text:
Course gives flawed problems in exams every time
There is a course at my university that has not had a correctly posed exam as far as any student remembers.
The exam consists of five problems of the type "Prove that if A, then B". At least one of the statements to be proved later turns out to be false.
This happens every year. No one from the teaching staff ever acknowledges this in writing, neither before nor after the exam. They usually make the grade cutoffs more lenient as compensation.
Has anyone encountered such a situation? What to do here, as a student?

Have you checked what the solutions to the exam say? How sure are you that the problem is not designed to be that way?

Country? Is the university system nice to students, arw students generally heard? Any student union?

This should be closed because it is a complaint, not a question.  Students cannot do much of anything except switch to a different university.

You don't say what field this is, but in a logic or math course this might be a perfectly fine sort of question if the objective is to recognize errors, incorrect statements, and poor reasoning.
Recognizing that something isn't true and saying why can be just as valuable as providing a proof of something that is true. After all, in the political sphere there is a lot of such flawed reasoning that you can see every day in common media.
So, before you object, or claim that the professors are incompetent, explore why this is happening. Just the fact that it recurs implies to me that it may well be intentional.
However, I would hope that instructors using such a technique give some sort of warning beforehand.
I used to warn my students that the final would have one question that would be extremely difficult (nearly impossible) for any of them to answer. It was a thought provoker. But I expected students to say "something intelligent" for such questions even though I didn't expect solutions.  The grading has to reflect this, of course.

A warning to expect a false assertion is absolutely necessary. It might be "one of these requests for a proof is for a false statement" or (better, I think) marking each request "prove or disprove". Warning about and then asking a really hard question with no answer given what's covered in the course is in a different  (also acceptable) category.

"Just the fact that it recurs implies to me that it may well be intentional."  This is not plausible.

@AnonymousPhysicist how is it not plausible? If the same (perceived) error keeps happening despite it being pointed out to the teachers, you have to at some point conclude that it's probably not an error ...

@EthanBolker. actually, whether an explicit warning is needed or not would depend on how the course was taught. If finding invalid arguments were already a clear part of the learning process (teaching/exercises) then it probably wouldn't need to be stated that it would be tested. Of course "gotcha" questions of any form are questionable (or worse). But we don't have full context here.

"If all apples are blue, then and blue things taste nice, then all apples taste nice" is a correct statement, if if the assertion that apples are blue is false. I don't think this needs a warning, nor would it be a particularly hard question.

@xLeitix Hanlon's razor.

@AnonymousPhysicist Yet the other razor that feels relevant here is Occam's :) I find it hard to believe that the same error happens every time and it is indeed just incompetence (if it is indeed "every time", not just "it happened twice over the last few years" and OP is exaggerating, which certainly is a possibility).

@xLeitix It's hard to come up with a simpler explanation than "it's a mistake."  And why do you think the mistake was made more than once?  Perhaps these faculty always reuse their exams without revision.

[Answer will surely depend on location; the following is US/Canada specific]
If the grade cutoffs are adjusted as compensation for mistakes on the exam-setters' part (and not for some other reason: perhaps there is actually an intention to grade on a curve?), then that suggests that these really are mistakes rather than intentionally false statements.
Carefully collect as much documentation as you can.  Then find the lowest person in the chain of command who will listen to you and politely present your case. (The tradeoff is that the lower-ranking people have less power, but they are also more likely to take the time to listen to you. If you can convince them  they will have a better chance at convincing someone with more power to do something. Also, going too high initially [e.g. sending a letter to the head of the university] might get you dismissed as a troublemaker, if your contact isn't just ignored). Starting from the bottom:

A current graduate student teaching assistant
an instructor (you say "No one from the teaching staff ever acknowledges this in writing", but it's not clear to me what kind of approaches have been made to them in the past)
(out of the chain, but worth trying if the instructors won't listen): an ombuds office/person, if one exists at your institution (example)
the chair of the responsible department


text:
How hard is it to change a (sub-)field right after starting a CS PhD?
I am a senior undergrad in computer systems field (specifically, computer networks) and applied for CS PhD this year.
My question is:
If I find a new interest in a different field before starting a PhD, is it possible to change from the field that I applied for to the different field as I start my PhD?
I can see many problems that would prevent me from changing my field. For example, I would have almost no depth in the field yet compared to other students who came for that field, but I would have to somehow find a way to find an advisor in the field who can advise me.
And I just wonder if you think any problem you see would make it almost impossible to change, so I would just have to get research experience again in the field and then reapply for CS PhD for the field
To give more about my context, I am now a 4th year undergrad and enjoying research projects I have participated in, but I really don't think those (computer networks) are what I can do or enjoy for at least next 5 years. I've been always thinking of exploring as many fields as possible and changing my field (which can be a huge change like from system to theory) after going to PhD. I think I already knew such a huge change would be almost impossible, but maybe I just pushed myself to continue my research because I felt like it was quite irresponsible to quit in the middle of the projects that professors worked with me on (I just... don't know...).
I feel very lost now as I realized I applied for PhD without knowing anything about it. If needed, I am even willing to explore new fields for several months, find a research assistant position in a new field, and prepare for grad school application again.
Thanks for reading this long post.

Is this for doctoral programs in the US? If not, then where?

@Buffy Sorry for making a confusion. This is for doctoral programs in the US.

You are in fine shape with lots of opportunities to choose a  specialty. It needn't be done now.

If this is for the US, then there is plenty of time after acceptance to a doctoral program to choose a specialty, assuming you start with just a BS/BA degree. The early couple of years are course rich to get you prepared for qualifying exams. This gives you a chance to see advanced material in a number of specialties and also get acquainted with several faculty members.
If you take advantage of that, and establish a few relationships, then, by the time comps/quals roll around you will be in a good position to choose some narrow specialty and work with an advisor to find a suitable problem.
Other places the system and expectations might be quite different, but if you are now an undergraduate it is probably too early to choose. I studied mathematics and started grad school with an interest in both Analysis and Topology. I might have jumped either way, but wound up in Analysis. But both of those are still pretty broad. Both have several subfields.
An advantage of choosing (rather) late is that you get a chance to evaluate the faculty for their likely support for your studies. I started with a poor advisor, but finished with a really great one.

Thanks a lot. Your answer really makes me feel comfortable.

I know this answer is great for math, but I’d like to hear from someone in CS to confirm it’s also true there as well.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Advice on who to ask for a letter of recommendation for phd applications?
I am currently in the process of looking for a phd position (in math). Almost all universities require three recommendation letters (some only require two, but ideally I'd have three) from professors. The problem is that I went through my studies rather anonymously and don't really know anyone. For one of these letters I am going to ask the advisor of master thesis which seems like a pretty clear choice with no real reason against it.
Possible options for the others would be:
-The professor who held the seminar I was in last semester. I got an A+ on my talk and he probably has more to say about me than someone whos lecture I was in.
-The advisor of my bachelor thesis. The thesis was apparently considered very good in terms of mathematical content, but a bit flawed as there were quite a few small mistakes left (typos etc.). I also got very good grades in all of her exams. Reasons against her would be that the Bachelor thesis was in a different area of mathematics, I haven't talked to her for 2 years and that the accompanying seminar talk of my Bachelor thesis was rather mediocre.
-Any other professor in whose exam I had a good grade. There would be a few candidates, but besides from the oral exam I never really talked to them.
Another point mentioning is that I have excellent grades, so I guess that these letters are supposed to focus a bit more on soft skills (communication etc.)?

There are a couple thousand results for a search on this site of "who+recommendation"; not sure which of them to mark as a duplicate but you will certainly find this topic already talked to death here.

I would put this as a comment, but I'm under 50 reputation, so here goes.
The first three professors you mentioned sound like your best bet. Thesis advisors can vouch for your ability to do mathematical research, which is the primary skill that phd programs are looking for.
It is not uncommon for people to ask professors who they only had for a class, though letters that say no more than "did well in class" are not very impactful. It is better if the professor oversaw some extended class project, or even better, a thesis. Remember, the phd admissions committees want students who are motivated and capable of doing research, not just doing well in the classroom.
EDIT: Additionally, I would not worry about the fact you have not kept in contact with your undergraduate thesis advisor. This is surely a common scenario.

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


text:
Should someone with severe mental illness discuss that in their Diversity statement?
For faculty candidates with history of severe mental illness, would a Diversity statement be an appropriate place to raise those issues? Could such a candidate bring a unique background that could be valuable to an organization?

I’m not a psychologist: Are suicide attempts and drug use (AKA self medication) symptoms of mental illness or illnesses themselves? Maybe this goes without saying: I wonder if you make a statement about mental illness it might be best to indicate something like "severe depression", like a diagnosis, rather than specifically mentioning symptoms like drug use.

Agreeing with @ToddWilcox: I thought the question was better when it just said "severe mental illness".

Please decide whether you want to ask about severe mental illness, suicide attempts, or drug abuse; or a specific combination of them. Not "e.g.". As asked I do not believe this question is focused enough.

A similar question was asked in the workplace SE: https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/189429/how-to-talk-about-depression-in-interviews I tought it might be usefull here as the answer are quite different.

