text:
University awards degree, but asks for additional (not previously disclosed) requirements in order to recommend for certification
In my state, one way to earn a certification as an administrator for elementary and secondary education is to attend an educational administration program through a university in the state,  earn a masters degree through that program, and get a "recommendation for certification from the designated official for educational administration at the college or university where the program was completed". (Source.)
I, along with 9 others, recently completed our educational administration masters degree in a local cohort at a university in this state. We were awarded the degree, but the university will not recommend us for certification even though we have done everything asked of us for program completion.
We continually asked during the program what was going to be required and were told by multiple people employed by the university that they didn’t know what the changes were and for us to just wait. Now I have been told that we need to go back and pay money and take another class just to be recommended for certification from the university. I find this a little unreasonable having just met the requirements set forth by the university and having a masters degree in hand.
We have reached out to multiple people affiliated with the university who haven’t had the courtesy to even acknowledge receipt of our request.
What options are available to students in this scenario?

Welcome to AC.SE. I edited your question a little as we tend to frown upon calling out specific universities. I am not really sure what you are asking about, so if I made a mistake, feel free to fix it. Also, your question reads more like a rant than a question. You will get better answers if you can ask it more objectively. Also, you may want to take a look at our [help].

I tried to clarify your question, for the benefit of readers who are not people in the field of educational administration in the state of Missouri ;)

Having done that: it seems to me that they never promised to recommend for certification based on having completed the (then-in-place) requirements for the masters, they always disclosed that they didn't know yet exactly what you would need to do to be recommended for certification. Is that right, or am I misreading?

@ff524 I think your edits improve the question a lot.

The edits were extremely helpful, and I've retracted my close vote now that I understand the question.

We have met all requirements given to us by the university at the time we registered.  Several changes were made during the course of our program and communicating those changes was always a challenge.  The university has yet to update their current program to reflect the new changes.

Is it possible the original requirements were not sufficient by law?


text:
Undergrad thesis supervisor rejected request for LOR - how will this look on grad apps?
I haven't worked with my supervisor for long (~3 months now, 4 when apps are due), and she is well known in her field. I understand she has a reputation to uphold is honest in her letters from what I hear, so she really needs to get to know you before something like this.
I will be giving a lab talk on Nov 15 and submitting a research proposal and lit review on Nov 19, but sadly apps are due earliest by Dec 1. So, again, understandably, she told me she didn't feel prepared to judge me in a span of about 10 days (between when I submit and when apps are due), and that I should seek another prof.
Luckily, I'm working on another independent project and I've asked that supervisor (fingers crossed!); my other references are from (1) a 1.5-year work supervisor from when I was a research assistant and (2) a prof I worked with for a summer independent project.
How will it reflect on my Master's applications if I don't have a reference from my thesis supervisor? Is there anywhere I can explain the situation? Or, is there a possibility to request a delay in submission anywhere - and if this is the case, should I mention it to my prof or should I not persist?

More important than any answer: Relax.

It's generally a good idea to have at least one reference from a research supervisor. It's sounds like you have one, possibly two, such references, so that is no issue. Given that you've only worked with your current supervisor for a few months (and haven't even submitted your proposal yet), I don't think the lack of a letter from her will be suspicious.
In terms of the options you list:

As far as I know, getting extensions on grad school apps is not really done.
You could wait until the next cycle, but that seems extreme.
Rather, I would just proceed with your application as-is, clearly indicating that your primary research mentor was [the person who wrote your letter] and that you only recently started working with [the person who didn't].

I'm pretty sure that the recommendations that you do get far outweigh any that you don't get. I think that it is much more important what those letters say about you than which particular faculty members they came from.
Getting a really good one from your supervisor would be great, of course, but a so-so one not so much. But great letters from other faculty would weigh much more in your favor.
I would apply with the best CV and other materials you can build. If you get in then there was no need to wait. If you don't, then you can work to do better in the next cycle, perhaps with that great letter you want now.
Also, no single thing is likely to be determinative of your success. You are a "package" both in your materials and in person. The whole package will be considered.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Examples of when to use "Accessed" in citation and references
I once found an example of "Accessed" from or date accessed in citation and references in the current 6th edition of the APA publication manual.  Would somebody please give me a proper example of how to use Accessed to cite and reference a website?  Also the page number in the APA manual would help.  Thank you.

Technically, APA uses "retrieved from" for websites rather than "accessed from":

Retrieved [date] from [URL].

It should be noted that dates are only required for frequently changing content; more or less "static" web pages do not need to have a date included, although there is certainly nothing wrong with doing so.

I would argue that the default for websites should be to assume non-static unless they are explicitly stated to be archival.

@jakebeal: Fair enough. But I'm trying to distinguish what the APA considers obligatory and what it doesn't.

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


text:
Academia's view on body modification
I'm a young undergraduate student currently finishing my next-to-last year as a math bachelor. I plan to apply for a Masters as soon as I finish, and I look forward to a job as an academic researcher.
I'm also deeply involved with the culture of body modification, hosting myself a few tattoos, piercings and one scarification (as of today, all of which could be covered by wearing a dress shirt and pants). I also look forward to further modify my body, including face/hand tattoos, scarifications and piercings.
I know that, in general, this means that I will find barriers to land a job given my future undeniable ``strange" appearance. Now, in the context of academic jobs, how is this culture viewed upon? I've never seen a member of our faculty with any form of extreme body mod, just one or another mild, easily hidden tattoo.
I would like to add that both body modification and mathematics had (and still have) a huge impact in my life, both are my driving force and my passion for them will make me purse my dreams of being a (heavily modified) mathematician, no matter what. I would just like to know what type of obstacles I should be ready to face, when the time comes. Though I repeat to myself everyday that "if I'm good enough at my job, people will need to accept my looks", I would also appreciate a less faith-dependent advice. You know, for the hard days.

