fn.", "footnote 2", etc. in their citations, like "(Jones, 2023, p. 160n)" or some such. Is there any standard way of doing this in APA? Also, is there any particular convention for when I want to point to both the body of a particular page, and a particular footnote on that page? For example, if I want to point towards both p. 160 of Jones, 2023, as well as a footnote on that same page, can I say something like "Certain comments in her 2023 (p. 160 and n) make it clear that Jones..."?

This is partly addressed in the APA Style blog post How to Cite Part of a Work. The example given for a parenthetical in-text citation referencing a footnote is

(Park, Van Bavel, Vasey, & Thayer, 2013, footnote 3)

The page claims that the word 'footnote' should be in lowercase, however that might not be universal as the presumably more recent basic principles page gives as an example

(Garcia et al., 2020, Footnote 2)

Also, is there any particular convention for when I want to point to both the body of a particular page, and a particular footnote on that page?

It is unclear to me why you would need to cite both in that case. Since the page contains the footnote it would seem enough to cite just the page. (Perhaps it's worthwhile if the footnote continues on the next page?) But based on the comments to the blog post I think you can use

(Jones, 2023, p. 160 and footnote 4)

Note that this is different from

(Jones, 2023, footnote 4, p. 160)

which is interpreted as a reference to footnote 4 on page 160. I would tend to avoid using "n" or "fn." in most contexts, as spelling out "footnote" is more clear.

Thank you! I guess I wanted to cite both the footnote and the page because there are two relevant points, one in the body and one in a footnote, and if the reader looked to the source to see what I'm referring to, they may just see the relevant part of the body and think that's all I'm referring to and not consider the footnote too. (I feel like that's what I'd do if I were such a reader... but maybe that's just me.)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Asking a professor if you would be able to manage the material in their graduate course given lack of background
I am a graduate student in a US chemistry department and found a class (mechanical engineering) that would be somewhat helpful for my research but is out of my discipline.  I'm not familiar with a lot of the methods used and so I was considering emailing the professor to see if it would be possible.  Would this be ok to do?

Instead of asking the professor to see if it would be possible, I suggest asking for resources so that you can learn the prerequisites by yourself. This strategy is more likely to receive a positive answer and helps you prepare for the class.

I get multiple emails about this every year, so I certainly consider it normal.  It's my impression that most faculty will.
Before you do that, see if the syllabus is available to you somewhere.  That will show the professor that you did some due diligence on your own, and may even answer your questions.  Also note whether or not the class has a firm prerequisite listed - if it does that may make this more challenging.  If it does not then that suggests to me that you've got a better chance at success.
If you're still not comfortable asking, or the professor doesn't reply, you should be able to get help with this from your academic advisor.  They may be able to secure the past syllabus for you also, so if you prefer that route it might suffice.
Another suggestion is to consider asking about auditing the class - if it's outside your department and isn't necessary for your degree, maybe that would be enough to help you with your research.  A related element would be asking to take the class pass/fail, depending on your university's restrictions on such a practice.  That would allow you to take the class and, even if it's a struggle, all you need to do is pass in order to come away with what you need from it.

I believe so. I would provide some specifical information on the e-mail: I would tell them all the classes I've taken that are more or less (since you have a different area of studies) related to their subject so that they could know exactly what you knew, any relevant internships or experiences, why I was interested in taking the class, and I would specifically ask if he could advise me on some materials to read / study beforehand in order to go more prepared to class.

Thank you for the reply.  The main issue is that I have very little relevant coursework so I know that getting through the class would be a challenge but if at all possible I would want to do it.  There are very limited relevant courses for my research and I'm anxious about having to tell my advisor that I don't think it would be manageable.

I think it's perfectly fine to email the professor and ask him about taking it with limited prerequisites from your end. I'm an undergraduate student (in ECE), but I've taken multiple ECE/Math/Physics grad courses after emailing respective professors and convincing them I can succeed in their courses despite not having official prerequisites (read Jeff's and Johanna's answers for how to do so).
Do note that there may still be departmental holds/ registration requests you may to remove/make respectively in order to register for courses outside of your major/field of study, so do ask the professor if such issues are also relevant to your particular situation and how to handle them.

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


text:
Alma mater and alumnus status when dropping out
Do dropouts have an alma mater and are alumni of the institution where they dropped out in the respective phase of their studies (undergraduate, master or doctorate)? Or are these terms only meant for successful graduates?
E.g., is a student dropping out from the master/PhD an alumni of the university where he/she tried the master/PhD or of the university where he/she graduated with the next lower degree (BSc/master)?

I believe so! I don't know if they have a name for dropouts.

Asked and answered on English.SE: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/49361/can-you-call-someone-who-chooses-to-quit-his-her-study-in-college-an-alumnus/290383#290383

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it does not relate to Academia as defined in the FAQ

At first glance, as far as being on-topic or not, this question is borderline for me. The answers at English.SE do seem to relate well to the question here, though, and I would expect that answers obtained here (if the question were reopened) would be similar. It seems that leaving it closed for now is the logical choice.

Some institutions have specific policies about this.  For example, "alumni" may include anyone who has ever enrolled, even if they have not left.

A person who drops out is technically an alumnus however the term normally is used for someone who actually graduated. It can refer to anyone who is a former student or even employee of an institution.

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


text:
What should I say to my project advisor who thinks I may not get a Ph.D position?
I am an undergraduate student who is looking forward to work in theoretical physics in the future and therefore, I chose a project advisor who is a string theorist. But since, my grades are average and I failed his QFT course (which I am going to repeat anyway), he believes that I may not get a PhD position if I continue to do my undergraduate project with him. And he is trying to push me into fields in which I have no interest whatsoever. And he may be right.
I took his QFT course and I worked hard, despite that I failed, not because I am stupid, it is because I am a bit slow and he went with the course at blazing speeds (but I do not blame him, it is not his fault), but since, I took his course, I got motivated and deeply interested to continue with theoretical physics. In short, I am in this too deep to discontinue. And he keeps asking me this question: “What will I do if I do not get a PhD position in theoretical physics?”. And he wants an answer before he continues.
What should I answer him ?

Resolution: I did it guys. The jokes on him. I am a PhD in theoretical physics now.

Most of all, recall that string theory is not the only field in which a theoretical physicist can give contributions (and, honestly, given its history, it's not particularly promising either).

This could be your supervisor's way of saying that he may not write you a very strong letter of recommendation if you intend to pursue that particular topic. You could perhaps try asking how much you should improve to have a good chance of succeeding, and at the same time state your back-up plans.

String theorists are, in my experience, extremely smart people, however, they tend to be very dogmatic. I found it is very difficult to get them to cast doubt on what they think should be the research agenda. Modern physics has some exciting fields (foundations of Quantum Mechanics, new phenomena in cosmology etc.) which may be undervalued by string theorists (who seem to be quite locked in on their direction). Is he the only person you can see yourself work with?

I get what you mean as the difference between slow and stupid, but, unfortunately, there are intellectual communities where, either for legitimate or illegitimate reasons, it has the same effect.  To succeed as a scientist, you not only need to produce quality research but also to do it at an acceptably high rate.

Theoretical Physics has many very hot interesting branches.For example, dark energy, dark matter, scalar fields in curved space-time, MOND theories, standard gravity. You can for sure find some "space between spaces" there. I have find a PhD in nuclear physics and then switched to gravity with no problem, with a good background you can do what you like. However, nothing is easy in theoretical physics/math, it might take a time for someone to understand the field, and this vary from person to person.

@CaptainEmacs He is actually the only person in the entire physics department who does any theory, the rest are condensed "matterists", experimentalists and computational physicists.