Note: this answer was written when the question was framed as "someone with severe mental illness", not "someone with a history of drug abuse and suicide attempts".

It would depend on who was evaluating your statement! It's pretty easy to find support for the view that disability is considered (by some) a component of diversity, e.g. from the (Canadian) Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council:

Diversity is defined as differences based on factors such as, but not limited to age, culture, disability, education, ethnicity, gender expression and gender identity, immigration and newcomer status, Indigenous identity, language, neurodiversity, parental status/responsibility, place of origin, religion, race, sexual orientation, and socio-economic status.

(emphasis added).
And also that mental illness is considered (by some) a form of disability, e.g. from the Ontario Human Rights Commission:

The duty to accommodate mental health disabilities is no less rigorous than the duty to accommodate physical disabilities.

My own two cents: whether having a mental health disability counts toward EDI (equity, diversity, and inclusion) will depend on who is reading your statement. Some people evaluating diversity statements value "personal" diversity (i.e., you are a member of an underrepresented/equity-seeking group), and some want only to know how you will improve outcomes for members of underrepresented/equity-seeking groups.
Think carefully about the different reasons that EDI is valued, and articulate which ones/why you think they are important. Don't say "I have mental illness, therefore I am deserving of a position" (this is  deliberate exaggeration on my part); instead, explain why your mental illness improves equity, diversity, and inclusion, and why that matters:

diversity to improve research outcomes: perhaps your mental illness (and, hopefully, having overcome/managed it) allows you to bring a different perspective to problems
representation: if you are open about your mental illness, that representation (i.e., knowing that someone with mental illness can succeed in the field) could encourage participation by/success of students who have mental health issues
improving outcomes: your experience with mental illness could give you an advantage in helping students with mental illness succeed

Who wouldn't consider disability to form part of diversity? From what I've seen, it's fairly universally included in such policies. The bigger issue is likely the stigma against disability and mental illness (especially when it relates to drug abuse or addiction). While some people might (consider themselves to) "support diversity" in as far as it relates to disabilities (or other minorities, for that matter), those people would still underestimate the abilities of those with disabilities or otherwise treat them unfairly (i.e. supporting diversity in theory, but not really in practice).

These lists don't include birth sex? Wow

is that not covered under "gender expression and gender identity" ?

@BenBolker I wouldn't say so. "Gender expression" covers gender-related behaviours, "gender identity" is how somebody sees themselves. So a trans woman (assigned male at birth) and a cis woman (AFAB) could have identical gender expression ("wears dresses, uses a female name" etc.) and identity ("female"/"woman").
Could be an oversight in the document, or fall under "not limited to". Given the context of the doc (data collection for research) it could also mean they've considered it and believe that particular datum shouldn't be collected by default, but if so it's not well communicated.

Frame challenge: Your question implies you don't understand mental illness, nor suicidal ideation, nor drug abuse, nor diversity
Drug abuse is not a mental illness, for starters. Certainly there are people with mental illnesses who abuse drugs, and there are some drugs (e.g. cannabis) where extended heavy use can cause mental illness, but the two should never be considered synonymous.
Suicidal ideation certainly can be a symptom of mental illness, most obviously depression. However it can also arise from extreme sadness (which is not the same thing as depression), such as the death of a loved one. It can also be a reasoned response to other profoundly negative life events such as the loss of a job, chronic pain, homelessness or severe bullying, which the person cannot see a way through.  Whilst there is more of a link than with drug abuse, you still need to be very careful about making that link.
If these links do exist for someone, they will be linked to some identifiable condition. In that case, the most important feature of this mental illness from the point of view of someone employing you is that your condition should be managed appropriately, most likely with medication. At that point they shouldn't need to consider it. You may need to include it in any medical statements, and your follow-up appointments may be covered in the same way as for any other employee with a medical condition. But this isn't who you are now, because your medical condition is managed, and it no more counts as "diversity" than, say, a history of obesity solved with a gastric band.
Diversity is about who you are, not about what your history is. There certainly are conditions which would be appropriate for inclusion under "diversity". My fiancee has a very mild form of Tourette's syndrome for example, and occasional mild physical tics do not affect her ability to work. Similarly, people with some degree of autism may need to wear noise-cancelling headphones in an office to limit their stimulation. The point of diversity is that if this doesn't affect your work then other people are expected to normalise it, and other people learning that there are other kinds of normal is always good.
I would still be wary about the "unique perspective" angle though. The point of diversity is to normalise these differences. If you're treating them like a special sparkly unicorn, you aren't looking at this as if it's normal. Diversity checklists of "one black, one wheelchair, one autistic, one gay" are a tokenism exercise which does no-one any good. Diversity is always an opportunity for people to learn how to do better, and that's going to benefit your organisation, because your organisation consists of people. But the point is considering them as equals, not something different and "special".

@Taw That's fine. I do have personal experience in all the areas you cited in your question, which is why I shared my opinion based on that experience. It doesn't mean I'm automatically right though, and even if I am, it doesn't mean it'll work for you. The great thing about advice is that you don't have to take it. :)

Actually @Taw, this is very valuable and important advice; especially the penultimate paragraph.

@Taw Please do consider reading this answer, even if you're sure that you'll disagree with it.

This answer is packed with false dichotomy.

Cite sources that drug abuse is not a form of mental illness? I don't think this statement is supported by the consensus of clinicians and scientists who work in the field

"Diversity is about who you are, not about what your history is" citation needed

"The point of diversity is to normalise these differences." What does this mean? It is hard to understand. Do you mean that the point of current-day ideas about diversity in hiring is to make people regard all sorts of different traits as normal?

@Oliver882 Yes - diversity in hiring is widely valued as bringing the experiences of less-represented people to the table and exposing weak points which other people involved in decision-making were not aware of. Good examples might be phone cameras with a colour cast designed to flatter white skin but which do strange things to darker skin, or designing shops to be wheelchair accessible. Now you could have a wheelchair user directly rate every design. But it's better to have them upskill your other designers, so that they consider wheelchair users to be part of their "normal".

I understand and agree with the most of your answer. But to negotiate experiences one had as simple "history" and not part of the actual person seems to short for me. Experinces one had have effect on ones actual decisions and point of view. Yes, one can not be an example for the collagues, but oneself may mention/accept/see issues in others more likely than a person who never made the same experience. Example: a person who is dry alcoholic may do not look away ashamed seeing a drunken homeless. Or a person with history of depression may sense a similar condition in others more easily...

... This could be a real skill in jobs like teaching, caring for others and similar. So it may not teach collagues by simple work together, but by being an example of a person, who cares in a different way,  adding new points of view to the discussion. I am not sure if this itself is "diversity" in a general setting. But for me it is.

@Allerleirauh I see your point on that. I'm not sure I agree with it quite being the same thing as diversity in most settings, but for sure there are places where that lived experience can be a major benefit. Categories get kind of fuzzy around the edges. :)

Diversity is definitely about inclusion of those with invisible mental illnesses or other disabilities. Just because a disability is managed, doesn't mean it stops being part of you, and it's quite dismissive to compare this to obesity, which is not a disability, even if unmanaged (even if it may be linked to disabilities). You seem to be the one confusing diversity with accommodations, to some degree: employers should be accommodating to those with disabilities, but simply including people with disabilities is part of diversity (even if may not always be meaningful diversity).

Diversity isn't just about normalising behaviour and being accommodating, it's about including different ways of thinking and different backgrounds and giving opportunities to those who may have lost out to opportunities in the past. All of those would include invisible disabilities. And autism, for example, could manifest in many different ways that affect most everyday interactions. Not including them in diversity because they can generally get by in a workplace and there may not be any clear symptom you can put your finger on wouldn't be very supportive of diversity at all.

Can we not call suicide a "rational" response? Call it a (sometimes) "reasoned" response if you wish, but it's generally considered to result from some less-than-perfectly-logical/rational thinking, that can be addressed through therapy. If they were really "rational", there often wouldn't be much point in trying to help such people.

@NotThatGuy That's a good improvement - thank you.

@NotThatGuy I did try to cover inclusion of invisible disabilities, but I probably could have been clearer.  But there's a limit to how long an answer is readable, and I'm already pushing that. :) I get your comment about obesity, but my point there was specifically related to the OP's question about whether historical illness (mental or otherwise) is relevant for a current diversity statement. My opinion (as someone who was suicidal and treated for depression) is that I personally think it isn't if it isn't the "you" of now.  I don't discount other opinions, I just have mine. :)

The diversity statement is not about who you are.  It is about how you will be an effective faculty member.  If you can explain how your experiences with mental illness will result in better teaching of diverse students and better collaboration with diverse faculty, do that.

Isn't a job application (including the diversity statement) almost entirely about who you are an how that makes you the best fit to do the job?

@overfullhbox Yes.  That's exactly what most of the people asking about diversity statements are confused about.

But the first part of your answer says it's not about who you are

@overfullhbox It means that a diversity statement does not mean "I belong to _____ group so hire me."

I understand the intended meaning; I was just pushing for more precise language to be used since there is a lot of confusion about this area in general.

@overfullhbox  I think my wording is more accurate than your first comment.  Do you have a specific suggestion?

I wasn't able to think of anything as equally short as what you had. I did add my own answer which is basically expanding in more detail on what you said.