To further clarify how is this different from other related questions on tattoos, I'm talking about extreme body modification, while the question linked states: "Of course, if I did get one, it would be discrete and innocent." These images show what sort of looks I aim to achieve: photo 1, photo 2.

Possible duplicate of Tattoos in the Workplace

@ArnaudD. I see. As it is also related to https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/17363/are-search-committees-biased-in-terms-of-a-candidates-looks-such-as-long-hair

@ArnaudD. but maybe this question is still relevant, as while the asker talks about mild, concealable tattoos, I'm talking about extreme modifications. Also, people tend to have different reactions when talking about tattoos and scarifications (the latter begin seen as a much more incisive process). Think about coauthoring a paper with Grace Neutral or Yann Brenyak

Your location probably makes a difference.  In some countries tattoos are common, but in other countries not.  And your field. Perhaps a professor in  a business school is expected to look like a proper businessman or woman.

@GEdgar guess I should feel "lucky" then. I Brazil, people outside academia usually think that professional mathematicians are either crazy geniuses or non-existent.  Unfortunately,  this type of looks is also heavily frowned upon here - everyone I know with such extreme mods either work as wandering performers or body artists themselves.

Unfortunately, I would think that these looks are so far too uncommon in general to give you any valid "statistic" on how they would be looked upon in academia and more specifically maths. It is hard to generalize something that is as uncommon, as you will surely understand as a mathematician.

You mention "in general, this means that I will find barriers to land a job given my future undeniable ``strange" appearance," this may well impact your ability to get industry funding for your research. (If your appearance creates a barrier to land a job with a particular company, then surely that company is less likely to fund your research. I say "less likely," because you'd be external, when receiving funding, to the company rather than internal, when employed.)

Math has a relatively high tolerance for eccentricity in dress and presentation, but what you’re talking about is unusual enough that it’s hard for me to know.

I don't think academics would care about the fact that you got tattoos. However, some of them may find your look aesthetically unpleasant and would unconsciously think less of you.

@GEdgar To expand on your observation, this would definitely limit your career for safety reasons in some fields, e.g. a chemist doing NMR or physicist working on a particle accelerator.

Becoming a mathematician does not limit yourself to math. You can still also be a great artist, politician, craftsman, whatever. "Body modifications" do not help you, except get the approval of a few others. You make a final decision on some mostly irrelevant matter of taste. And you make it hard for other people to look you straight in the face and just judge you for your math. Nice people will try to, yes. But it's arrogant from your side. You're forcing your personal ideas of taste on everybody, loudly daring them to contradict it. Why? What's in it for you, except inflammations and regret?

@Karl I could expose my specific case, but this would deviate from the question and may not be appropriate. I can, though, recommend a rather unbiased small text on why me and a lot of other people seek (sometimes extreme) body modifications: https://info.painfulpleasures.com/blogs/psychology-body-modification

@HenriqueAugustoSouza All those reasons are based in some underlying psychological or social problem someone has, which the tatoo etc. won't solve, but just mark you as a victim. Work on your problem, and becoming a sharp-witted mathematician is a great way to do that. You won't need your modifications. Unless you're a member of the japanese mafia, but i guess not. ;-)

You will likely be judged differently in any situation, where you have to be present in person - that is, all kind of interviews (actually even via skype and similar).
Your skills become more important later in your academic life, but the documented skills of say a master student who applies for a PhD position are very limited - personal judgement plays the major role here.
Therefore, you might want to wait until you do a PhD, or even after that. By that time your publications and achievements may speak for themselves and all you need to do is to find a PI that is okay with your looks.

I'm at a good position now. My advisor (here there is a national undergraduate research grant program) seems okay with my current looks, he even orients a fellow student way more modified than me. A good deal of our faculty members already knows me, and trough summer schools I've also been present to another place where I consider applying for a Masters degree. But for a PhD seems too soon in my career to have any  concrete plan. So holding up the face/hand mods until that is more solid seems something wise to do. Also, mods are expensive, and I won't be able to do many more so soon anyway.

Also, "I will have publications and achievements that will speak for themselves" seems a good objective/inspirational belief/follow-up mantra to have, given my plans for the future.

Though I repeat to myself everyday that "if I'm good enough at my job, people will need to accept my looks", I would also appreciate a less faith-dependent advice. You know, for the hard days.

I think you need to consider very carefully what it means to be "good enough at your job" in the context of academia. For doing research in pure mathematics, that mostly* means doing and publishing good research. However, work in academia almost always involves teaching. Teachers lecture to classrooms of students who expect to get an education in an environment that they feel is supportive, safe, free of distractions, and compatible with cultural norms of behavior and personal appearance. Someone who deviates from these norms, especially to an extent that is likely to cause discomfort among a non-negligible proportion of students, is in my opinion unlikely to be hired to teach at a university in (for example) the United States.
Good luck pursuing your dreams.
Edit: following up on your comment, you should also consider that careers in academia are international by nature, and your experiences in Brazil (which sound pretty positive so far) may not be representative of how people will relate to your physical appearance elsewhere. To reach any meaningful level of success you will likely need to do one or more postdocs overseas and be prepared to travel regularly to conferences in other countries. You should also be prepared for the possibility that you might end up settling down in another country due to any number of eventualities that happen quite frequently to academics (meeting someone, difficulty of getting a job in your home country, or just deciding that you like it better somewhere else with better opportunities). Your body modification plans are likely to have a complicated interaction with the already complicated realities of careers in academia, and possibly create some additional challenges. Something to consider. Anyway, good luck.