@user44690 Hm, that puts you in a challenging position. If you cannot switch to another uni/program, perhaps you should play it safe, do your BSc, and proceed for an MSc somewhere else. If he's a young prof, then he is not experienced and thinks everybody's like him (brilliant and quick etc.) and try to avoid giving a straight answer, making clear that you haven't decided yet. Frankly, if he doesn't want to help you, your future is none of his business (and if he does, then he should make it clear why he wants a response now); but do not say that to him :-)

Well, he has a point. You are not guaranteed to get a position (no one is), and you should have a backup plan.
Some possible solutions for a physicist are working as a software developer, a quant in finance, or teacher. You may also take a temporary job, hone your skills, and try again the next year. Another pre-emptive option, and what he probably has in mind, is to change to a field you are stronger in, and probably have a better chance of getting a position.
This said, if you really like this field, go for it and give it a shot. Just convince your potential supervisor that you are not delusional, you know the risks, and you are not overcomitting to a wild goose chase.

It may be an implied warning: He thinks you aren't up to snuff to do string theory. Which, since you failed his course, strikes me as reasonable. Many professors are poor teachers: Do blame him, because poor teaching is his fault. However, recognize that the majority of students do not fail his course, which suggests they did something you did not, going above and beyond in some way. (Extra study groups? Tutoring? Visiting him in his office?). How 'deeply motivated and interested' you are is irrelevant, unless it is reflected in your actions.
You are never in 'too deep to discontinue'. Getting a PhD in theoretical physics is hardly your only career option. And it's not a particularly good career option. Getting a PhD is hard. About half of those who start quit. Getting a job with a PhD is no picnic either.

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


text:
Is "inadequate referencing" a euphemism for plagiarism?
I am aware of a professor, who wrote two published books that had to be corrected. On the publisher's website it states that these two books had been corrected due to  "inadequate referencing". Is inadequate referencing essentially a euphemism for plagiarism? Or is it possible that inadequate referencing can really be a lesser sort of offence?

It could be a matter of taste for the editor. I've had one editor tell me every single sentence should cite to some sort of support, and another that hated "Id" and "Ibid" and insisted those be left out. In my opinion, the sweet spot is in between.

I think that's a rather unkind interpretation of what happened here. Books aren't the same as research articles - especially for text books, it is par for the course that large swaths (most?) of the book are not actually about the author's own ideas.
Further, extremely detailed referencing can easily reduce the readability of the book, so oftentimes book authors are given a bit more leeway than what would be acceptable in a research article.
What I assumed happened here is that either some references are simply missing (as Solar Mike said), or that it has been later on determined that some parts of the book should really reference more explicitly where the respective content came from (either because the original author complained or because the book author decided that some more references would help a reader find additional information). I would not assume this to mean that the book author blatantly copied material from somewhere (this, presumably, would not lead to a correction but to withdrawing the entire book, because it also sounds like a copyright nightmare for the publisher).

Good point about providing the reader with more information - I came across an astonishing unreferenced assertion in an MA-level textbook a while back and still haven't been able to track down any information about where it comes from or what evidence exists that it's true.

I'm not sure I agree, here. The word "inadequate" implies that something was actually wrong before; if I wanted to describe a situation in which the author had woken up one morning and thought, "Hey, the referencing in chapter 6 is OK but it could use some extra references to help the reader along", I'd use words like "improved referencing".

I have to say, I am aware that the Professor was known to have a few problems with regards to sloppiness in citation practice. I'm not sure I buy the argument that in a textbook, it's kind of ok to be sloppy with citiations

Perhaps the professor had included an incomplete bibliography in the first submitted version, so inline text references were there but not in the biblio...
Annoying for the professor, embarrassing possibly, but easily corrected, however, what it was I don't know.

What you're describing is a simple clerical error. I doubt they'd use a term like "inadequate" to describe something like that.

I'm guessing it's a euphemism for dubious content, rather than plagiarism.
While books should cite their sources, it is not necessary to cite every single fact. The book's author (who is an expert on the topic) will justify or prove most facts in the course of the discussion. It's good practice to include a bibliography showing relevant primary sources (e.g., for further reading); however, merely summarizing a published paper in a textbook does not necessarily require a citation (e.g., we do not cite Newton's papers in introductory physics books). Citations are really only needed when facts are asserted without being proven or justified through the narrative.
In this case, the word "inadequate" does make it seem that there was a problem. This could be a euphemism for plagiarism: word-for-word copying, or not meeting the publisher's standards in terms of referencing relevant work. Or, it could be that the author stated a lot of facts without justification or citation, and some of them turned out to be dubious or even wrong. That's my guess.


text:
Writing a letter of recommendation for your own, new grad student?
I have a new PhD student who needs a rather large number of letters of recommendation for a fellowship.  Normally I would not agree to write such a letter without knowing the student for a longer period of time, but at this point she has exhausted her list of other potential letter writers and has no other good option.  Also, I do genuinely believe in this student's potential (otherwise I wouldn't have hired her!), and have had nothing but terrific experiences with her so far.
Question: How do I write a compelling letter, given that I have known this student for only a short amount of time (less than a year)?
Obviously the fellowship is remunerative for me as well, since I wouldn't have to pay her out of my own grants for a few years.  A cynic sitting on the review board might say, "of course the advisor wrote a good letter—they want the money!"  What kind of tangible information might help dissuade a person with this kind of attitude?
(For reference, the fellowship is a big federal graduate fellowship in the US.)

Ah you shouldn't do it just be nice/as a last resort you should be confident out of the gate.. For the (less than a year) do you have enough experience to persuade who you're writing to? If this student pumps out work like no other than you'll have enough evidence to prove your argument. If so far you've ordered the students lab kit then no go. My 2 cents

Why did you agree to take the student?  Why do you believe in the student's potential?  Write that.

"of course the advisor wrote a good letter—they want the money!" — But the alternative is "Wait, she doesn't even have a letter from her advisor?  There must be a problem."

Several months, if you worked with the student, is plenty of time to get an informed impression, and especially so if your impression is good. This is how I would proceed:
Write how you know/met the student. Explain why/how your interaction developed. In your case, how did the student capture your attention, why you hired the student, what were the motives for this.
Then write facts. You say the student is terrific. What are the facts that support that? For instance, "the student solved a difficult problem in short time. The student very quickly understood the material you gave her to read. The student has produced a publication. The student is going to submit some research proposal earlier than expected. The student is extremely effective in running studies". Or, whatever is relevant in your case. At this stage, only list facts which are relevant to support the case of the student. If the student did not yet work with you, but you know the student from teaching her in class, you could go for "top 2 out of 50", "best coursework I have seen" or whatever is relevant there. Don't be tempted to write about things you do not know. If you have few, but promising, facts, limit yourself to state these and make them compelling.
In the next section, most references are expecting a few words outside of the concrete scientific facts, e.g. team work abilities, presentation skills, or something else of relevance that makes clear that the student has potential. Sometimes, hobbies are mentioned, but I typically make that dependent on whether it is relevant to the position/grant.
Now summarize your impression about the student, supported by the facts listed above. If you are delighted/looking forward to work with the student, do not hesitate to let that be known.
Of course, you would want the money - but, see it from the point of the funding agency: it is, of course, more likely to feel more confident giving the money to a student whose supervisor radiates the message that she is enthusiastic to work with that student. It is perfectly legitimate to support one's own student, and your reference will, of course, be completely open about that.

"more likely to feel more confident giving the money to a student whose supervisor radiates the message that she is enthusiastic to work with that student" Yes.  Great point.

What I do for these is to summarize the main points that led to her receiving a positive decision from the admissions committee:

She graduated from the top undergraduate program in my field with a senior thesis that dealt with XYZ
She had a stellar letters of recommendation from A, a  leading scholar in X, one of whom supervised her thesis closely. Her second letter was from B who worked with her closely during her junior summer research.
In the few months she's been here, she's been working in my lab on X project and has been making fantastic progress. Her project is particularly valuable to my field of R  because it'll potentially lead to a significant contribution to our understanding of E, F, and G which will impact N and O.
etc.