The post keeps changing, but I'd like to add my take on the questions currently in it.

Could such a candidate bring a unique background that could be valuable to an organization?

Yes.
Anyone's lived experience provides some value to their organization, and unique experiences not fully represented by others in the organization provide a diversity of perspectives which is generally valued even further.
However, whether that value will be recognized or valued by a hiring committee is a separate question, the answer to which is "sometimes yes sometimes no".

Would a Diversity statement be an appropriate place to raise those issues?

The use of the word "issue" is a bit ambiguous here, so I will address what I think are the two most common interpretations.
If you mean issue as in problem, then I would look at the Workplace.SE post mentioned by @lcrmorin in the comment to the OP. In general, it seems counterproductive to preemptively bring up potentially negative aspects of your application early on in the hiring process. If you will need particular accommodations due to your disability, when to raise these in the interview process is a bit of an open question (there are lots of related posts about the two-body problem). While you should not be misleading in your application, and while discriminating on disability (such as mental illness) is illegal in the US, mental illness is still strongly stigmatized and it is impossible to control how people will react.
If you mean issue as in topic, then I think it would be suitable for a diversity statement.
However, the goal of the diversity statement is not to learn what demographics groups you fall into so that the department can fill out their diversity bingo card.
Rather, the main purpose of the statement (in my view) is to gauge how well you will be able to contribute to the organization's goals surrounding diversity/etc.
These goals are often described on a department's website, and commonly include things like improving student outcomes (e.g. enrollment, graduation %, feeling of belonging, etc.) for those from underrepresented groups or providing a diversity of perspectives on research, department culture, etc.
Who you are and your history (including current and past struggles with mental illness, substance abuse, self harm, etc,) are both potentially relevant for such a statement, if they make you a good candidate for contributing to the department's diversity goals.
As an explicit example: graduate students suffer from high rates of mental illness, so having faculty who are familiar with the impacts of mental health and can provide mentorship/guidance/support to these students is beneficial.
Critically, however, being mentally ill does not automatically make you this person.
Someone who is not mentally ill but has demonstrated a past history of passion regarding mental health advocacy would better suit the department's needs than someone who simply listed that they are mentally ill.


text:
Eleven reviewers invited but only one has accepted--is this a problem?
I have a manuscript under review at Nature Scientific Reports. The editorial system shows eleven reviewers invited but only one has accepted.  Is this a problem? Is it normal?

I consider inviting 11 reviewers for one paper to be a problem.

@Buzz How and where would that answer the present question?

The answer will depend on your field, the journal, the particular article and the timing.. Anecdotally, I'm not accepting any more reviews this year because I feel like I reviewed enough this year.

Why would it be a problem? it is normal.  Also, it is good idea to use a 'shot gun' approach when acquiring reviewers -- it is much faster to get the minimum number of reviewers (reviews) required by a journal.

As @Thomas's comment suggests, an editor sending "invitations" to 11 people is ... spam. That is, a "shot-gun approach" is ... spam. Let's not abuse each other...

I think it really depends on the field. Having published a lot of work in Systems Biology intersect biology, comp sci, math, modelling, ... I found it really hard to get reviewers for our papers. And once you have reviewers they often evaluate the paper very one sided (e.g. the math is trivial, no new concept in comp bio, limited biological novelty, ...). So yes, it is a problem, but you are asking the wrong question: I think you want to know what is the cause of it and can it be fixed?

I would add to the other answers here that during COVID, journals – and tenure review committees as well as other bodies that rely on 'voluntary' service - have struggled with peer reviewers beyond the norm. Many academics are feeling a bit overwhelmed with remote teaching, the virus, and other disruptions, and speaking both as a journal editor and somebody who holds mid-level administrative positions, this is pretty widespread at least in North America right now.

Yes, it indicates a problem:

It could be that your paper is uninteresting, such that most people don't really want to spend the time to review it.
Or it could mean that the editor is "missing" and identifying people who aren't in the same field as your manuscript.

There's nothing to do except wait, though.

It's more likely a property of the reviewers than a property of the paper.


text:
How do I sign a letter of recommendation, if I've left academia?
I recently left academia. A former student of mine asked for a letter of recommendation for graduate school applications. I've typically seen references sign with their title, to provide context. Should I sign mine as follows?

My Name
Former Thisorthat Postdoctoral Fellow
Former Institution Name

You should provide the context in the first paragraph of your letter.

I think your example is good but you should make sure it is clear that Institution Name is the name where you have been, not where you are now.

I use the electronic letterhead of my former institution and place "(retired)" after my title in the signature area.  I've recommended students to advanced programs at that very same institution, including in my own department.  No one has complained.

@BobBrown Perhaps there is a difference between doing that as a retired faculty member- one who spend a long career- and a person who was a postdoc for a couple years.

@Damila  Yes.  That's why my answer below is different.  The comment is t help someone in a position similar ro mine.

In your case, write on personal letterhead.  As Alexander Woo has said, the first paragraph should be something like this: "I'm writing in support of the application of Bob Brown to your doctor of divinity program.  Bob was my student when I was a postdoctoral fellow at the Close Cover Before Striking University."  Then you go on to explain briefly your qualifications to make the recommendation and in more detail why Bob would make an excellent and successful DD student.

Per helpful suggestions in comments on the question, from @Alexander-Woo and @user111388, I described the context within which I worked with the student, and then later left academia, in the first paragraph:

It is with great enthusiasm that I recommend Student for Grad Program
in Research Field, at Your University. Student was an outstanding
contributor to the team that I led as a postdoc at My Former Institution.
Although I have since left academic research to work in industry my
research experience with Student demonstrates her excellent fit and preparation
for a career in Research Field.

And amended my signature (also in the question statement), to clarify I meant my most recent academic institution, at which I worked with the student:

Sincerely,
My Name
Former Thisorthat Postdoctoral Fellow
My Former Institution


text:
Is there any difference between these two kind of researchers?
I tried to ask this question on Physics StackExchange because it's about physicists but it wasn't the right section, anyway the argument can be extended to almost every subject.
I am studying physics at university in Italy but I spent some months in Sweden and I found some differences in the teaching method.
In particular, in Italy everything is essentialy based on theory, we study models, theorems and formal proofs, the exams are mostly oral, and we just see some appliations of what we study.
In Sweden it is different, there are less theorems, and everything is more applicative. There are exercises sessions but less 'critical thinking' (that's what I think).
Said that, I just wanted to ask if, in research, you can notice a difference between people with these two different academic backgrounds and if it influences their work/researches.
Are you more likely to become a theoretical physicist if you study in Italy (or any other uni with this teaching method) and less if you study in Sweden (or any other...)?
Please share your experience!
Thank you! :)
P.S. I am not judging if one method is better than the other, don't get me wrong

Italy provided Fermi, Sweden provided the prize. ;-)

How big is your "dataset"? How many teachers in Sweden and how many in Italy?

It is a bit unclear what you are asking. I suspect you want to know about future prospects of students who have studied in different systems: theoretical v applied. Certainly one can be successful with either sort of background.

I doubt that it is the country, actually, but might be individual university departments.

Short answer, yes, you can sometimes notice the difference, but beware also of this caveat. I hope to find the time to write a more complete answer in the next days.

@Buffy Some of this is country-specific, I believe, for instance the amount of oral vs written exams. And this choice affects the emphasis on theorems and proofs vs exercises.

@Buffy I live in Italy so I don't know, probably more than 20 (in uni), in Sweden about 8 professors, but I asked who lived there and an Italian guy who studied in IT for bachelor and in SWE for master. Surely it's not a big dataset, but that's all I know and I wanted to ask if anyone else noticed this difference.

Some physicists teach more mathematics.  Some physicists teach more applications.  It's just a matter of university, teacher, and student preference.  Yes, the way you are taught will influence your career.
I do not think these preferences have anything to do with the country.  A large portion of physicists have experience with multiple countries.  And within a country, you will find quite a range of opinions about how to do things.

I think it's possible in general for country to have some effect. Some of the anecdotes relating to maths teaching at least suggest that at one point researchers in France were much more concerned with theory than concrete examples.


text:
How to convince someone I know to pursue further studies?
There is this woman in my neighborhood that I had a talk with recently. We have known each other for a long time. Her parents are separated and she lives with her mother, but recently she has been staying with her father who is my neighbor.
This women recently completed her Bachelor's degree and staying at home. When I asked her what her plans were, she said nothing. Later she spoke that she will be getting married and staying at home.
When I asked her why don't you study further, she said her mother is already planning for her marriage and she fought with her mother and came to her father's house for some time. She just completed her teenage and is barely in her 20's.
Although the father is allowing to study further, she has constant fear that her mother will get her married and may have to leave studies midway. Since parents are separated, she thinks her father cannot stop her marriage. She made her mind she is going to be married and stay at home.
Although she is a bright student, I pity this women due to her condition and some other things she didn't disclose which probably is due to parents separation.
How do I convince her to study further and how will further studies help her in her life?
At my place, many women are illiterate due to poverty and other reasons (new generation is studying) and only men work for livelihood while women stay at home and take care of household and children.
I read many articles over the internet but couldn't find a proper answer to this situation and this women's condition is bothering me for some reason which I am unsure of.
Edit:
Apart from just being a neighbor, I don't have any relation with her.
Doing household work isn't bad but when I look around especially women at my place after doing their daily choir, watch television/movies, chitchat and do nothing productive which I think can be changed if you are educated enough. One can teach others, work on social/personal problems and somehow contribute to society. You feel comfortable enough talking to the people around and people can listen to you
Tried asking the question of what you to be/what you want to do now;  the reply was nothing, get married and stay at home.
Is it something like; we can only persuade someone, sometime later people tend to land in their default state and there is nothing that can be done?