*I say "mostly" because the paths to doing good research typically involve forming collaborations, which does depend on things like social skills and maintaining a professional appearance, and the paths to getting people to think that you've done good research involve giving talks about your work, which also depends on those things.

"... forming collaborations, which does depend on things like social skills and maintaining a professional appearance" - I surely was overlooking this side of the question. So far, I've been surrounded by people (both colleagues and teachers) who didn't seemed uncomfortable with my tattoos/clothes (which themselves are also rather eccentric at times), and were always very open to discuss problems and mathematics in general. But those people also know me from before mods (I started my body modifications AFTER starting my undergraduate program). I'm rather rusty at making first impressions.

It might be good to emphasize that (at least at present in pure math in the US) the academic job market is very competitive, which allows schools toss out good candidates for "superficial" reasons at little detriment to themselves.

The kind and degree of "body modification" matters, and what is considered acceptable varies with time. Twenty years ago, you would not have seen any piercings other than earrings at the main professional society meetings I attended. Nowadays, lip, nose, and eye piercings can be seen and are tolerated so long as they're not excessive or flagrant.
However, tattoos are a different issue—facial and hand tattoos are difficult for "professional" employers to deal with, since they are essentially impossible to hide and are considered unprofessional.
That said, you have the right to modify your body as you see fit; however, you should take the likely response of future employers into account before you proceed. (To borrow from Mark's answer, I'd lean with "even after that.")

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


text:
Is it OK to do a grad school interview if I was already accepted informally by another program?
I recently got accepted to my first choice graduate program, but then my second choice school emailed asking for an interview.
I feel like since I applied, I should at least do the interview, but I am worried that my first choice school will find out and revoke my acceptance. (it was an informal, unofficial acceptance directly from my faculty advisor)
Am I just being crazy? Do professors from different schools talk about their PhD applicants? Should I still do the interview?

Looks reasonable to me - you don't have a formal acceptance letter, and until then, you aren't actually accepted and it would be reasonable to check out your other options.

I am worried that my first choice school will find out and revoke my acceptance — Any department that would revoke their offer to admit you for interviewing elsewhere should be avoided at all costs.  (I'm assuming here that you have not yet accepted their admission offer.)

I would advise that, until you have a formal, firm offer letter, you keep following the steps of the rest of applications you submitted. Even after making you an admission offer, you will have some time to consider any other option and decide (many people get accepted in multiple programs and it is fully alright and understood). Now, once you accept an offer (not only receive it), it is very recommended that you contact the other programs that have made you an offer, and tell them that you will not be attending there because you already accepted an offer somewhere else. They will all understand, of course. But, most important, if you tell them as soon as you have decided, then they will have some time to make an offer to another candidate.


text:
Comp Sci PhD Admissions: How often are Skype interviews requested?
I am applying to several computer science PhD programs, and several professors who I mentioned in my statement of purpose have reached out requesting Skype interviews. My question is: how often are these requests made? Should I be very encouraged or is this standard procedure for almost all qualified applicants?

"Should I be very encouraged ..." -- why not? You are at the time in your life when optimism is appropriate. I would be encouraged even if it were standard procedure (which it isn't).

Are you asking about whether you should expect an interview request at all, or whether you should be discouraged because they want to do it via Skype rather than in person?

Time is one of the most valuable resources for professors – I know no one who just offers interviews for fun.

Should I be very encouraged or is this standard procedure for almost all qualified applicants?

Be very encouraged. I can guarantee you that they don't do it for all "qualified" applicants, because nobody has the time to do that. In my institution in Sweden, for any given call, we may get somewhere between 25 and 150 applications. Even of only a third of those are qualified, it is easy to see that the hiring faculty member can't interview everybody who is qualified even for a call that received comparably little attention. I typically interview about 3 to 5 people per call, and I would presume that this is fairly normal.
That said, take the call very seriously. In the past I have been highly disappointed with how badly prepared many applicants were in these Skype calls (e.g., I usually ask beforehand that candidates do a short 10-min presentation of their master's thesis and some candidates have no presentation prepared, or candidates who have obviously not even looked at my website and clearly have no idea what kind of research I actually do). I never hire applicants that seem ill-prepared for the interview.

Just a note, it's a little confusing to refer to both the Skype call and the call for applicants as just "a call."

Should I be very encouraged or is this standard procedure for almost all qualified applicants?

It's to be expected that lead researchers would want and need to have a proper conversation with a PhD applicant. It's almost like a job interview.
But beyond just pointing this out, I believe you should see your surprise as  indication that you may have gone about your application process in not quite the right way.
In my opinion, when looking for a place to do Ph.D. research, you need to take the time to get in touch with the relevant research groups and their primary researchers, to understand what their interest and foci are, to introduce yourself, to figure out potential directions you would pursue if you joined them - all things which would have gotten you in touch with those "professors who I mentioned in my statement of purpose" (and as is understood, have not contacted before).
Had you done so, you would likely have thought of such Skype conversations as something you want to do anyway, regardless of the admission process, and that could be beneficial for you in itself. Assuming these are academic worth their salt, face-time with them is something you should be able to benefit from.