"main points that led to her receiving a positive decision from the admissions committee"  Also a great point.  Thank you.


text:
How to move your field away from a widely accepted practice that has a catastrophic error?
My sub-field has been haunted by the fact that for slightly over fifty years the key foundation of everything we do has been in empirical dispute.  The empirical anomalies have generated tens of thousands of articles.  There are over 3800 for just one anomaly alone.
The problem came about because the key work was done before the mathematics had been settled and so assumptions replaced theorems.  I know this because the original core set of papers have a math mistake in it.  Mathematicians ultimately did learn how to solve this class of problems, but the two fields never realized that the other didn't know what the other didn't know.  I found the mistake.  It is subtle, but catastrophic.
I had assumed that writing a paper and doing a population test on the data we have would bring about change.  Turns out that was very naive.  Other than continuously presenting at conferences, what else can I do to move my field away from a technique that can be proven to be completely uncorrelated with nature?  How do you get people to stop using the accepted practice?  It isn't a secret that it doesn't work, but it has always been assumed to be close in some very loose sense of "close."  Or rather, for a long time it has been assumed to be a poor approximation and that if the one thing causing the phenomenon were found, it would be added to the existing model and all would be great.  How do you move academics when it is in the undergraduate textbooks, it is being accepted for publication, and there are seminars every year on either a new anomaly or some other factor in how it does not work?
Any strategy would be welcomed.

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

Two quotes immediately came to mind:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. - Max Planck
I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it. - Morpheus from The Matrix

To elicit a change of the magnitude you indicate, four aspects must be communicated clearly and unequivocally:

The existence of the error (i.e., demonstrate that the prior approach is incorrect). Other academics in the field may not recognize that there is an issue.
The history of the error (i.e., why the prior approach was used and how it has persisted for 50 years). Given its age and prevalence, other academics may understandably presume that the prior approach has been validated before and may dismiss your claims on that basis.
The implications of the error (i.e., what negative impact the prior approach has). The effect of the prior approach may not be clear or other academics may perceive it as negligible relative to the effort necessary to adopt a new approach.
The change itself (i.e., the course of action to rectify the error - the new approach). Other academics may not know what should replace the prior approach.

You should first make sure that these have been satisfied in your previous publications. Assuming this has been achieved, there is really only so much you can do (see the quotes). You obviously can't force people to change their ways. In addition to being patient, you can (where appropriate):

Continue referencing it in future papers and conference presentations.
Highlight it in peer review.
If you teach, incorporate into your courses.
Write a review article of the error in your field (one way to address #2 above).
Communicate (1-4) in relatively plain language on your academic blog (assuming you have one).
Send your paper(s) to the authors of the undergraduate textbooks with a letter explaining (1-4) and why the change should be included in the next edition.
Write your own textbook.

@user25459 One more, not mentioned here: try to get publications in field on the boundary of your main field, perhaps even neighbouring disciplines close to the techniques in discussion, but who have less to lose.

And, as always when seemingly being the lone voice of reason, make sure you're actually right.

Note that it is entirely possible that you simply may not be able to effect change simply because of name recognition. I obviously don't know anything about you (Mr. OP), but if you're a recent graduate student or someone with few publications in the field you may have a hard time getting people to take you seriously even if you are entirely right.

@CaptainEmacs that is rather humorous actually.  I tried that.  It was rejected as obvious.  I sat there and just laughed because it had been previously rejected in the field as obviously false.

@Guho I never thought about an academic blog.  I just got my doctorate but this is my third career.  I have grandchildren.  Sometimes I forget that typewriters and index cards don't rule the world.  I have worked in two other disciplines, which is why I think I was very sensitive to other perspectives on the same topic.

@eykanal: That's what makes a lot of academia stink. I'm glad it is not a problem in all fields, and that it is still not as bad as politics.

Improper use of statistics is a widespread problem in many experimental sciences. I worked for some years in discrete optimization and got more and more frustrated that the "numerical experiments" were usually done without any reference to a statistical method, so that many good results where just random noise or calibrating of an algorithm to a very small data set.
I read horrible things about abuse of statistics in psychology and medicine (resulting in very low reproducibility). And I guess the same thing happens in many experimental fields.
My (pessimistic) view is that in a "publish or perish" culture, people tend to bend methods until they break, and this is especially easy with statistics: It is mathematical and often hard to grasp for the non-expert, and errors often do not lead to hard logical contradictions but to a weakened result.
Establishing questionable statistical methods in a research area often results in much more "positive" results that people can publish. And actually, this is what everybody wants. Most results are never reproduced, so non-reproducible results are likely to stay "true" very long.

@djechlin I admit I didn't explicitly answer the question, but summarizing I would say: It is not possible to change the general course of a subject, even if the foundation is wrong.

"Most results are never reproduced, so non-reproducible results are likely to stay "true" very long. " - would it be worth the time to try to reproduce a result you suspect is non-reproducible, then publish your success/failure? (Non-academic here)

Isn't peer review supposed to prevent statistical errors being published like you describe?

@immibis: I have friends who were told straight-out by their academic advisers not to try and reproduce anything. Yes, it's required in theory for scientific progress; but no, it's generally not a high-profile thing to get publication interest. (Is my understanding.)

@M.M  John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern published a footnote to an article warning that this class of problem had not been solved and that the proofs may only look like proofs.  Unfortunately they referenced an article written in German.  After than von Neumann went on to do other more interesting things like the Harvard architecture for computers and the hydrogen bomb and he never came back to it.  Leonard Jimmie Savage argued that arguments about the foundational rules of any discipline are the most contentious.  Peer review is supposed to catch it, but it got missed in the base article

@DanielR.Collins My thought was that while reproducing a previous result is generally not high-profile, failing to reproduce a result might be.

@M.M: On the contrary publishing pressure creates statistical anomalies, some inevitable but also some arising from intentional dishonesty. See http://stats.stackexchange.com/q/38403, and I'm sure you can find more about these effects, ironically some will be published statistical analyses.

@M.M: Peer review means that people from your subject which follow the same standards review your material. If some "strange" methods/standards are established, they are likely to stay for a while.

Start by convincing people like me.
I have read your articles and posts on these supposed errors. While you have convinced me that there are shortcomings in Modern Portfolio Theory (and all its offspring), I think most practitioners and academics operate under the assumption that all models are wrong, but that some are just useful. I.e., I think most of us already know the difference between models and reality.
I don't think you'll convince anyone that your solution to the portfolio problem is any less of a model than the one that your are critiquing. As a result, I would recommend that you shift your focus away from the technical arguments regarding the shortcomings of others and instead focus on the high-level benefits of the paradigm shift.
I'd also like to emphasize the "high-level" aspect. The argument, although technical, should be written clearly and concisely. It should be readily accessible to practitioners. If MBA students don't understand the benefits of switching, stodgy academics will see no reason to stop defending the status quo.
I recommend you start by convincing people like me because, ultimately, you need to convince practitioners that the benefits are worth mental and tangible switching costs.


text:
I'm looking for faculty positions. How important is it to have your PhD advisor's letter after 3 year post-doc?
Like the title said, I'm applying for faculty positions. I am finishing a 3 year post-doc. I have strong support from my post-doc advisor and other profs we collaborated with. I have no problem getting three solid references. I've always struggled with my PhD advisor though. He was once important in the field, but he rarely publishes peer-reviewed research lately. I actually got my post-doc without his letter.
I'm considering applying without his letter to faculty positions. Anybody have similar experiences or advice? I'm baffled by my problems with my PhD advisor. I actually did publish with him, and even won awards.