What condition? You mention it in the fourth paragraph, but don't explain. And, it is polite in English to call women who are in their 20s and have a degree "women," not "girls."

This may be better on [interpersonal.SE]. Also: do you have any relationship with her beyond being her neighbor's son?

Are you sure the girl really wants to study and work  oe is this just a conjecture (I am not entirely sure when reading this question)? (Doing household tasks is not per se bad, if (and only if) one wants to do this.)

I cannot tell why you think this woman needs a degree higher than a bachelor's.  How is that connected to illiteracy, poverty, or oppressive gender roles?

So is your problem that you feel she will not contribute to society? But this is even possible without any degree. (Also note that many people who work in industry effectivly harm society and our planet and a household worker is often thus much more valuable).

Some things that you could do as a friendly neighbor is the following:
Tell them that you will give them something. (If you want to)
Tell them that their future depends on it.
Tell them that they will be less stressed afterwards and be prouder.
Tell them that studying makes talking to other people easier.
Tell them that everyone would be proud of you that you finished studing.
OR
You can start with a question .
Ask her that what she wants to be in life! For example, if she wants be a doctor ask her how she will become a doctor.
To become a doctor you must passed out from a college with good grades. And you will have good grades when you study. Thus logically you can convince them for study.
Hope this helps :)
Another related question: https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-convince-my-friends-to-study

If my answer isn't what you are looking for, you can go to the link above.


text:
Why do "Author's Rights" in "Consent to Publish" agreements allow pre-print publications?
I have published in journal X and given them the rights to my work. In the "Author's Rights" clause, it says that I am allowed to post my work to pre-print servers (in the form immediately prior to publishing and sticking the copyright on) such as arXiv.
I am also allowed to distribute the copyrighted version for teaching and technical purposes, conference presentations, or other scholarly activities, and also allowed to post the copyrighted version to a personal website.
Here are my questions:

I can't understand the logic behind why I am given so many rights. Where does the journal make money? In what scenario does someone want to read my work and not very easily find a free way to do so?

I realize that if someone wants to cite my work, they have to cite the official version, which boosts the reputation of the journal. Is the main point that journal subscriptions negotiated with research universities have more bargaining power, based on impact factor?

I am planning on posting my work to a pre-print server while referencing the official DOI of the copyrighted version. It simply feels odd to me, even though I know it's perfectly legal.

What am I missing? I realize all journals are different, but I want to better understand why author's are given these rights. I feel like a copyright transfer is a big deal.

From my perspective, I want eyes on my paper. From the journal's perspective, they want money from my work. How are there so many subscriptions to journal X if it's so easy to get ahold of the papers for free?

Related: Why do universities have to spend money on journals?, What are the profit margins of academic publishers?

Short answer: Pre-prints are not a big threat to the business models of journals and there are scientific norms that mean that journals are expected to permit pre-prints.
Longer Answer:
Why do universities and others pay for journals when some of the articles in these journal subscriptions are available via pre-print servers and other means?

Readers want access to the copy of record supplied by the journal.
Readers want access to every single article, not just the subset that are available as pre-prints.
Readers want efficient and consistent access.
Readers want an attractively formatted PDF or HTML copy.
Although not a pre-print server, it's also worth noting that universities respect copyright and therefore do not see services like scihub that provide more comprehensive free access as legitimate.

Why do many journals allow authors to share pre-prints?

They don't see it as a big impost on their business model given the points above.
Many journals have an embargo period on post-prints (i.e., pre-prints that have been updated based on the feedback provided by journal peer-review). These are presumably designed to encourage purchase of journal subscriptions.
Some journals may appreciate the importance of academic dissemination even where the potential readers do not have a subscription.
In some fields, pre-prints are very entrenched to the point that if a journal did not allow pre-prints, they might be seen poorly by that field and receive fewer high quality submissions.
More generally, there is competition amongst journals, and allowing pre-prints is one small way that journals can compete for submissions.
There has also been an ongoing debate about the business models of journals. Journals are receiving pressure from various parties to permit these forms of distribution.
Also, pre-print servers are generally non-commercial. I have seen some publishers ban positing on ResearchGate because they are for-profit and serve Ads alongside pre-prints.

Thanks. This is exactly what I was looking for. Honestly, my hunch was similar. I think the reason I was struggling to see where the author has leverage was in the value of subscriptions. The author generates the quality and makes subscriptions necessary for high-quality, efficient research. Given this leverage, the journals throw bones to compete for the paper, while also hoping that extra viewership increases viewership of their journal.

I find interesting your remark about preprints being entrenched. I work in mathematics so it's extremely common for people to post to arXiv for many benefits. What I was thinking originally was if, theoretically, every mathematician published on arXiv, then the whole "subscription for quick and efficient access" wouldn't make sense. I wonder why journals aren't afraid that everything will just be on arXiv, decreasing the value of a subscription. This is what I was thinking when I posted the question.

Back when I had a research university's worth of access, I found many times where I could quickly access papers with subscriptions. This was super convenient and worthy of paying for. However, much of the reason is because I was referencing papers from years ago. I feel like in the future, there will be more arXiving and less demand for subscriptions.

Two more points for allowing to share pre-prints: 1. there are legislations (e.g. Germany) where authors have the right to publish their preprints under certain conditions (Germany: UrhG §38 (4) https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_urhg.html#p0241). In that case, the publisher allowing pre-print publication can look nice a very low cost to the publisher. 2. the publisher hope for more more interest in the publication which is triggered by preprints being available. I.e., people decide via the preprint to get the journal version they then cite.

What am I missing?

That we are the geese who are laying golden eggs for the publishers. Their business model is to do little and to get paid huge sums of money for it. Scientists do essentially all the work: the writing, peer review, and the editorial work. All that publishers really do is copyediting, and quite frankly they often do a mediocre job of that.
If publishers forbade researchers from posting preprints, then researchers would post preprints anyway. If publishers tried to enforce such a restriction, then researchers would stop submitting there.
The academic publishing industry is an example of economic rent seeking, generating profits without creating wealth. The balance is precarious, and publishers understand that it is in their economic interests not to disrupt it.

To be clear, I never meant to imply that I thought publishers were more valuable than researchers or that researchers didn't deserve the right to post to pre-print servers. More like, I am pleasantly surprised that scientists appropriately use their leverage in a way that makes sense.

The main thing you are missing is the "Big Deal" model that publishers use with university libraries (pioneered by Elsevier).  The basic way that this works is that you pay one price for all the journal you get from a given publisher, and this price is based on the previous price you paid plus a certain increase each contract.  You can change what journals are in the bundle, but you'll still have to pay what you paid before plus 5-10% each new contract.  Your choice as a library is to either cancel the "Big Deal" entirely (which some libraries are doing now) or to continue on subscribing to journals in all fields.  Now we get to the critical point:

Most of the grant money is in biomedical sciences, and it's the biomedical sciences which drive the subscription decisions made by the university.
Preprints are mostly in minor fields like physics and mathematics which are largely irrelevant to universities decisions.

Publishers just want to keep the preprint disciplines happy enough that they don't start pushing too hard to cancel the "Big Deal."  Meanwhile universities can't cancel the Big Deal just because the preprint disciplines don't need the journal subscriptions anymore, since the much more valuable non-preprint disciplines still want the subscriptions.

That's an interesting example of two different Nash equilibria. If all top journals in a field allow to publish preprints, then one journal/publisher disallowing it would simply lead to no-one publishing there. If the norm is to forbid it, then one journal allowing it will probably just decrease its revenue (it would attract more good papers, but that's not directly monetizable).
Same on the scientists' side: if everyone else publish on Arxiv, then publishing my papers in a journal that disallows it would simply diminish the visibility of my work. If the norm is to embargo/paywall publications, then by not following it I just cut myself off most good journals.
Historically, different fields ended up in different equilibria; for that reason, some use arXiv, some don't. This is also en example of a situation where a regulation, e. .g, mandating "green" open access by some big funding agencies, could move the situation out of the "bad" equilibrium. Whether it's what happening is another question.

Adding to some of the other answers.
Many grants now require that works supported by said grants be freely available in some form.  This is the famous “open-access” debate about people paying to access research paid for by government (and thus tax-payers) monies.  NOT allowing this would mean fewer submissions.
Overall, pre-prints etc don’t seem to be much of a threat since this industry is very profitable.