text:
How important is it for an eventual academic career in philosophy to pursue a masters degree at a different school from your undergrad?
I understand that there are many pros and cons to pursuing a masters at the same school you took your undergraduate degree at. In my particular situation, I am a Canadian fourth-year undergraduate student in Philosophy, and I've recently been approached by two professors  who personally asked me to enroll in the Masters program at my current school - and one of which has offered to work with me and supervise my thesis if I do choose to study there. This professor is someone I've worked well with in the past, and whose particular area of interest intersects with mine. Given the strength of their recommendations, I'm sure their references will be very beneficial, and it would be exciting to work with a professor whom I already have a well-established relationship with on a project that interests me.
At the same time, I am aware that going to another school offers the benefit of a whole new roster of professors, classes, and research which I could be exposed to. While I am sure I could find professors with whom I will get along with at other schools, many of my friends who have gone to different places for their Master's degree did not have such luck (or did not find the professors at other, more prestigious schools to be any more outstanding than the ones at their own).
Although this question may beg the answer, "It's entirely up to you", I'm still wondering if anyone has insight into how important it is in this field (i.e. for someone who wishes to pursue a PhD/eventual professorship in Philosophy) to go to a different school for their Masters?

I'm not in the field of philosophy so I don't know of anything particular to that field, but I would suggest that for your long term future it will be more important where you do your PhD (and many will prefer that this is not where you did your undergraduate/masters). I doubt your masters school will impact much beyond your PhD applications, besides the networking potential of meeting more people in the field by attending different institutions.

I guess you have to balance the pros and cons.  There's obviously a big pro of working with someone you have a positive, productive relationship with.  The con I can see that I didn't notice in your post is that you might be seen as not having a broad exposure to multiple schools of thought.  Maybe you could do some summer projects with someone from another "world" to counteract that.


text:
How to get three recommendation letters while I only worked with my supervisor?
I am a Ph.D. student who will get a Ph.D. degree in less than 8 months in biophysics. While I am looking for postdoc positions many of them require three recommendation letters. One of these letters will be provided by my supervisor, however, what can I do about the other two?
I collaborated with other researchers on my projects, however, the collaboration was kind of at a distance while the collaborators were in another country.
Is it possible to ask these collaborators for a recommendation letter? How could they evaluate me while they never worked with me directly or in person? They usually provided samples or commented on the draft I wrote, however, I did not interact with them the way I discussed the project with my supervisor.

What field are you in?  In computer science, good postdoc and faculty recommendation letters focus on the depth, originality, visibility, and impact of the applicant's independent research record.  For this reason, letters from experts who did not collaborate with the applicant are actually more valuable than letters from collaborators.

committee members?

@TheFireGuy If the OP is not in the US, then there might not (yet) be such a thing as a committee.

These collaborators are exactly the persons who can evaluate your work, your person and so on really good and in the eyes of a hiring institute, are more objective, because they haven't been your supervisors. So, definitely write and ask them. Probably, they don't know about your future career and current projects, but, I guess, they want to talk to you again about this (via phone or skype) and then you can explain much better what do you want, what's your motivation is and so on.  I would also guess that one of them needs some help in formulating the LoR and then you assist with some bullet points (there are quite a few questions and answer here, for instance this  or that question with answers/comments).  So, go for it and good luck with it!


text:
Solutions to the lack of code transparency in economics?
Like most fields that rely on statistical analyses, economics has suffered from a few well-publicized coding errors (most notably the Foote and Goetz finding that when correcting Donohue and Levitt's programming error in the abortion/crime paper the conclusion is reversed), and likely suffers from far more which are never discovered.
What solutions have other fields used to ameliorate this problem, and how might the incentives of researchers be changed to encourage them to submit to these changes?

I give a related answer here.

Warning - anecdotal evidence ahead:
We have a couple of pet statisticians that we run things past: they review our statistical methodology, and can check that the code does what we think it's doing. (That is to say, we borrow a few hours of time from colleagues in other departments. And in some funding bids / project proposals, we explicitly put in time for them). In some cases, we've coded up algorithms in different languages, and checked that results have been reproduced.
The incentives for cross-disciplinary collaboration are, I believe, already there. When we've explained to our statisticians what we're trying to do, for a stats health check, they've often been able to suggest additional tests.  And they love getting their paws on new datasets, to go mining on. So it's constructive for all parties.

Another approach is to ease the process of making your data/code open. The Center for Open Science is an interesting non-profit that started this year. They're developing The Open Science Framework, which is a tool meant to assist with the research workflow--it facilitates collaboration, version control, and it reduces making your data/code open (completely or in parts) to a single click.  I guess the strategy is to lure researchers into using the software by making a useful tool, and hoping that if openness is only a click away, more of them will just click the button. I could see this or something like it making a real impact.

I like this approach, but it will take a long time for the tools that researchers are already using to incorporate it.

I agree with dchandler. The journals have to require it and publicize it on their websites. There is no other way. There is another example from S. D. Levitt of Freakonomics fame in which a paper had erroneous conclusions that were demonstrated by trying to replicate the results. This is a serious issue that needs attention. Scientific rigor goes as far as the academic rigor, but academics have regrettably, large incentives to "make mistakes" in their coding to obtain conclusions beneficial to their research programme. There hardly is a more pressing issue in academic research than making the research process public. Technically it is a breeze to do, what is required is the political will for the journals to implement it. Hopefully, the issue can be raised in future annual meetings of the corresponding associations.

Not necessarily "a breeze," particularly the way most people code.  But point taken.


text:
What academic discipline does "Productivity Science" come under?
I wish to categorise my large collection of electronic documents. I need a foolproof set of categories to put each document in. I want to use a classification system similar to how university schools are organized:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_disciplines
Some of my documents are productivity tips (similar to Dave Allen's "Getting Things Done" book). I can't find an academic category under which productivity comes. The term "productivity science" doesn't seem to be a widely accepted term.
What is the most natural category to put the study of "Productivity" in? Psychological Sciences (or other Social Sciences)? Applied Sciences/Professions? I'm tempted to put it in Psychology because I have other documents based on Learning, Memory and Performance. The four of those seem best suited to Psychological Sciences.