You allude to problems with your thesis advisor, but you don't say much about them.  The fact that he is not very research-active seems like a red herring: you can still get his letter and three more letters from more active academics: at least, in my field it works this way.  (For that matter, even if he is not so active now, his past achievements could still make him very influential.  That's kind of how it works.)  Are you saying that his letter for you would actually be negative?  Why did you not get his letter when you applied for postdocs (and how did you get a postdoc without it?)?

This is going to be very country dependent. For example, in the US letters are really important, but in the UK letters are not so important. Further Americans tend to write more positive letters than Brits.

To answer questions: The most important factor in getting the post-doc was a strong recommendation from another important person in the field who I had published with. Also, the hiring process was informal, my phd advisor had a reputation for not responding to anybody, and my post-doc advisor just didn't care.

To answer other questions. I get paranoid about telling too much about myself. The field is not math. It is a very applied field where they care deeply about funding.

Unless your former advisor can speak to your present and future research potential (especially funding potential), his letter won't add anything that your post doc references won't already say. At a certain point, prospective employers want to see that you have become an independent researcher, and a letter from a doctoral advisor might give the wrong impression.

This may be field dependent.  In my field (pure math), it is overwhelmingly common that someone who is applying for a first tenure track job has a letter from their thesis advisor.  I would guess that this happens at least 95% of the time...more than enough for people to take notice when the advisor does not have a letter in the file.  What field are you in?  (What field is the OP in?)

When is that "certain point" when a letter from a doctoral advisor might actually give the wrong impression? Yes, I agree I should be showing intellectual independence, and I should show I'm an independent researcher.

If you've completed a post doc and three years have elapsed since your last collaboration with your doctoral advisor, it would (in my field) be unusual to have the advisor write a LOR for you. There's no rule saying you can't include it as a 4th LOR, especially if he can speak to how well you've developed over the years (assuming he's stayed apprised of your progress) and his reputation as a researcher is still highly respected. If all he can address is how well you did while under his supervision, I think you'd be better off sticking with the post doc references.


text:
PhD in mathematics, science communication jobs
I'm doing a PhD in mathematics at one of the world-leading universities. I spend a lot of time engaging in science communication: both speaking (talks for general audience, some of them quite successful) and writing (popular science blog, I started to publish also in some magazines). Even though I enjoy maths a lot, I prefer communicating it to non-mathematicians much more.
Would getting a job in science communication as opposed to continuing research or working in industry be a "waste" of PhD?
Also, would I need a degree in journalism or science communication to be considered a serious candidate for jobs in popular science or media? I've done some research online but it seems that there aren't many scientists (not to mention mathematicians) with a PhD who would focus their career on communicating science.

Actually, I know several people who became science communicators after having got a PhD. However, in certain countries, making a living out of this profession might not be easy.

Apologies if you already know of this instance and it isn't helpful, but: https://www.ice.cam.ac.uk/about-us/staff-profiles/tutor/dr-james-grime

A PhD is only "wasted" if you believe it is wasted. If you enjoyed your research, and it's helping you to engage in a long-term career you enjoy, why would it be wasted?
However, there is a very clear need for people with solid scientific backgrounds who can clearly communicate complex mathematical and scientific ideas to the general public. People who can bridge the gap—for example, explaining concepts like "herd immunity" or "cryptocurrency"—in ways that the public can understand, are valuable in the scientific community, and we should be encouraging people to make that kind of outreach. It's not as popular as it should be in academia, but I believe that as more people engage in such careers, we will see room for growth.
So if it's something you really want to do, go for it!

"there is a very clear need for people with solid scientific backgrounds who can clearly communicate complex mathematical and scientific ideas to the general public" - the problem is if it's reflected in job opportunities.

'A PhD is only "wasted" if you believe it is wasted. If you enjoyed your research, and it's helping you to engage in a long-term career you enjoy, why would it be wasted?' +1 for that

A job in science communication after a PhD in Mathematics is not a waste at all! In fact, in my country, there is a well known example of a math PhD and science communicator (in addition to recently having become professor in science communication): Ionica Smeets (Wikipedia).
She mainly is known from co-writing a popular math-blog ('wiskundemeisjes') and more recently from presenting the yearly 'national science quiz' ('de Nationale Wetenschapsquiz') on Dutch television. As far as I know, she's never had any formal training in journalism. (but perhaps you could email her to ask if you're serious enough, she might be receptive)
Her inauguration speech (In Dutch), roughly translated is titled 'On the value of science communication' has some important paragraphs (translated and paraphrased):

When mathematicians exposed the Monty Hall problem to the general public, the responses to the correct result reported where both massive and hostile! First in the US, then when I reintroduced the problem in the Netherlands. (One reader asked whether it wasn't written by someone who has studied mathematics instead of her [she was a PhD student at the time])

She proceeds that she continued her effort to explain the correct solution to her readers.

I suggested that people try to solve the problem by repeated simulation it. One reader wrote that he spend whole night playing the game and didn't understand why, but he did understand that she was correct.

This, I think, is key. The role of science communication is both to explain and convince. If explanation fails, try to at least convince people of the scientific (here mathematical) truth.
Of course, whether people know the correct answer to a puzzle can hardly be called important. But it is a good example of what can go wrong and right in an explanation and that explaining science is far from trivial, a discipline in itself! She proceeds to show examples from medicine where the understanding of the general public is important and were completely misrepresented by journalists (not completely their fault, as I said, science communication is hard)
@DaveLRenfro mentions two more examples: Helen Joyce (Ph.D. under David Preiss) and Evelyn Lamb (Ph.D. from Rice University).

Thank you for the example, I've never hear of her. It's really reassuring to know that there mathematicians out there who succeeded in such a career.

@Paula I've just thought of an example more 'close to home' (in English, at least): Raymond Smullyan. The late logician is well known for his puzzle books, which are basically recreational introductions into the field of logic. He's inspired plenty of would be puzzlers and mathematicians, no doubt!

A couple of examples I know are Helen Joyce (Ph.D. under David Preiss) and Evelyn Lamb (Ph.D. from Rice University).

@DaveLRenfro, thank you for these links. It's very interesting and reassuring to read about their career choices.

More examples: Barry Cipra (see http://laughmaths.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-making-of-barry-cipra.html and http://laughmaths.blogspot.com/2014/03/barrys-journey-through-science.html) and Dana Mackenzie (see http://www.danamackenzie.com/about.htm, noting that he attended the science writing program at UC Santa Cruz that Cipra mentions).

You may well have heard of these but in case not:

For combining a career in Mathematics with a lot of communication there is Professor Ian Stewart (now retired from Warwick University, England, but still active) and Professor Marcus du Sautoy.
For having moved from mathematics with a lot of communication to - for now - mostly communication, maybe look at the career of Dr Eugenia Cheng, mathematician and pianist:

http://eugeniacheng.com/
Mathematics PhD at Cambridge University, England
Tenure in Pure Mathematics (Category Theory) at Sheffield University, England
Currently Scientist In Residence at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.
Dr Eugenia Cheng is Scientist In Residence at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. Alongside her research in Category Theory and undergraduate teaching her aim is to rid the world of "math phobia".  Her first popular math book, How to Bake Pi, was published by Basic Books in 2015 to widespread acclaim acclaim. Her next book, Beyond Infinity, was published in 2017. Eugenia is also math columnist for the Wall Street Journal, a concert pianist and founder of the Liederstube.
https://twitter.com/DrEugeniaCheng
An insightful interview:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/26/eugenia-cheng-interview-observer-nicola-davis
An even more insightful interview/podcast, which you might or might not be able to access:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09nvrcn

Not only is it not a waste, it might even be a prerequisite! How are you going to communicate complex ideas on the bleeding edge of science, if you cannot follow or grasp the literature yourself?
Ignoring everything else, having a PhD title makes it clear that you have had experience reading and writing literature (at least in most fields I can think of). Overall, I think seeing your research time as a waste is not something you should be worried about at all, no matter the career choice. Even if your future or prospective employer does not value your hands on research experience in financial terms, you will surely benefit from the experience, in my opinion.
On the other hand, if you start to compare yourself to what you consider as your peers now, several years down the line, that's a different story. You may, or may not, be happy with how you have invested your time, professionally speaking. There is no objective way of knowing that in advance. That kind of regret or frustration is called hindsight and it's a common human fallacy :)

You just nailed my problem: my alternative is a career in finance, so a highly respected and well-paid job. What if I regret not following this path... But no way of knowing if I don't try, you're right.