Note that these grant rules are usually about long-term open access.  For example, in the UK the journal can impose a 12 month embargo in STEM subjects and a 24 month embargo in HASS (Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences) subjects.  So journals still have monopoly control over access to most papers for that first 1-2 year period.


text:
Can I write my affiliation from a current university though I did my work in my previous university?
Can I write my affiliation from as current university though I did my work in my previous university?
I want to publish a paper from my previous work, my current university has the access to the journal. I do not want to put any professor as coauthor in my paper. So can I use current university as affiliation?

You can include a footnote on the first page saying where the work was done (I did this once when I relocated to a new job when the paper was under review) or you could include this information in an Acknowledgments section at the end. However, I'm pretty sure your current affiliation should be used for your "official affiliation". By the way, what does your current university having access to the journal have to do with this issue? Whether or not your current university has access to the journal seems entirely unrelated to your question. Or am I overlooking something?

Are we talking practically or ethically?

@IanSudbery, why the distinction? How does ethics apply unless there was funding that needs to be acknowledged?

Practically, the clear answer is yes - its just a case of pressing the right keys on the keyboard. It is unlikely any one is going to check where the work was carried out (how would they even do that?). There are definite benefits to saying the work is affiliated with your new university, even if that is not true. Universities are judged on the quality of the papers associated with them. In the UK, this is financial - universities get £100k from the government for every "4*" paper they publish. They also use rankings in advertising. TT/probation requirements might depend on work done "here".

There are two ways of handling this that I can think of, but regardless, I'm pretty sure your current affiliation should be used for your "official affiliation".

You can include a footnote or some other appropriate comment on the first page that says where the work was done. I did this once when I relocated to a new job while the paper was under review. See Additional information here (which appears without the label "Additional information" at the bottom of the first page of the actual paper).

You can include this information in an Acknowledgments section at the end.

In my case, we simply told our contact editor during the proof stage, after acceptance, that the work was done before a job change, and the journal decided how to handle this. This is surely something that occurs not all that infrequently for the journal (and presumably also for most any journal), so I suspect what they did was in their editors' "style manual" (or whatever passes for one at the journal).
My feeling is that if you include this information in an Acknowledgments section, then you probably don't need to say anything before doing so. If you'd rather not do this in an Acknowledgements section, then because journals often have certain styles for first page information and for footnotes, it's probably best to ask your contact editor, after acceptance, how they wish this to be handled.


text:
Postdoc project with poor scientific content and unlikely to lead to publications
I have started a 2-year postdoc six months ago, in the US. I am starting being concerned about its outcome in terms of publication and scientific production in general. These are the issues:

the project is basically turning out to be pretty poor in terms of scientific content, and that was sold in a completely different way when I was offered the position. In particular, what I was meant to do was developing mathematical models and implementing them as new code. However, what I am actually doing is just debugging a pre-existing code, which is hardly leading to significant publications.
Mind, I wasn’t expecting to publish during the first six months of the postdoc, but looking at what is planned for the future, I can’t realistically expect that the nature of the project is going to change. Moreover, my institution is trying to keep alive a rather obsolete and seriously limited code, which is unlikely to be competitive with other research groups. Unfortunately, I do not have much freedom change code and/or approach (see point 2). Whenever I proposed something new, it was basically dismissed as a distraction.

Due to my group policy, I do not have much independence to add anything to what the sponsor is paying for. I cannot even use my affiliation to publish independent research that I may carry out while being off duty (this is security policy, providing details is not going to add any significant information).
In my PhD, I doubled my publication outcome by doing research in my free time, now I’d have to publish without an affiliation. While I knew this in advance, I was expecting to be able to publish from my main project. In any case, I don’t believe that having to rely on my free time is the best way to grow and be productive.

To sum it up, this is looking more technical consulting than scientific research.
Given this, I am being seriously worried that this might impact negatively on my future career in research, unless I become permanent at my current institution (which is not granted at all, especially  considering the project I was put onto). It is hard to grow as a scientist or even as an engineer by doing ‘‘monkey’’ work.
I am asking for advice on how to prevent this. As I have said, if things go on like now, I will have a two-year ‘‘publication hole’’ in my resume that won’t likely help me to find new positions. I will be really sorry if this happens as I was able to publish much more than the average during my PhD, and I don’t want to ruin it all.
On the other hand, if I stay open to other opportunities now, I am not sure how well it may be perceived.
So, I’d wish to know what you think about this situation: am I worrying to much or am I right to be concerned? I am not learning anything from this activity, nor producing, in a period in which I’d wish to grow further, and I am feeling like wasting all my previous efforts and results.
And for the better of my future career (I want to go on doing research), should I wait till the contract ends or should I act now and look for something else?

How can you not "use your affiliation" for your own projects? They told you that you are not allowed to say which lab you are in when publishing projects you do in your spare time?

Yes, the only stuff I could submit to journals was unpublished work from my PhD (I could use my old affiliation). Security policy is rather strict, this is all I am advised to talk about on the internet, but this is the situation and adding details isn’t  really going to be useful to answer.

In any case, staying up at night to compensate for my official project is not an efficient (and not healthy) way to work.

Do you look for advice in how to present this situation in the future (what to look for when applying) ? Or do you look for advice for your current situation (probably "get a new, good position as fast as you can")

I’d say the second one, even if I am hoping (quite hopelessly actually) that there are other solutions not to ruin my career.

Or at least, I’d like to know what people here think: if I am not overthinking or if I am right to be concerned.

It is hard for an outsider to judge your situation, but this is a real concern. I have heard of some postdocs, particularly in engineering fields at national labs, encountering this or similar issues.

Why is it so much worse to publish without affiliation than using one for the publication? I don't see any reason why such a publication should count less or have worse chances. But then I may be naive.

Per se, it may not be such a big problem (maybe readers could take your work less seriously, but I am not sure and this is not the point). In fact, I have started doing some new research after I published all my PhD stuff. Free time research is a great addition to your project, but still, if you are ONLY relying on that to publish, I think that something is not right (I was offered and accepted a research position, after all). Also, my activity - however mechanical and repetitive it may be - it’s taking much more time than my PhD.

I'd suggest you edit your question and make more clear, what you expect from the question (as specified in the comments). 2) you aren't going to ruin your career if you switch positions before the contract ends. In contrast, it might be better for you in the long run.

I think that the more you stay in the position the more you’ll be trapped into it. I see in the comments that you are at a national laboratory, so I understand that the salary might be tempting and that’s not easy to give it up. However, from a long term perspective, you could lose an opportunity to flourish and to get known. Plus, how long is your contract, 2-3 years? None or few publications could harm your chances to stay in the field, particularly if you want or have to move to another lab or university. It comes down to choosing between being well paid today or increasing your chances to be successful in the future, unless you think you can change your situation without leaving.


text:
How is disclosure of previously undiagnosed long term health condition likely to be viewed when evaluating academic track record?
Considering situations where an individual academic track record is to be evaluated - whether by grant panel, job interview panel, promotion panel etc.
If the individual were to make a statement along the lines of

Prior to [date] I was suffering from an undiagnosed long
term health condition which did not result in absence from work, but limited my
output. This was both diagnosed and treated from [date] after which
my productivity increased substantially, as can be demonstrated by
XYZ.

Is this likely to be viewed favorably in evaluating the applicant's potential to deliver on the future grant/job/etc? Or is there a risk it could be viewed with suspicion given the applicant was still employed between those dates and the employer unaware of the situation?
Suppose it were a mental health disorder, would it be better to say so, or keep with the more generic description above?
Would the answer differ depending on which of the situations (job application, grant application) we're talking about?

I would suggest that you don't raise the issue, for a couple of reasons.
First is that you don't know how it will be read. Some people might see it as an invalid excuse, rather than a valid one. Others might wonder whether it will affect your work in future. It is impossible to say. Saying such things won't, in particular, give you an advantage.
Second, it is natural for a person's productivity to increase over time and natural for an application reader to weigh the more recent work more heavily then the older work. That effect can occur even for someone with no health issues. I doubt that the change after the date of diagnosis would be noted by a typical reader unless you point it out.
This is really opinion, of course. If you are healthy now, focus on how you will continue productivity going into the future.

In Australia, you would be specifically prompted to provide this information in pretty much every type of application under "career disruptions" or in a section about "relative to opportunity".  It would be considered normal to make a statement similar to your example.
There would be no need to identify the type of disorder.  Whatever it is, your reader isn't likely to know much about it.  The exception might be if your research area is a disorder you've personally experienced.
How you handle this depends a lot on your local culture.  I'm not aware of other places that confront this head-on the way the Australian system does.

The country is UK (hence the tag); we also have fairly standard sections for career disruption on grant applications. Having called a few funders they seem to say much the same thing as you - it is appropriate to put a statement there without specifics. Of course the question remains as to how it will be viewed. For job applications, while it would be normal to explain a career break on a CV, there isn't a standard place to discuss how a health condition may have limited output.

It's not meaningfully different from a career break.  Those can be for health reasons too.

I don't know what country this is but, in general, I strongly advise against this. Academia might seem like a collaborative space of kindred spirits (and it can be!) but the situations you're describing aren't necessarily good situations. For how great academia can be, it is also a cut-throat hierarchy with a hazing structure similar to a fraternity or a sports team. There are times where you can disclose personal information like this and it could be well received. The evaluative settings you describe are not those times. Try not to give them hazing material.