What software are you using to manage these electronic documents?

Good old file systems (NFS, NTFS, HDFS etc). My resources include, but are not limited to, html web pages saved on my computer, post it notes, Google Docs and printed reference cards.

My guess would be Business -> Industrial and labor relations -> Organizational

Thank you. Yes, that was another one I noticed but forgot to mention. It's reassuring to hear someone else suggest that.

There is no such thing as a

a foolproof set of categories to put each document in

With paper documents the document had to "live" in a single locations and therefore needed a primary category/label/tag. You then had lots of different indexes that would allow you to find the document from multiple places. You often had to walk to a different library to collect the document. This system was/is inefficient and problematic.
Electronic documents can "live" in multiple places. The concept of assigning a single primary category to an electronic document is dated and silly. You should either modify the file directly to add helpful metadata or create a database that lets you externally create searchable metadata. This then allows you to easily search for the document, and related documents.

There is no industry standard tagging system that I am willing to invest effort in, out of fear of future-proofness. The closest thing I know of is XMP metadata tagging. It may be 'silly' to you, but single-parent hierarchies are still the way file systems work. My electronic resources are not academic papers with tag metadata in their header. They are html web pages I've saved, post it notes, Google Documents, printed reference cards among others. You cannot assign physical documents to multiple categories.

Sorry, I should have been more clear that electronic documents were just an example of a resource I needed categorization with.

@Sridhar-Sarnobat sure tagging the documents directly can be problematic, but what is wrong with creating a database to link the documents and the tags. I would go with a .bib file for use with BibTeX, but I could imagine an Endnote database or even creating your own database app.

I don't want some of my tag links to be in .bib files, others to be in picasa.ini files, others in file header metadata. I want a lowest common denominator that works in all environments/operating systems.
Creating an index (that tells you to look somewhere else) would increase maintenance effort. I've done this with symbolic links in my operating system. Links get outdated and broken.
Sometimes I create spider diagrams which are tree structures. If you allow a node to have 2 parents, the diagram becomes very messy (I've used yEd and Graphviz for this).

@Sridhar-Sarnobat So put all the links in a bib file. There is no reason you cannot create a new IMAGE entry type. A reasonable front end of the database (e.g., JabRef for bib files) will retrieve and open the files directly no matter where the files are. As for symbolic links, maybe you should try hardlinks. They save the disk space but cannot get broken.

Interesting. I should read up on bib files (I use LaTex but not BibTex). Hard links cannot be created across different drives - I've tried it and yes they would solve some of my problems. What I end up doing is the next best thing - creating a duplicate of the file in the 2 folders.

Any of the four categories you suggest would make sense.

On a related note, for exactly this reason, I would recommend against a category-based classification system, as many fields of research are significantly cross-disciplinary. Depending on your field, you'll end up having to cross-reference your article a lot.
I would rather suggest a tag-based method, where you devise an intelligent tagging scheme and simply tag each paper as necessary. This way, you get the benefits of categorization, combined with the ability to cross-categorize by simply adding another tag. You can add as many tags make sense and ensure that you can find the paper again later, which, at the end of the day, is the whole point of the system. Additionally, many bibliography programs support tags references out of the box.

Thank you for the reply, but the same response as the one above applies to this.

So the "tags" could be something as simple as a plain text file that lives in the same directory as your heterogeneous pile documents. It just has to be searchable. I don't think categorization is bad, but @eykanal is right: You need an effective cross-reference system.

The metaproblem here is that the OP has clearly invested a lot of intellectual energy trying to find the “right place” to store documents by some objective standard. But the only “right place” is the one that maximizes your probability of finding stuff when you need it.
(This could be an early warning sign of excess rigidity in problem solving more generally. Always think of the big picture.)
If you created an imaginary new academic discipline called zigamazoo and stored all the GTD and similar productivity materials there, would that be a ridiculous name? Of course. Would it be effective? I’ll bet it would.
I’d actually call it personal productivity and make it a peer of the other academic disciplines. I’d probably remember that when I went to look for it. If cross-references would be helpful under topics like psychology, I’d add them, but they’re probably superfluous. You’ll remember you created a (rare!) top-level heading for this.
Why on earth would you care whether it's under the right academic discipline as long as you can find it?


text:
If I cannot get sufficient recommendation letters, what can I do?
I know you should build a good network with your professors as early as possible, not only it will help your study, but also you can get great recommendation letter from them.
But not all students aim at graduate school when they start their undergraduate, for example, I only became interest in research and decide on going to graduate school after my third year of undergraduate. At that time, I have done a research project with a professor and certainly I can ask him for one. However, most schools require 2-3 recommendation letters.
I know a good recommendation letter should speak about the candidate research potential instead of 'did well in my class', but in my case, only my undergraduate adviser can speak about that. What should I do besides asking recommendation letter from professors I get A grade in their classes?

You are in the same situation as most undergraduate students. So, you could ask the professors close to the "area" you want to focus on and you did well in their class.

It would be better if all/most of the recommendation letters are about your research potentials. But, this is not an absolute requirement. @Alexandros made a practical suggestion. You just do the best you can.

It is a good practical suggestion, but in my case unfortunately, the research area and the course which I have good grades really do not match...