Maybe you can try to dip your toes in the water, before you take a metaphorical dive? Have you considered applying for an editorial position in a research journal, there are many well respected journals with cross-disciplinary focus and thus are on a more general audience level. It would be well respected in academia and you might even be able to combine that with a research position if you later down the road decide not to pursue that career?

As for finance, that's tricky to predict. My only advice there is to make acquaintance with people that have done similar career choices as you are considering and try to get a feel for their day-to-day lives. Then you can see if that is more appealing to you then communicating science to masses

To my point of view - PhD skills are definitely a good and valuable thing for oneself and the community

Hopefully, during the PhD time, it makes some sense for you and your environment, as well as fun.
It will personally increase your insight in your research topic (and also to the areas around). For the community later, these insights as well as your achieved abilities will make a difference.
Normally, it is paid better later - a good science communicator is invaluable.
As aeismail mentioned before, people understanding and translating complex topics (such as in a PhD) are needed.


text:
What if I may not have research experience for math PhD application?
I am a master student of some engineering (other than EE/CS) in a decent US institution who will apply for a PhD in mathematics in Fall 2014 (possibly in PDE / applied analysis, but not sure). I finished with three A's and five A+'s in eight upper-undergrad / grad math courses, along with four more to come this fall. Since my intention for a math PhD came pretty late, I am only able to look for supervisor this semester. The sad thing, as expected, is that all three potential supervisors declined my request softly. My previous engineering research experiences are mostly experimental, with little to do with math.
So I have roughly one full semester left, and my questions are:

Is it possible to gain any sort of research experience in this semester without a supervisor?
If not, then how can I show my research potential by other ways?
Will the three LORs solely from course lecturers be convincing, even if the lecturers are well-known, and I did pretty well in their courses?
In addition, is abstract algebra a must or at least very important in math PhD application? Since I have to make a choice between Algebra II and Dynamical systems, and I don't have Algebra I.

Thank you for your responses and criticisms.

Your last question is better suited for a math board than here; that part of the question is out of scope for our board.

@aeismail Thank you, I have modified the question so it may have a definite answer.

Firstly, I should mention that I am a 3rd year math PhD student at Brown. So I have a hint of knowledge, but not as much as a professor who has been to more institutions, and certainly not as much as someone who has been  on an admissions committee.
Firstly, many starting PhD mathematicians have no real research experience. The reason is simply that research mathematics is so far from most undergraduate mathematics. This is also why doing research is so hard without a supervisor (for that matter, it's hard with a supervisor). Many candidates have done REUs, which look generically good but often don't usually result in a publication or anything.
What I recommend to you is that you:

Identify what you're interested in and pursue it. You say you maybe like applied analysis or PDE. Maybe see what some people are doing, read some of their stuff, backtrack if you need to. In this sense, you can just do research without waiting for someone else's permission. I'd like to mention that there is a polymath project you might be interested in, Polymath 7 on the Hot Spots Conjecture (here is a link to the most recent progress page). It's slowed down, but they've done some interesting things and the polymaths are generally good about leaving a clean trail of breadcrumbs.
Ask about showing research potential and getting letters of reference. Instead of worrying about what's the absolute best thing, I think you should worry about doing the best that you can do. You've tried to set up some research with professors and that fell through. You haven't done math research before, and you're probably not going to get far in the next 4 months. In particular, it's unlikely that you're going to come up with a result great enough to inspire someone you haven't worked with to write you a letter of reference. This is all to say that you should get your letters of reference from those best able to recommend you. If these are lecturers, then so be it. But I hope that you've been attentive, proactive, and inspired in those classes. For that matter, if you're inspired, you might be able to ask your dynamical systems professor for an interesting project - approachable projects exist. It might not be new research, but at least it would be something you, and others, could talk about. As a final note, you should talk to your math professors and ask them for advice - I suspect that at least one of them will be able to say something, and they're more familiar with your situation.
Have you done any research in your 'some engineering?' Conceivably, a great letter of reference could come from your advisor/a great teacher/I don't know these details. You should talk to them about this, and get their advice.
Determine what schools you're interested in applying to (apply to many), and their requirements. Brown's Applied Math department does not require algebra. But they do (essentially if not officially) require the math GRE, which does require algebra (though for less than 1/4 of the test). On the other hand, Brown's Pure Math department (the one I'm in) has a severe algebra requirement. Interestingly, PDE is done in both, though in different directions. Many schools require algebra, or require it in the sense that they will have qualifying exams and one of those is in algebra. My undergrad, which I'd say has an applied bent, had quals in algebra and both real and complex analysis. So you could consider taking algebra if you needed to or wanted to, based on looking into what universities you want to apply.
However, algebra II without algebra I sounds incredibly perilous, especially as the fall semester is upon us already, or is about to be. Perhaps possible with a lot of pre-work. If you are going to attempt to hop into algebra II, I recommend getting a copy of Dummit and Foote's algebra book (clear exposition at a low level).
Finally, plan on taking the math subject GRE. It's only offered 3 times each year, and you've missed the summer one. You should take it both times this fall, and those signups might already be occurring.

To supplement what @mixedmath aptly observed: your experiences in engineering departments will have been misleading about the expectations of mathematics grad admissions, almost universally. That is, it's not so much "research record" as getting up-to-speed on the very basics of the vast established literature in mathematics. Usually this is done by coursework, but not necessarily, though having a paper trail is useful. Taking the GRE subject test is a sign of awareness of how the game is played, if nothing else.
I am frequently surprised at the apparent possibility in engineering and CompSci to do meaningful research at an undergraduate level. Perhaps "research" refers to a different thing than it does in mathematics... I think we have a severe shortage of labels, insofar as there seem to be only two valid/understood descriptors: "coursework" and "research", with some belief that the former is just gatekeeping and unrelated to the latter.
In any case, unless one tries awfully hard, the very most-basic topics in mathematics are used and useful throughout mathematics, despite much gossip and mythology to the contrary. E.g., the central notions of abstract algebra arise everywhere... although, sure, one can struggle to "get by" by reinventing crappy versions of "wheels" without ever knowing that the technology had been perfected 100 or 200 years ago.
Yes, it is toooo often true that courses and exams are conducted in a nearly-punitive fashion, and perversely emphasize separation from other subject matter, but one should try to ignore this exaggeration and caricature.


text:
Sending a thank you letter to a research professor?
I had an amazing research professor I conducted research under for my last two semesters of undergrad.  I graduated in December and am currently waiting to hear back from graduate programs.  This professor wrote me a letter of recommendation and I sent him a thank you email.  However, I wanted to send him a hand written thank you letter for the letter of recommendation, all I learned while researching under him, and to see how several projects are going since I've graduated and left his lab.
Is it too late or "awkward" to send him a handwritten thank you note now that it's been about one and a half months since I've last contacted him?

In my opinion, an email would be better since it's kind-of the norm nowadays. I personally like brief, to-the-point, not-so-formal emails than long and boring ones. Sometimes it depends on whom it is desalinated. But again, it's just an opinion :)

A well-written thank-you note is always appropriate. A hand-written note shows class.

Is it too late or "awkward" to send him a handwritten thank you note now that it's been about two months since I've last contacted him?