Country is UK. Out of interest which country/countries have caused you to form this view?

Btw I interpret the downvotes on your answer as meaning others disagree with you, but whatever we eventually decide, I certainly appreciate you making the case against. I do agree academia can be a bit cut-throat at times though on the other hand there is a movement here for it to become more accepting of non-standard career paths, so it's a delicate balance to strike which may depend on situation. In the case above I am hoping that the fact the health issues have been treated would limit the ammunition available to the bullies.

I think there's a lot of pressure in academia to see what we do as reasonable and fair, so calling it "hazing" is probably offensive to people who don't see themselves that way. Fair enough. I was speaking from the US and, like the UK, we do have movements towards more accepting structures and work environments. If you are certain that the people evaluating you are in that movement, great! I am only advising against risking it if you are not sure.


text:
Should I consider quitting my Ph.D. after 6 months?
About my background:
I finished my master's six months ago with a cum laude in Europe (A tier 1 university) and my research was very theoretical and I did invest a lot of thought into it. I like it a lot. Even though it was challenging, I was motivated. Therefore, I like to research a lot, I really do.
Because of my dedication, I was approached by my professor for a Ph.D. position. He listened to my interests and gave me some advice and some facts. According to him, people don't consider hiring people for a Ph.D. in the area I was interested in unless they have a solid background.
Then, he offered me a Ph.D. which is not related to what I did in my masters. I would say it is more applied than fundamental. I didn't do all courses related to that topic before to understand it fully. He promised to change the topic a little bit so that it fits my interests.
I did a literature review and I found questions to solve. He assigned me a daily supervisor who works under him. Let's call him DS (Daily Supervisor). I had heard not very good reviews about him earlier. People under him tend to finish their Masters and Ph.D. later than they originally are supposed to. He doesn't have a hold of concepts when it comes to research but at the same time has a lot of ideas that are scattered all over the place.
He confuses me all the time. When I came up with my research questions more towards my interests, he really tried forcing me to consider finding questions related to the more applied stuff and more towards its application side which is not my strong point because simply I don't have a solid background in it. Both the main professor and DS had some clash of ideas.
I am a direct person and if I don't like something I complain. They did find a direction for me and again promised that I would do something of my own interests after a year.
Now. I feel like I am trapped. My main professor is very considerate. I am thinking of asking him if I can do a post-masters here instead of a Ph.D. and do some TA work for the next six months and I will ask him to recommend me for some work abroad related to A for my next Ph.D.
The main professor still thinks I am creative, I have an analytical mind and also he trusts me. He may consider writing me a good recommendation. However, I may really hurt his trust that he has in me. Although I am really grateful I have this position and I can repay my loans, I am always in a position to complain. And, practically he reviews my results for the papers I want to write. It may affect it significantly and I wouldn't have any papers before I apply somewhere else.
I am really confused about what to do. The more I want to make the communication with my prof and DS transparent, the more they get me confused and I feel like a very bad student even though at the back of my head I know I was a cum laude student. Please give me your feedback on what you would do if you were me.

Only get a PhD if you really want to get a PhD.  Otherwise, don't.

Seems like this person would support you in applying to a wide range of PhD programs so you could make sure that you are going somewhere with the best match for your interests. When talking with them, make it about fit rather than personalities.

First of all, put aside your cum laude moniker. You are not in undergraduate anymore, you are in graduate school, and while you were miles ahead of your peers before, you now find yourself in a mix of your intellectual peers. This should be expected.
Second, there is no reason to be shy about raising your concerns in full disclosure to your advisor(s). The alternative is that you eventually leave anyway, so why not be brutally honest?
Your 'confusion' may stem from a lack of clear direction and path forward.  You can mitigate this by forcing yourself to write down you academic goals, and devise a plan to meet them, within reason given your advisors' interests and capabilities, of course.
Most of these things can be solved through communication; but unfortunately in higher academics communication can be difficult.
If you decide to go a different route, just make sure it is for your reasons and not those that are circumstantial.

Based on my experience, there are a few points to consider before making your decision.

You do not need a solid background in a topic in order to conduct research on that topic. If what you studied during your master's degree is related to the research area, and also you are a promising potential PhD student, then you are also a good choice for an advisor.

Finishing your master's or PhD later than the standart study period is not necessarily a bad thing. Instead of this information, I would check whether the past students of DS have had good publications, got acceptance in good postdoctoral research programs etc. Ultimately, if you want to develop a career in academia, your best bet is to have strong publications instead of finishing your studies quickly.

Your research ideas are not mutually exclusive with your supervisors'. If you really want to conduct research on a topic, you can still do it. But if the topic that you want to work on is not related to the ongoing research project, then you cannot expect your advisors to drop their work and help you out. After all, they are paying you with the money they get from the funding, and they got that funding only because they promised to conduct research on a specific topic.

Being a good student does not necessarily mean being a good researcher. Yes, good researchers are generally good students, but there are many examples of world-class researchers being mediocre students, and vice-versa. You should not feel like a bad student, but maybe you should put some effort on being a better researcher.

I tried to be as generic as possible by giving examples from your situation. These are neither specific to your university nor to your advisors. If you believe that you can find just the right research project to participate in, then by all means, quit yesterday and start looking for that project. But I highly doubt it. Wherever you go, you will have to learn brand new things (theoretical or application) related to your master's studies.


text:
While applying for PhD in Deep learning, how useful are papers in some other topics like photonics?
I am a EEE student. My plan is to go for higher studies on Deep learning and neural networks. Suppose, I have an opportunity to do research on a photonics/nano material/device physics project. How much would papers in any of these three topics help me during PHD admissions in USA for deep learning?
Secondly suppose, instead of doing journal papers in these, I may be able to do mediocre/good conference papers in deep learning. In such scenario which would be best?
Thanks in advance!

Impossible to answer. Papers are good. Better papers are better. There is no measurement standard here. Sorry.

In the US, any evidence of research is a plus. Don't overthink it. You have plenty of time to specialize as a grad student.

You can specialize later on, any research experience you have is definitely a plus. Here's an untold secret, researchers will often switch between subjects throughout their careers (depends on the field and the researcher, some choose to focus on a very narrow field). This means, that it is not uncommon for researchers to begin writing about a completely new subject that they have very little knowleage of simply because they received funding to investigate that topic.
That's a long winded way of saying, don't sweat it. Your previous experience is not useless. It certainly won't hurt if you can author (or co-author) a paper in deep learning.


text:
Choosing between PhD offers - top supervisor at my current institution or good supervisor at new university
I have offers for a funded PhD at equally prestigious universities in the same country. One is the university I did my undergrad (and doing my masters) in, with a "rising star" PhD supervisor that is very well known in my (small) subfield. The supervisor at the other (new) university is more senior, known in the field but not extremely popular.
In academic terms, it is clear that I should stay at my current university. However, I have heard many times the advice that it is good to change university for personal and academic development. From a personal point of view, I would feel excited to move university (and city). I am aiming at an academic career and so I feel that it would be too risky not to take the top supervisor at my current university (since this would give me stronger LORs and connections).
I have asked PhD students who know the advisors, and they all strongly encouraged me to take the one at my current university. They didn't do their undergrad there, however, so they didn't have the experience I would have of being 8 years in the same city and university...
My questions are:

Should I stay at my current university with the top supervisor?
If so, how to mitigate the negative effects of remaining in the same city and school?

Thanks a lot!

Ask former students who completed their PhDs with these supervisors.  They have informed opinions.  We do not.  Be sure you have a feasible backup plan for your career.

@AnonymousPhysicist Thanks. I have added a reply to your first point in my question. (Of course, I have a feasible backup plan.)

From a professional/academic perspective, there is no need to move for your Ph.D. To stay is common if you happen to do your undergrad at a great university. What you probably have heard and confused this with is that, ideally, you switch university after your Ph.D. for your postdoc/professorship (to avoid the perception of nepotism, etc.), but even that isn’t a rule set in stone.

Actually, @gnometorule and others, there is value in changing universities as it gives you access to a wider variety of faculty and, hence, to a wider variety of ideas and approaches to research. It also helps you build a wider circle of contacts if you are attentive to that. But I've voted to close as too personal to have a good answer. The relative "weighting" of the possible supervisors is a subjective and personal thing.

@gnometorule Thanks. My field is not pure mathematics, but I was referring to things like this https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/study-at-different-places/ which applies to both transitions from undergrad to PhD and from PhD to postdoc

A PhD starts a career, it doesn't define it.
There are benefits to moving, there are benefits to staying. Benefits aren't limited to now. You can seek those benefits later.
Move at some point in your career, not necessarily now.


text:
Help choosing my recommender: weaker letter from faculty with PhD, or strong letter from non-PhD industry boss?
I know none of the choices below are ideal, but I've exhausted my options.  I'm applying for PhD in mechanical engineering to US schools, some of which specifically stated letters must come from someone who is familiar with my academic work.  I would like advice on which person below might be the best choice, I need to pick one.
PERSON A

PhD/ mech engg professorial position (different subdiscipline than my interest), might be difficult to contact due to pandemic
I took a class.  Grade is pretty good and above average, but not stellar.  I think the letter will just be "took a class" letter.
Was adviser for an engineering undergraduate competition (in unrelated mech engg subdiscipline) that didn't reach fruition (we had to back out at the final stage of the competition, lasted several months).  It didn't go that well, so I don't think I want to remind him about it.