Good grades aren't necessarily a requirement. If you were very engaged with the material, asking questions in class, going to office hours, etc, but only received an OK grade, that professor may still be willing to testify about your interest, etc.

Of course, the best solution to this problem is not to have it in the first place. Being proactive and thinking about the future is sometimes a rare talent, especially in 18 year olds fresh out of high school, but then again grad school is supposed to select the exceptional individuals.
There is a world of difference between a recommendation from someone you worked with, and from a mere acquaintance. The latter kind rarely benefits your application in a meaningful way, and can sometimes even hurt it. No matter how enthusiastic your instructor is, unless the course is at least a project-centric course (eg. grade is based entirely on your individual term project), they will not be able to make a good, in depth argument for your abilities, and the recommendation will therefore be weak.
The point of the recommendation is that the admissions committee will read it, and decide whether you have potential to be a good researcher. How can they, if the recommendation does not talk about your research at all? And how much better if instead of hinting at your potential indirectly by citing course performance, the recommender can just say "this person has potential to be a great researcher because I have personally seen that they are good at research"?
This is why there is a qualitative difference. This can be a big problem when applying to a very selective program. What if you apply to a program where the committee has a philosophy that "an application is only as strong as its weakest link"? Even if you are quite exceptional otherwise, you can get eliminated early on because there are many other applicants who are also exceptional, but don't have a recommendation problem.
Also, similar to how a lukewarm recommendation can mean "I think this person is a bad candidate, but I am not being negative out of politeness", a recommendation from someone who only taught a course can mean "this person is a slacker who never bothered to do real work, so they can't find any supervisors to recommend them".
The best way to remedy is really to obtain more "good" recommenders. Because you want people who supervised you, the solution is obvious: You haven't been supervised by enough people who will vouch for you; you must undertake more projects and be supervised by other people whose recommendation will carry weight.
If still in school, look for faculty whose lab you can work in. If that is difficult, try approaching a former (or current) instructor with an idea for a theoretical or computational project (this requires less commitment from them, so they may be easier to convince). It doesn't necessarily have to be original research, so long as you can come up with a relatively long term (at least half a year) project where you are the primary contributor. It could also be (more) valuable to spend a summer working in a lab at a different university.
If out of school, delay your application by 1-3 years, and look for work as a lab tech at a university, institute or private company. Make sure not to displease your boss.
A related problem is working for a long time with the same person, for instance an undergrad who spends 3 years in the same lab. This is actually better, because you can accomplish much more in 3 years, and you can have a very impressive project to sell yourself with. The issue is that you will have only one supervisor - but hopefully after 3 years, you will have networked with collaborators and other scientists and will not have a problem there.

Your answer makes me rethink whether I should go to graduate school right now. Without enough people commenting on my research potential, I could only get into average school (I also do not have academic excellence). Exposing myself to other research labs can allow me show off my research skill (of course, I do not mean I am brilliant but at least I can try). It is tough, it requires longer time, but it may worth if I can get really good recommendation, and finally if it fails to get into some reputable schools, at least I have tried.

The other nice thing about taking time off to do some research full-time, is that it helps you decide whether you would even be happy doing research for the rest of your life, and the experience you get can ensure your success in the actual graduate program when you do get in.

"If out of school, delay your application by 1-3 years, and look for work as a lab tech at a university, institute or private company." Superbest, what is the difference between this and research assistant posts please?

@JackBauer Well, sometimes graduate students are also assistants, so it's a an ambiguous term. You basically want a BS-level position, sometimes those are called lab tech sometimes, they will be called research assistant, sometimes something else.

@Superbest Thank you so much for answering! I posted a question about research assistant posts. Anything additional would be appreciated.

I decided I wanted to attend grad-school at the end of my junior year - here is what I did
1) I had done research with one prof, so I had one good reference in the bag.
2) My senior year I was voted president of the ACM, and had a faculty advisory (2nd reference).  Knowing I wanted to attend grad-school made the extra time I put into this make sense.
3) Third reference came from a prof I had taken several classes with and who worked with the other 2 references on several research projects.
4) Due to an incompetent class adviser (not academic) incorrectly signing me up for the wrong class, I had to wait an extra year to graduate.  This gave me extra time to strengthen my application.  Look around for a summer research opportunity.
NOTE: I'm not suggesting delaying graduation for a year to get into grad-school.  There were several downsides to having that happen to me.  Just start looking at everything more strategically, and if a situation presents itself to allow you to strengthen your application take it - even it it means sacrificing in the short term.

Here are some thoughts. Figure out what classes you took that

are most similar to the type of graduate school you're applying for, and
you did well in.

Then set up a meeting with your former professor(s) of those classes to tell them a little about yourself, why you're planning on going to graduate school, and the situation you're in. I think any professor, and especially those in your future area of study are going to be very understanding of your situation and happy to help you out. It might help to talk with them a little about your research experiences and/or furnish them with a CV/resume detailing those and other experiences so that they may write a nice letter for you.
I think short of taking off some more time, doing research in a second lab, etc,  you don't have much choice in this matter! But never fear, I think the letter from your advisor is going to be the one that carries the most weight.
EDIT. Just wanted to add, in the process of deciding which professors to talk to, take a gander at this post about getting a 'strong' recommendation. Lots of good advice there. One idea that might be particularly applicable to you is asking whichever professor you talk to about where they think you should apply, etc.