Nope.
Two months is not so long in the academic sense at all. Whether or not it's handwritten shouldn't matter as much, either. Typing it up is perfectly acceptable, readable, and much easier to correct if you make an error.

Glad to hear!  I plan to deliver it later this week, thank you so much!

Handwritten notes are more personal, and my guess is most people appreciate them more (I do, provided they're legible).

The timing would be even better if you wrote him upon getting accepted into a graduate program - then you would also be informing him on the news. Of course, @espertus' suggestion are quite relevant (and no less relevant when you get accepted somewhere).

In addition to Compass' excellent response, I'll suggest a few other things you can do:

Make a small donation to the college in honor of the professor.  He will be notified.
Cc the letter about how helpful he was to his department head and/or Provost.

FWIW, I'm a professor and save all such letters and emails.


text:
Reporting yet-to-be completed graduate study on CV
I am currently enrolled as a graduate student and am working towards my PhD. I need to update my CV and was wondering how others reported ongoing graduate study when the completion date was uncertain. That is, I know that I'll be graduating in, say, 2019 +/-3 years, and therefore can't honestly list my graduate work as, say,

XYZ University, PhD, (Expected 2019)

Would something like:

XYZ University, Graduate Study, (2014-).

be clear enough? I think that most people in my field will correctly assume that this is graduate study towards a PhD. However, it is probably not ideal to rely on assumptions. Another idea is:

XYZ University, PhD, (2014-).

But I think it could be read as though the degree is practically complete, which might come off as a bit presumptuous. What about replacing "PhD" with "PhD (in progress)". This seems to fix the "presumptuous" question but also seems less clean.
To be clear, I'm more concerned about the phrasing than the formatting of line. (Although I recognize that certain formatting styles may convey the proper message more effectively.) Any thoughts or additional ideas appreciated.

I would recommend a slightly different phrasing, to explicitly stating the start and expected duration of your program:

XYZ University, PhD, (2014 - 2019 [anticipated])

This conveys clearly the important information of how far along you are in your doctoral studies.
Most people know that there can be a great deal of variation in the completion of a Ph.D., and nobody expects that you can predict the future, so if you later shift the date forward or back, it should not be taken amiss by anyone reading the C.V.

I would write something like:

XYZ University, PhD, 2015 - present

I am not sure that the expected graduation date conveys any information since such plans are inherently subject to variations. Moreover the length of a PhD can be both country and institution dependent, hence to check of you're actually "on time" one would have to cross-reference your expected date with these two parameters. Franky I doubt that whoever reads your CV will actually compute this operation.
On the other hand the starting date is fundamental because it gives an exact measure of how long you've been enrolled in the program, and this calculation is quite trivial.

...can't honestly list my graduate work as, say,

XYZ University, PhD, (Expected 2019)

Sure you can. There's a certain typical length of a PhD program in your field; you take your starting date, add that length of time, and that's your expected completion date. Or if you have other information that allows you to refine your expectations about your own completion date, you can take that into account and list a different year.
It's given as "expected" precisely because you don't know if you'll actually be completed at that time.


text:
How to deal with racial insensitivity in an academic environment?
I am an undergraduate research assistant in a biology lab. I was having an informal conversation while working at lab with my professor and a colleague of him. In the middle of our conversation, my professor passed a racially insensitive remark at me (I can reproduce here if someone wants to know). However, he realized it and walked away immediately. I am very upset.
But after few hours, he came back and he was conversing with me like nothing happened, but I am still upset. Can you all tell me how to handle this? My options are to ask him if he did that unknowingly or to keep quiet. But I really want to know if he feels sorry for what he said. I really don't want to complain to his superiors, but I want him to apologize to me for what he said. Is this unreasonable? if not, how should I go about dealing with this person?

@VahidShirbisheh "If he was an understanding person, he would never make a racial comment in the first place" - I disagree; in academia people come from different cultures, what is unacceptable in one culture might be OK in another. Not saying this is the case for the OP but still... Skipping over the head of someone means that person is incapable of solving an issue in a proper manner.

@VahidShirbisheh short answer to your question; absolutely not. Nothing justifies a wrong behavior. On the other hand, allow me to demonstrate what I mean by an example; calling someone with a dark complexion "black" is not offensive in many cultures/languages, however it is politically incorrect in the U.S. and based on what I head from my American friends, it's totally unacceptable in a professional environment. You might not know that if you haven't lived in that culture long enough.

... Assuming that a person has bad morals, or that he/she is a racist etc, without pointing out what they have said or done is not OK, is not fair in my opinion.

@posdef I think that even though in other cultures it might not be offensive (in my country there's no problem saying that), it depends on the way you say it. Although, even in informal conversations I wouldn't call a person by adjectives.

@posdef: I (an American) think "black" is perfectly fine; for example, the phrase "historically black colleges" is standard, whereas *"historically African-American colleges" is bizarre. But in typical workplaces, there's little reason to use these terms anyway.

I would add that people are far from perfect, and even the best of us will say and do things we regret every now and then. It's possible that the professor really did say something unacceptable, but honestly feels sorry for it and is usually reasonable.

Please reproduce the allegedly racially insensitive remark in your question.

@ruakh that's for the info but I really meant to use that as an example, it was the first one that came to my mind. My point is not whether what the prof said was offensive or not, but rather you cant know what made the person say what he/she said without putting aside assumptions and talking to that person openly.

"he was conversing with me like nothing happened," -- reciprocate -- QED.

Since there are complex reasons for this behavior (racism is a rare extreme in my opinion), I think organisers of sensitivity training could provide answers and strategies.

"...I can reproduce if someone wants to know"...except, when asked to in a comment, it doesn't happen (and OP was online last a day after that request was made). As much as I like ASE, it really makes me between disappointed and sad how any question involving the words 'racism', 'sexism', 'discrimination', and the like, will auto-generate dozens if not hundreds of upvotes, even if the case made is kept in modern Orwellian terms which are by consensus bad - while hiding what actually happened, or allegedly happened. It's almost comical, but probably more sad as it ultimately stems from fear.

@VahidShirbisheh - "A racist comment has a deep root in attitude of the person and it does not come from no-where." ...actually, it often can just be cultural misunderstanding. I know people in rural areas that called brazil nuts "niggertoes" for years without ever once even realizing the reference...it was just one big word that everyone called them, no more offensive in their realization than the first 3 letters of "assembly", until its likely roots were pointed out to them. Even then it was hard to undo decades of habit, even though no racism or ill-intent is meant. Cultures differ a LOT.

You interpret the remark as racially insensitive, but would he? You interpret his walking away as acknowledgement, but would he? You may feel that he doesn't respect you but the fact that he made the comment in front of his colleague makes it seem less likely that he thought it was inappropriate. Be careful that you are not being over sensitive and finding fault where there is none.

It is quite impossible to properly evaluate the situation without understanding the exact wording of the exchange, including preceding context, and what about it made you feel slighted.

In your question, However, he realized it and walked away immediately. and But after few hours, he came back and he was conversing with me like nothing happened
indicate to me that he felt sorry and didn't know exactly how to deal with it.
Professors are also human. They make the same mistakes others do.
I would suggest you to talk to him in person about this incident politely and seriously. Tell him that you are upset with the remarks he made earlier and explain to him why. Don't be emotional.
Whether or not he will apologize is up to him. If he doesn't offer apology to you after you talk to him, then talk to his superiors if you want the apology.

I guess it depends on the personalities to a certain extent but it's always good to talk to the person, to weed out any misunderstandings and/or give that person a chance to explain him/her-self.
If I were in your shoes, I would start by asking the person if you can have a 1-to-1 meeting, during which I would take up:

what you heard him/her say
that it bothers you for reasons: A,B,C ...
and that you wonder if he/she meant what was said, or if it was untimely and insensitive joke.