PERSON B

BS mechanical engineering, BS applied physics, masters in mechanical engineering in decent school in US
Taught in my university/department for a brief period, a long time ago
supervises me in my work (1 year).  I have 3 main roles:  two of which are normal engineering roles involving design/analysis, one of which is industry heavy R&D (that's largely confidential and won't have publications).  But I think he will be able to write well of my ability to work independently in R&D, and will be able to speak well of my analytical/critical thinking skills since my other roles involve problem solving
right from the job interview, I already said clearly I don't plan to stay here and my dream is to work in research and get a PhD.  So he will be able to speak of how much I want to get into PhD

PERSON C

Non PhD/ ex-faculty.  No longer affiliated with university, can't use university letterhead.
Stellar grades in class, in semi related field (he taught mechanisms, I'm interested in dynamics)
I've had conversations with him in the past, asking for advice about graduate study, so he knows me a little more than someone who just attended class.

The deadlines are on Dec. 1, and I still don't have recommendations.  I've been emailing other more "ideal" profs since last month, but I won't be able to get letters from them.  One of them, I did a workshop under him in my chosen field, got the highest possible grade in his class, and also worked with him in engineering competitions that went okay, but he rejected my request.  The other one, is the professor I did laboratory assistantship under, who also won't be able to write my letter and I can't contact anymore.  So the choices I stated above, are my only choices.

Person B seem the best person to assess your at least "academic related" work. That said, in my (non-US) experience reference letters very, very rarely if at all play a major role when making decisions whom to admit, as long as they are "kind of OKish" and the writer has at least some qualification to write them. So you shouldn't be worried of making an all too big mistake here; chances are that your success will not rely on your recommender choice. I'd probably avoid Person C but I don't think Person A will do you much harm. If I were Person A, I'd have a look at your overall results, and mention positively if they are better than what you did in my class (which apparently isn't exactly bad either).

Indeed, person B appears to be the best choice given the feasible set.


text:
LaTeX Document - would I make every instance of a term internally hyperlinked?
I'm writing a Computer Science Dissertation and am wondering if I should make all mentions of terms in my glossary hyper linkable to the corresponding glossary definition. Should I or shouldn't I?
EDIT: Thanks for the feedback guys. Although the advice is somewhat conflicting, I think I'll hyperlink the first mention of these terms in the report. Might leave this until I've written the entire dissertation too! Else I might get too caught up in ironing out something that isn't worth very much, haha.
More advice is welcome! Thank you!

As a side note the "glossaries" package does this for you.

See, for example, the WHATWG HTML specification for an extremely well-linked document, albeit in HTML and not LaTeX. However, reading such a large and complicated standard is made a much more palatable task with the thousands of internal links.

Yes you should. But hide all the links: \usepackage[hidelinks]{hyperref}.
You cannot expect the reader to start on the first page and finish at the last, someone interested in a particular topic jumps to a subsection and will be happy to find a linked glossary term.
Manually linking the terms at the beginning of each chapter contradicts a main advantage of Latex.

This changes the appearance of non-glossary hyperlinks too.

As it should. Might be a personal preference, but those link boxes just make the text harder to read. Try to click on the word/reference/citation. If it is a well-made document, it will be a link.

@derptank LaTeX no longer automatically generate boxes around links.

I don’t think this is a good suggestion unless you style the link text (in bold, or a different color etc) to make it evident that this is a link. It’s not good practice to have links that are completely invisible and rely on the reader randomly hovering their mouse over pieces of text to look for links (or worse yet, having to tap pieces of text with their finger if reading on a touch screen device).

People are not used to invisible hyperlinks, which makes them a bad choice.

A link that looks like a citation (superscripted or bracketed) or foot/end note might just be OK without anything to indicate it.  I would call my linking of figure/section numbers in running text with no highlight an error - but I was thinking print.  You can colour the links with hyperref; something like a (very) dark blue would indicate a link quite well without jumping out too much or having too much of an effect on the readability (partly @DanRomik)

@DanRomik I think the problem you raise is mostly solved: 1) most devices are so responsive that it is no big chore to just tentatively click/tap a term to see if it is linked 2) people are used to having links so their existence is not overly surprising 3) it would actually be nice if everyone did this (possibly software assisted) so you could always tap/click on any word and see its definition - and some software/devices actually already have partial support for this.

As user2768 said, hyperlinking for all mentions is probably excessive. In particular, in a long discussion of gizmos, the reader won't benefit from having a hyperlink at every occurrence of "gizmo". But it could be useful to have a hyperlink for the first occurrence in each chapter (or even each section if the sections are long). If a general rule like that doesn't work well, then ask yourself, whenever you use a glossary word, "Would a reader benefit significantly from a hyperlink here?"

In a similar vein, when using acronyms (through the acronym or glossaries packages) it's common practice to reset which ones have been spelt out in full at the beginning of every chapter.  Occasionally it's also worth spelling them out in other places, e.g. figure captions where the short form is crucial in the figure itself; late in a long chapter where it was only mentioned towards the beginning

Wikipedia usually hyperlinks at the first occurrence which is a good compromise

You shouldn't: Your thesis will be overfull with hyperlinks.

This is correct if the links are a separate color or text style.  If they are not visually distinct, they cannot appear cluttered.

In five years how many of those links will still be present, or, if they are, with appropriate content?

@A_rural_reader: The hyperlinks being discussed are internal to the document.

@AnonymousPhysicist if the links are not visually distinct then you have just forced an unwanted game of “where’s Waldo?” on your readers. Not a good idea either. Links should be visible, and (as you seem to agree) used sparingly to avoid cluttering the text.

To follow up on existing answers with personnal experience. In my thesis, I linked all notations to their definition. In their report, one member of the jury says (roughtly translated) : "The existence of links between notations and their definition is particularly useful", and later, "We can also notice the systematic of links not only between a reference to a definition or a lemma and its defintion, but also between notations and definitions. Those links improve considerably the reading comfort.". When writing a dissertation, one should have in mind that the document, which contains non-trivial elements, is meant to be read by other people. Anything you can do to ease the reading improves the understanding of your document.
Of course, all those links should be hidden, not to disrupt reading comfort. If you use hyperref, something like hidelinks=true in hypersetup should work properly (as a matter of fact, when I was writting, I actually turned the color on to check that I did not miss any links).
The easiest way to do this reference work is to use macros. For each notation, term, etc., you create a macro which automatically adds the reference. For elements that always have the same form (e.g., since you are in computer sciences, names of class, functions, etc.), it additionnally ensures that your names are consistent. For elements that may change (e.g. verbs, nouns), the easiest way is to take what should be displayed as parameter.

The two parts are the index and the glossary. I think this works best when the two are not separated.
We go to an index to find out where in the main document we need to go to learn about a specific term. Hyperlink a term to the index when you want the reader to find a specific concept, principle, or formulation associated with the term by going backwards from the index itself. Otherwise, do not hyperlink.
The first definition of a term within the main document deserves hyperlinking into the index. That may sometimes not be the first use of the term.
Example
In below, terms to index are in [ ], with {this sub-link} as the message. Reappearances of that term not put in the index are in ( ).
An [atom]{smallest unit of matter} is the smallest unique chemical constituent of any matter. The (atom) cannot be divided to smaller components with unique chemical behavior. The [atom]{its fundamental particles} contains protons, neutrons, and electrons as its base fundamental particles. The [atom] does not directly contain muons, or gluons, or bosons as its base fundamental particles. An example of the unique chemical nature of an (atom) is its participation in a chemical reaction. One [mole]{with substances} of a substance contains a defined number of [atoms]{atoms in a mole}.
Now that we have the index, build the glossary. Use one (bi-directional) link between the glossary term and the index term. This can suffice to provide both one place to find the term (the index) as well as one point of reference to find the glossary term from any point where it is indexed.
Example
The glossary might say this:
[atom]{link to index term} - The smallest unique chemical consistent of any matter.
...
[mole]{link to index term} - A unit of substance that contains a defined number of physical or chemical things.
... and the index might say this:
atom

[definition]{link to glossary}
[smallest unit of matter]
[its fundamental particles]
[atoms in a mole]

mole

[definition]{link to glossary}
[with substances]

If you do not build both an index and a glossary, then only reference the glossary term in a bidirectional manner at that point where you define the term or first use it in the main content. Other hyperlinks would be redundant. Why? Presumably, if this is going to ePub or PDF, the final document will have its table of contents sidebar that can be used for navigation at any other point.
References
Follow ups for the mechanics of doing glossaries can be directed to the TeX StackExchange, perhaps especially referencing practices with the glossaries package.

This answer seems to implicitly assume that hyperlinks to the glossary are bidirectional. There doesn’t seem to be a reason that all links to the glossary must result in glossary references to the text.