I know this is what the best I can do with the given situation, but it is rather a compromise rather than solving the root problem. They can just say I am 'very enthusiastic in research' etc, but really cannot speak about my research ability strongly.


text:
Is the practice of lab members extensively citing each other's work looked down upon in academia?
In my lab, a few of us submitted our papers independently to a conference last week. We all had referenced each other's work in our papers. I have a concern if this is a bad practice in academia. It also looks like a bad habit that has festered in our lab: the last two PhDs who passed out from our lab have a total of 15 citations for their papers, of which 13 are from within our community itself.
Is this practice of repeatedly citing from one's own micro-community acceptable? It seems unavoidable, as we are all working together, familiarizing with each other's work and trying to build on them.

I changed the title, as a number of users expressed concern that "suicite" isn't the appropriate term to use here. Please verify that the new title is appropriate.

How recently were those two PhDs graduated? I suspect "organic" external citations appear much more slowly than internal citations from people who are both working in the same area, and already know of the author's work. You all get to skip the "discovery" step.

@eykanal: The title is alright, but I would like to state "suicite" is etymologically driven and has no malicious intent.

@EpiGrad: One of these PhDs graduated last year and another this year, each after six years in PhD. I am in my third year myself.

I find the question confusing.  Can you edit it to be more explicit? Are you saying that most of the references in your recently-submitted papers are to each other? When you cited each other's papers, were those papers as relevant as everything else you cited? Would you have cited them, if they weren't from your group?  When you mention the 13 of 15 statistic, does that mean that they wrote a paper/dissertation where 13 of the 15 citations are to papers in their own team; or do you mean that only 15 other papers have cited their work, and 13 of those citations come from within their own team?

It is only bad practice if the work is not particularly relevant, or if you cite your own group's papers instead of other relevant work.  The point of citations is to lead the reader to other related work necessary for some aspect of the paper (result, context, etc.).
That said, it is worth examining why those papers aren't getting cited.  Maybe nobody else is working in a sufficiently related area but it's critical background for the rest of what the lab is doing--then I wouldn't worry about it.  But if other people are working in the area (e.g. to the point that you might worry that if you take too long that someone else will publish the same results you're trying to get), it can be a sign that the results either aren't contributing to the field much, that the style of presentation isn't good enough for others to really understand what you're saying, or that the lab members aren't going to enough conferences to present.

While I am not insinuating in any way that your lab does this in a malicious and self serving way, this reminds me of the notion of citation cartels
Its quite possible that this is an artifact of the research itself and its quite alright to self-cite (or group-cite) a few papers especially when one work builds upon the other. However, there must be more papers in the research community outside your own lab that must be citable? Surely, not 86.6% citations must be from within?
Speaking from my limited experience, if I were a reviewer and I saw papers with this kind of a pattern, I would certainly suggest the authors to include specific, relevant papers (which I have knowledge about) from outside their own lab in the literature review. I might of course be completely wrong and someone else with more experience in academia might have a different opinion.

Aren't you confusing "citations (from others)" with "reference items (you put at the end of your paper)"? Either way, are you serious? I mean, would you write a report that says, "Cite more papers that are relevant to this result. I don't know which or where you can find though"? That's the most annoying kind of report. Wait. There's even worse. But your report should be based only on facts and the content of the manuscript. I agree 86% must be unusual. But "Whoa, whoa, that looks kinda fishy, you know what I'm sayin'?" isn't going to fly in science, at least without evidence, I don't think...

No, I am not confusing it. References in one paper are citations to those specific papers. My grammar might be off though. Often, when going through the review process I get directives from reviewers which ask me to look at other specific papers which might be relevant etc. I don't think there is anything wrong in that and is quite a common practice, at least in my field. I would be a tad wary though of papers which have such high proportions of self citations or related citations and which (if I knew them) did not cite other works in the field.

Hmm? OP said one paper from their lab got 15 citations in total, 13 of which come from the same lab and 2 of which are from strangers, so to speak, right? Do referees in your field say your paper sucks and tell you to look at other relevant topics next time simply because your past paper got only citations from within your group? Without evaluating the merit by reading the content??

Also, even if OP means 13 "references" out of the 15 were their lab's papers, I still find it surprising that a referee would ask you to cite papers that they haven't read or even know. It may just be me, but to me it sounds so rude to question if the author did their homework when the referee can't give any concrete evidence. If the referee gives a concrete example, then it's either that the author's fault or that the referee's recommendation is wrong. Either way, the author can prove themselves right or revise the manuscript accordingly.

But if you just say it looks too few to you, it's neither falsifiable nor verifiable. It's your totally subjective opinion based only on your gut feeling... If such a logic is ok, you can say authors' data/proof looks wrong so it should be wrong simply because it doesn't follow your intuition. Besides, I've seen papers citing only a few papers (in math, btw). I've never been asked to cite papers that may not exist either... It may be very common in your field, though. Interesting.

Pure mathematics might be a different ballgame but when you work in nasty interdisciplinary work like I do, having a limited range of citations can be quite a drawback. As I mentioned previously, it is a common practice in HCI or information science for referees to recommend certain papers for citation in your article. e.g. Right now, I have 2 papers in publication and referees recommended 6 new and specific articles for citation. I should make it clear that what I meant was that referees often ask to cite specific papers and not generically say that you need to cite more papers.

Like I said, if it's "specific" papers, then you can recommend the author include them in their reference list. The author can read them and refute or follow the recommendation. But if it's just a vague intuition that there are papers the author must've missed when you have no idea what they are or where the author might be able to find them, it's just your gut feeling. Also, I repeat myself here, but doesn't OP mean one paper "received" 13 citations from their lab? I think you're talking about "citing" 13 papers from the lab when there are only 15 items in the reference list.