Given the offense is really bothering you, I personally wouldn't advocate for keeping quite and letting it go. Insensitivity aside, if your boss has racially-demeaning or insulting opinions, then it's probably not the kind of place you want to work at anyways. It would be better to know that...
I have to stress that even though my suggestion might seem confrontational, with right tone and choice of words I am certain it would not appear so to the professor in question. For reference, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication

You say you have two options - to ask or to ignore. Actually you have many options - infinitely many. One of these would be to get to know your professor better. This I recommend.
There are compusive disorders that impell people to say shocking things. Tourette's syndrome is an extreme case, but there are others. Sometimes we just do stupid things.Some people find it terribly hard to apologise. We humans are very complex.
Nobody knows what it feels like to live in inside another's skin.

See if your campus offers diversity training (a Google search of allintext:diversity training faculty site:edu shows that many US institutions offer this).
If so, go to the organizers of the courses and ask for advice about what to do. Before you mention the name of the faculty member to them, ask what would be the consequence of giving that information.

I'm curious why downvoters didn't say why they downvoted.

Don't know. Maybe because you weren't able to be more precise about which site yet you can't. I think your answer is valuable.

I tend towards not expecting an apology at a gaffe. If it doesn't repeat, you can assume they were possibly mortified themselves. If you insist on an apology, you may even get it, but what's the point, beside making them lose face? (Well, some people expect that as compensation for themselves being insulted, but you should ask yourself if you really need this).
An apology which is given freely and by own initiative is worth by far the most.
If the offence repeats, you can assume it's not a gaffe. Now you could really insist on an apology, but in my experience, it shows more aplomb, and, in fact, is far more powerful, to then move towards acting coldly, aloof and professional. This shows you're the boss here and they the immature kid (even if age-wise, it's reversed).

Actually, I was in a very similar situation once. It didn't actually bother me as much as it seems to bother you.
But - I could tell on the inside that the professor in this situation, felt really really bad afterwards. I could tell that he was a good guy, but just made a mistake.
After that, he treated me extremely well in order to 'make up' for what he did. Though, I didn't say anything about it or ask for an apology.
If you really want an apology, confront him professionally about the issue. It was his mistake. And afterwards, I believe he will treat you with the at most respect in order to 'make up' for what he did.

In your special case (which may not be the same as the asker's) where you could tell that the professor felt really really bad and tried to 'make up' for it in ways other than an explicit apology, in my opinion there is actually something that you can do to immediately resolve the tension and discomfort on both sides: Tell the professor: "I was bothered at that particular moment of [your remark/behaviour] (spelt out briefly), but if it was a mistake I can understand and put it aside. Okay?" In other words, there is no need for a 'confrontation', although a mutual resolution is beneficial.

He didn't mean it. I am not sure whether it is a good idea to bring the issue again.
I think your professor felt sorry about it and thats why he left and came back (a good indication he has nothing against you).
I really suggest not to make it public nor bring the issue again and as long as he is a fair and kind professor, that is what you need.  If the racial issue comes again, then that is another story.

I really don't agree with this.  If the professor did in fact feel sorry about it, then he will presumably apologise if the issue is brought up, and this will make the OP feel better.  Why exactly do you think it might be best not to bring it up?  How do you think it could hurt?

@TaraB The behavior tells us that the professor felt sorry for that. Now whether he do apologies for it is another story. He probably might do it without asking. Also, If the OP can't forget about it then he definitely should raise it but this might come with the cost of losing the professor's help. This said, we really do not know what happened exactly and I see nothing force the student to raise it specially if it was unintentional incident from a good professor.

Not make it public? This is no obligation on the OP! I know you don't his career to destroyed but still...

@seteropere:  "The behavior tells us that the professor felt sorry for that": clearly that hasn't been enough for the OP.  If raising the issue politely would cause the student to lose the professor's help, there is a big issue there and it needs to be dealt with rather than just swept under the carpet.  Fortunately, I doubt it's that serious.


text:
How to transfer from a pure math PhD to an applied math PhD at another school?
I am currently a first year graduate student in a pure math PhD program in a top-100 university studying topology.  I declined offers from top 20 schools to attend this school because I liked the professors at this university and the location of the school was good.
After going to a couple of conferences and talking to some post-docs/grad students from other universities, I found out that the career prospects for someone like me look quite terrible (if I wanted to stay in academia).  Even grad students from Stanford/Berkeley (i.e. top schools) were having a bit of trouble finding a spot in academia.  Given that I'm really far down the "food chain" and I want to stay in academia, it looks very unrealistic for me.  Also, the math is really hard :)
I realize that I should go to a top-20ish school to have access to enough resources to make myself a competitive applicant in the future (I realize that I should focus on my work, but it's hard to grow a lot at my current university given the lack of learning seminars/seminars in general).
That said, I've been going to conferences and giving talks and "doing the right things."  However, I am finding that the current research I am doing is quite abstract and I don't have people I can regularly talk to about it.  I've recently discovered the subfields of topological data analysis and DNA topology and I'm finding those subjects really appealing in that I can actually see how my work might impact people and I can actually understand the material that is covered in seminars (the topics are very approachable).
From what the grad chair told me, I'm one of the strongest students that has entered this school's PhD program so I'm suspecting that, if I want to transfer, my letters of recommendation would be fairly strong.
However, the main issue for me is that I still do want to stay in academia.  I know that I don't need to go to a top 20 school to do "good" work but I don't see myself finishing my PhD at a school that isn't in the top 20.
So, that's the background.
I really want to transfer to a top (whatever that might mean) applied math program from my current institution.  I have only taken pure math classes.  I don't know how to nicely approach my professors and say "I don't want to stay here.  Please write me a letter of recommendation so I can get out."  My current plan is to say something like "I've developed some interest in applied math and we don't do that here.  I'm seeing myself doing research in applied math.  Will you write me a letter (etc)?"

How realistic is it for me to transfer to a (top) applied math program?  My GPA is currently a 4.0 and my undergrad was completed at a top 5 university (with a 3.8).
If it is realistic, how do I maximize my chance of being admitted into a (top) applied math program?
If it is realistic, what are some better ways to approach professors at my current university about this?

If it isn't realistic, I might just finish a PhD here.  I know that I can get more specialized attention at my university, but I thought I'd do a preliminary pass here to get a sanity check before I ask people in my department.  I am not familiar with people transferring from pure math to applied math programs.

I really want to transfer to a top (whatever that might mean) applied math program --- No, you don't. You want to apply to a department in which people actively work on topological data analysis and/or DNA topology. That might be math; it might be applied math; it might be statistics; it might be biology; it might even be computer science. TDAists are a pretty interdisciplinary bunch.

You might find http://appliedtopology.org helpful/interesting.

Get your feet wet in applied math to make sure you'll like it.  Apparently there is no applied math program where you are now, but you can still do this,  through a combination of self study and courses offered in your own and in other departments.  Look at some applied math programs at other universities to get a flavor for the variety involved, and to give you some ideas of what sorts of courses to look for.  Programming skills are not required for all areas of applied math but can really come in handy for some.
When you're ready to ask for recommendations, be honest, just say that you are hopeful an applied math degree will make you more employable.
I assume you'll want to pursue this process with some transition time, during which you'll continue working to some extent with your current program including your research project....  If so, please find some people to interact with remotely, in your area.

There is an applied math program here, but it does not focus on the type of applied math I'm looking at.  For instance, if I mention the phrases "sheaf cohomology" or "K(G,n)," I get redirected to the math department (instead of people who are interested in data analysis).  I am planning on applying next December, which gives me a year to fiddle around with these applied concepts.  I'll definitely follow along courses of departments that do do these things (eg. Columbia/Stanford).  Thanks for the tips!