@RLHI I confused glossary with index. I've revised accordingly.


text:
Is it possible to run two postdocs simultaneously if one of them is "independent"?
I currently have a postdoc at a university in the US whose contract stipulates only that I "produce research" relevant to my field. I have no supervisor and have not been hired as part of a particular grant requiring regular updates to a funding institution. I have been offered a second year of this postdoc should I choose it (I have not yet).
In the meanwhile, I have accepted an offer for next year in another country funded by a private foundation in which I will be working closely with a supervisor. For a fleeting moment, I have wondered whether or not it would be possible to run both jobs simultaneously, since one (my current appointment) has no tangible requirements beyond the "production of research". I can't find anything relevant in either of my contracts or in the conflict of interest statements for the respective universities. However, I haven't pursued this option since:

It seems tasteless, and I wouldn't want to jeopardize my relationship with anyone at either institution.

I assume there must be some injunction against accepting two positions, particularly with regard to the intellectual property produced by the researcher.

Point 1 also prevents me from asking anyone at my institutions about this option (for the moment). Are my suspicions correct?
Thanks in advance.
Edit:  Two more relevant points: first, my current position allows me to work remotely at the moment and I strongly suspect this will continue; second, I do have some extremely light obligations in the form of aiding in the organization of departmental events, but, again, this can be done remotely and I would certainly continue this in the event of a dual postdoc.

What would it take to be allowed to work in the other country?

Let's just say that my considerations are only practical and I don't care much about the affiliation. Also, good point @Azor: I'm not sure what my visa will stipulate, but I will check this.

Who owns the Intellectual Property? Some contracts stipulate ownership of IP.

A professor was doing two jobs at once by flying every week.  This was viewed as wrong and frowned upon.  Obviously, the details differ, but this certainly could be viewed as a conflict-of-interest.  On the other hand, some Universities allow people to 'consult' for  pay ....

Can you go back and explain whether "independent” here means "not related" - in which case, go for it - or "alone" - in which case, discuss it with the programme managers.
Either way, I suggest this about employment in general, not Academia

@libor the institute paying full salary etc might not be happy splitting the credit for any papers etc produced with another institute that is contributing 0$.

If you think you would look bad if you told people about it, you shouldn't do it in secret. It's that simple.

@Libor: Affiliation, fine, but please don't make it sound as though you're suggesting OP do work and give up on getting paid for it.

If there's a clause in either contract that might trip you up, honour that.
Otherwise, how is it not true that in academia, in politics and even in commerce the only non-contractual barrier to doing two or more jobs at the same time seems to be seniority - or the lack of it?

It is hard to predict what is "possible". Your contract(s) and policies may stipulate expectations.
But to be safe, I would suggest, only do this with everyone's knowledge and permission. I doubt that it would be given, I guess, but you could suffer if you do it "on the sly". If you do a good job in both and no one learns of the deception then you might be ok, but that certainly isn't assured. And, working it out in advance will help make expectations clear and avoid any legal issues.
Also, it is good to sleep, occasionally and to have an actual life.

The question explicitly states it is not mentioned in the contract.  In academia, such things are usually forbidden by policy.  The policies forbid many things which are not mentioned in employment contracts, but one can expect serious consequences for violating a policy in the way the asker proposes.

And it's likely that doing a good job would involve publishing under an affiliation, at which point the other affiliation could very easily learn what's going on.

Not just the affiliation, papers are expected to acknowledge the grant/funding source too. Hard to claim a paper is "production of research" for funder A, when the paper itself says the work was funded by PrivateFoundationB...

When you publish research, you list your institutional affiliation(s)...if your work has even moderate success you're bound to wind up getting caught at some time or another. Better to put everything in the open up front.

Along the lines of the comments here, what would you do with your CV if you have concurrent publications from both institutions?

There isn’t an employer in the US who will agree to pay you a salary knowing that you are also getting a salary from another employer for working during the same hours. If we’re talking about moonlighting during the weekend, that would be something else, but what you are proposing? No. The lack of tangible work requirements is irrelevant, it’s just a non-starter from an HR and policy point of view. Even if your PI is okay with it (they won’t be, but let’s pretend just for argument’s sake), their institution won’t be.
So, it comes down to whether you can do this surreptitiously and avoid getting caught, and what the precise legal and reputational risks are. I’ll leave that for you to ponder about. The folks at law.stackexchange might have some advice.

@Libor multiple appointments, sure. Overlapping salaries for the same work days/hours, no. My institution has very strict policies about such things. There are specific carve-outs to allow paying a per diem to visiting professors on sabbatical who continue to be paid by their institutions, up to certain limits related to federal government tax rules, but I can’t think of any other situation that would come even close to being an exception to the general prohibition on overlapping salaries. And I’m confident my institution is very representative of other US universities in that regard.

@Libor okay, I guess when it comes to money there is no limit to the ingenuity and creativity people will put into getting more of it. I’ve said what I have to say and I’ll leave it at that. Thanks for your thoughts, you have some valid points.

@Libor, (and Dan R.), intermittently I've seen instances in the U.S. of people caught "double-dipping", having two "full-time" appointments, flying back and forth (pre-pandemic), and playing the role of high-rolling externally-funded big shot. But got caught. I wish I could remember enough details to find some specifics, but I seem unable... Maybe someone else can.

@paulgarrett The first example I found was this one: https://mndaily.com/190109/uncategorized/2-professors-accused-double-dipping/

@BryanKrause, ah, exactly, that was what I was thinking of... Thank you. :)

Most of the other answers get the logistics right, you can typically make an arrangement like this at 80/20, but not both full-time.  That said I think the other answers are failing to make clear how serious a problem trying to get around this could be.  I am not a lawyer, but this would almost certainly be fraud, and might open you or your PI’s up for criminal charges.  Grants require the PI to certify that each person paid is working on the project for the number of months you’re paying them for.  You can’t double-dip like this (eg if a PI has two grants that both require the same experiment you can’t double-pay a student to do the experiment).  What you’re suggesting is a crime, and even worse could be drawing your PIs into your criminal scheme for failing to supervise their employees enough to know whether they’re working on their grant when they certified that they were.
Don’t do this!

I do not think that your employers will agree to such a construction (after all, they both pay you for a fulltime job), but even if they do, I would strongly advise you not to do it.
I have no experience with parallel postdoc positions, but I tried to combine two part-time jobs for some years (with the knowledge of both employers), and I think there are some aspects that might be similar.
The problem is that even if both employers know that you have another job and they agree, they expect you to be available whenever they think it reasonable. If employer 1 schedules a meeting on Monday morning and employer 2 expects you to do some urgent work for him (or attend a conference or something like that) at the same time, you are in trouble. If you promised employer 2 to be in at a certain time and employer 1 expects you to work overtime, you are in trouble. There will be many situations where you have to disappoint at least one of your employers, and this will fall back on you. In the end, you work a lot more than others, but with mediocre results. This is very dissatisfying.
Stay away from it. Instead, take your choice and concentrate on one job.

At some universities, you might get under-100% contracts and  in those cases, I agree that having a small extra-job is ok. Say, you accept short-term extra pay for collaborating on a paper from another university, or a 20% job elsewhere if you're hired  80% at your main place. In those cases, it's customary to let both institutions know.
It's ok to have multiple affiliations. I have two for some papers because I was hired by a lab for a specific small project for 3 months.
I would not have done that in the case where my main employer dislikes or has a rivalry with the other department.
However, if you have a full time job from both places, it's not acceptable. Also, even with an 80% position, you're often expected to work more ("it's your career", after all).
You can also think about it ethically: If you accept a 60-40 or 80-20 solution, that's one thing, since you are filling some specific need. I had a 60-40 situation during my PhD time, where I worked as lab manager (which was a position that isn't seen as furthering your academic career where I work) part time and as a PhD student researcher for 60% (but actually much more, as we all know). This was possible, because my lab manager hours were clearly delineated. I had very clear tasks and ad to report my hours. Whereas the PhD position was your run of the mill "just" having to do research, papers, conferences, and all that, which is less clear in terms of hours and often even tasks.
However, if you're taking up two full positions (or almost full, if they're both, say, 80%), you are taking up a position that another researcher might take to further their career.
And in your case it doesn't even seem like it's because you really want to work with someone at your first university, it's "just" for the pay?

It is rare but OK (within contracts) to be paid to do the same work by two different entities.
The problem arise when Uni A will tell you: "hey, i want you to work on problem XYZ now" and organization B tells you "keep working on QWE problem".
Now what you gonna do? You can try working 16hrs a day, but that is usually a recipe for disaster.

I'm not sure the word "rare" covers just how extraordinary it would have to be for this arrangement to ever occur without special agreement by all parties involved. The potential for issues is definitely not limited to being told "work on XYZ" by one and "work on QWE" by the other.

@BryanKrause i think there are arrangements when tenured Professor gets paid to do X and also to consult for company about X / be on science advisory board. I agree it is very rare occasion. I tried to show concrete example how problems can occur

In that circumstance at my institution it would have to be explicitly approved by the university and reviewed regularly (I think this is annual? haven't done it myself). As a state university a lot of the particulars are governed by state law, but I'd be shocked if any institution didn't have some similar policy. Additionally, this is nothing like what OP is suggesting. I'd pretty much guarantee that any source of funding giving freedom to just "produce research" is expecting to fund someone that wouldn't otherwise be funded, not to pay someone double for the same output.