@Bob - Have you looked at your university's course offerings for spring semester, and the corresponding course descriptions? What exactly is the type of applied math you're "looking at" (please include at least one link)?  What do you mean, "mention," "get redirected"?  Have you taken a look at the web pages of the applied math faculty at your institution?  Have you spoken/emailed with anyone at that department?  I'm not against your plan to transfer, but I would hope that department can at least help you build a bridge to another school.  (You might even be able to do something ...

... interdisciplinary at your present institution.  (I'm not saying you can, or that it's likely that you'll be able to, just that at this point it might be too soon to rule it out.) // Do you have an advisor?  Is s/he helpful at all in connection with this wondering you're doing? // Have you found some papers in the area that interests you?

You've made it clear from your question that you're very interested in the area of topological data analysis.  This is a current "hot topic", and there is considerable interest in that topic, but relatively few people are actively involved at this stage.  Most applied mathematics programs won't have any faculty working in this specific area, so simply transferring to an applied math program isn't going to be sufficient.  Furthermore, this is a topic very far from the main stream in applied mathematics departments, so you might find that the applied math programs you consider either won't offer the right coursework or will require you to spend too much time on other topics.
What you really need to do is to find a program with a faculty advisor that you want to work with (and who wants to work with you) and degree requirements that will allow you to pick coursework in support of a dissertation in this area.  This might end up being in an applied math department, or a pure math department, or perhaps in an interdisciplinary program that specializes in machine learning or data analysis.

Your two options are either finishing the PhD where you stared or transferring in the process. (Oh, and also: giving up entirely.) As a first-year it might be Ok just to switch. It might be easier and better for you just to pull the PhD through and to transition afterwards. You will have to anyway if you aim for the academic career. And if you don't: your struggle finishes anyway with the PhD.
Can you gain something from your current school, so the first year is not lost? A research paper publish? A Master's? (Though in some places (cough, US, cough) Masters's might be frown upon as their are sort of "unsuccessful PhDs, so check this for your local culture.)


text:
Is it inappropriate to ask for a salary specification when interviewing for a postdoc position?
I am in the last year of my PhD (neuroscience/biomed research) in Italy and I have applied for an interesting postdoc position in Perth, Australia, at a neuroscience research centre affiliated with the UWA.
The call that I have applied for is describe as “founded”, although without any hint about the actual salary. During the interviews and the few further emails with the new PI he has never mentioned the income, just stating that it would be provided “from internal sources” (so independently for grant funding) for the two years-contract. Btw he also offered me to help with visa, accommodation, etc, in case of hiring.
I haven’t pushed this topic any further and I am still waiting for their final decision. Do you think it would be inappropriate to ask the amount of my salary and how should I approach it? I am very excited about the idea  to have a postdoc experience overseas, but I am sure that relocate completely will be a quite big deal and I am not familiar with the Australian cost of life, so knowing the actual income could help me a little to evaluate the whole thing.

Yes, it's appropriate to ask

The salary table is here http://www.hr.uwa.edu.au/policies/Collective_Workplace_Agreements/Academic_Staff_Agreement/part-l-schedules/a A postdoc must be paid at level A step 6 or above.  The salary is good.

I think it's a pretty common situation, during my applications I have noticed one of the two alternatives with regards to salary when looking for postdoc positions:

it's clearly specified in the job advert. This typically happens if the salaries are somehow regulated at an institutional level, thus there is little room for negotiation (if any at all).
it's never mentioned, in the advert or during interviews. I have noticed that many hiring academics have the tendency to think that salary is not an important matter in the decision of an academic position. For the sake of the argument I'll not go into why that's a frustrating assumption, but the fact of the matter is that many group leaders assume that if you are applying for an academic position you have sorted out your priorities and the salary isn't on top of that list.

Let's come back to your case at hand; I don't think it's inappropriate to want to have an idea about your salary before accepting a position. After all it is a professional affair and you are entitled to know every little detail of the rights and responsibilities that come with the position you are considering.
I would however rather wait to see if they will offer the job to you, before taking up any negotiations. So in terms of priorities:

make sure it's you who they pick
try to see what kind of an offer they would be willing to make.

And finally regarding postdoc salaries in Australia; according to this link they are around $75-$85K/year (that is aussie dollars btw). I have no idea how reliable this source is, but that was literally on the first page of a google search, so I am sure you can dig into it if you put in a bit of time on it.
Best of luck! :)

There are some other possible explanations for #2, besides "general obliviousness". There may not be a specific fixed salary for the position, but rather a range, with the exact salary offer depending on the strength of the candidate.  In that case they may not want to disclose the range at the interview - if the eventual offer is at the low end of the range, the candidate's feelings might be hurt.  It's also possible that the people doing the interviewing may not even know what the salary is, because salary decisions are made at higher echelons and kept secret.

@NateEldredge fair point

In the specific case of postdocs at Australian universities, it would be inappropriate to ask about salary in an interview.  The reason is that you can find the salary in the publicly available enterprise agreement for that university.  A postdoc will typically be appointed at the lowest salary allowed for a person with a PhD.  You can request a higher salary.  Usually the agreement requires that postdocs be paid at one of the salaries in the salary table.


text:
Enquiring PI about post-acceptance process of admission (PhD, Germany)
Recently I have been offered a PhD position from one of the research institutes in Germany. The PI told me that he has prepared the acceptance/contract draft and sent it to the HR department who are supposed to contact me. It’s been almost one month since then, but the HR people have not contacted me yet. Should I mail the PI requesting to let me know the status as some of the official things were halted (like visa application) from my side?
Generally how much time HR people will take to send this information to the candidates? Any experiences/suggestions would be appreciated.

I do not have any statistical data (hence this is not an answer), but after about a month of waiting, a polite inquiry for the expected waiting time ("just to make sure no messages are lost") would definitely be appropriate without coming across as too demanding.

@O.R.Mapper Thanks Mapper. I will consider what you said.

Should I mail PI requesting to let me know the status as some of the official things were halted (like visa application) from my side?

Yes (assuming that you are polite). In most, if not all, German science institutions, the administration is a separate department. It is very unlikely that your PI sympathises with them and in fact, most scientists in Germany I know are not on very good terms with their administration.
Moreover, your PI is much better equipped to spur your administration than you (and everybody else for that manner):

Its his research project that is delayed and possibly also his funds that are wasted.¹
He is usually higher-ranking than than the people handling your employment, though not their direct superior.
He is usually experienced with that specific administration.
He knows all the details of the process, because he started it.

Finally, he usually has an interest in things going smoothly for you. If your PI exhibits no interest in taking care of these matters, you should reconsider your decision to take this job.
The only exception from this may be if your PI’s group has its own secretary. Then it’s the secretary’s job to deal with such things and they are the best person to talk to.

Generally how much time HR people will take to send this information to the candidates?

Administrations in Germany can strongly differ in efficiency, usually depending on their backlog. I did experience such a process to take longer than a month, but that was by an administration that has a nation-wide fame for its incompetency. Still, most administrations are capable of handling things quickly, if they want and need to – maybe they just failed to notice that you need a confirmation of your contract early for visa affairs.
However, there are certain inevitable durations. For example, depending on the circumstances, your employment may have to be ratified by some personnel board, which only meets at certain intervals.

¹ If all things fail, he can threaten to report himself to the authorities for wasting tax money.

Thank you very much. It gave me a broad idea of how things work. It seems PI is very nice as he assured me to arrange guest house until I get a house at nearby place. And do you think it would be better to ask student forum (instead of PI) at the institute regarding this matter, as I have found some information that student groups are helping new candidates in such matters.

And do you think it would be better to ask student forum (instead of PI) at the institute regarding this matter – No. The PI almost always has the better leverage (“Your incompetence is wasting my funds and delaying my research project!”), is responsible for the funds anyway, and knows all the details ranging from process numbers to which person to speak to. (See also my edit.)