Oh, and I'm not saying I doubt you. It's just surprising that you can say the author didn't do their homework when you don't have evidence like specific papers you know they missed. In my experience, such claim should be based on concrete evidence just like any claim the author makes in a paper or at least some very convincing reason. Maybe too short a reference list qualifies as convincing indirect evidence?

I just noticed the edit you made 5 minutes ago. So, you're claiming you would be able to find specific, relevant papers the author missed if 13 out of 15 are from the author's community. I don't know how you can be so sure, but probably that's how things work in your field. I understand 13 out of 15 is unusual though. Anyway, maybe the research topics of OP's labs have a large community like yours.

Please take extended discussion to chat.

If I saw a pattern of only or mostly citing work from your own team, it would make me suspect that the authors have poor awareness of related work.  How likely is it that there is no other relevant work being done by anyone else in the literature?  Nothing else that has any relevance whatsoever (techniques, methods, related results, inspiration)?  That's awfully hard to believe.  It would make me suspect that the authors are either ignorant about the field, or are doing a poor job of citing related work.
It's not clear to me what you meant by the 13 of 15 statistic.  If you mean that they wrote a paper or dissertation where 13 of the 15 papers cited in the related work section is to people within their same group, yes, I would tend to look down on that.  It isn't necessarily wrong, but it would certainly make me ask some pointed questions and make me suspect that there is something wrong.  It is important to be a good scholar and to understand other work in your field.
Maybe you've heard the saying: "a week in the lab can save a day in the library".  (This is not a recommendation!)

I'd also have this concern if a substantial portion of the references in a paper are to papers of the own group. But this doesn't seem to be an issue here.

If your lab is the leader in a certain field, you would be aware of it.
If your colleagues are pure geniuses, you also would be aware of it.
In both cases you won't be here to ask about it.
In others cases, extreme repetition is not a good sign.
(Keep in mind that little repetition is good as it shows interest in a field, but 13 in 15 is a red flag, a big bad red flag with a big bad skull on it)

I think it really depends, is it justified or are you just citing each other to rise your charts? I think if they are justified, it is fine. Some labs really do have famous works and they just add on it. I think it would become the advisor's problem after a certain point, which would mean he has to renew his work. That said, it doesn't look great when people who have their citations come -only- from their previous work.

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


text:
Quit PhD due to illness/no support and make a step back and apply to Masters/PhD again
Years ago I was diagnosed with leukemia and fortunately I won at that time the battle. Beginning of last year I started a PhD and after 1 year, my old illness was again knocking the doors and I had to stop the PhD asking for a Leave of Absence to start my treatment.
I've got a LOA but unfortunately, 6 months later and although my treatment works fine, it seems I'll need around 6 months or more to recover and I'm afraid to have a long year gap in my CV. Moreover, there is a total lack of support and communication from my university and academic committee and I was thinking to quit my PhD.
Therefore, and seeing this gap won't help me, I decided to make a step back in my career, apply for a MSc. in a related area of my PhD and later, apply again to other PhD program in a different university.
I understand is a big step back, but it seems I'll need around a year to recover (if everything works fine) and I don't think I'll get a rec. letter from my supervisor. I also need to refresh again my background and be humble about my situation, so I don't think it's really bad. However, I'd like to hear from you suggestions or ideas.
Thanks in advance for reading and all your comments

Could you put information regarding your country?

Apologies Matthias, but I won't post any information regarding my country, university or field work. I only will say I'm EU citizen and I was doing my PhD abroad EU and in an Ivy League uni. Thanks for your understanding.

If you were in europe I would know how to advise you @1up I dont know what is regulation in USA, but probably you can transfer from PhD to MSc, it is rather better solution than quit

Why do you think one year gap would be so bad? Specially since the explanation is clear: you were recovering from a very serious disease.

SSimon, Davidmh, Thanks for your comments.
However, I also spoke with one guy who suffered Chronh disease and he took 6 months of LOA. After he returned, their supervisor "invited" him to leave his position. Have a chronic illness or some disability and get some support from university is like box of chocolates: You never know what you're gonna get :)

@1up jerks are everywhere. Do you think your supervisor is one of them? Have you discussed it with him?

@Davidmh, yeah of course... but he is the "I'm always busy" style guy. Not his fault of course, but I'll speak with him after holidays...

If you have had a very serious medical problem like cancer, most PhD programs will take you back after you have recovered without much trouble.  If you contact them now and tell them that your recovery is taking longer than anticipated, they will probably tell you to get better and come back when you are ready.  I think withdrawing and moving to a master's program would be a very poor idea, unless you have gotten specifically negative information from your doctoral program, indicating they are unhappy with your extended absence.
You say that there has been a total lack of communication and support from your graduate program, but you may be expecting more than was reasonable or likely.  When a student takes a leave of absence for a medical reason, the faculty and administrators may not follow up very extensively, unless you keep in regular contact with them.  This is not necessarily because they do not care about how you are doing, but because they are trying to respect your privacy.  If you have not shared many details about how you are doing with other students and the faculty, they may feel that your medical status is none of their business.
I have observed that once a student leaves graduate school, for any reason, there is a good likelihood that they will never come back.  This is particularly true for students early in their graduate career.  So your advisor and other faculty members may not be expecting you to come back, particularly if you have not been in touch with them during your cancer treatment.  However, I would guess that they would probably be very happy to hear from you and would welcome you back when you were fully recovered.

Actually, one member of my PhD committee suggested me to "quit PhD, find an easy job and relax". That's the way how they encourage me to continue.
Maybe you are true, they are unhappy about my extended absence, but I can say at my favour that it's not my fault. About lack of support and communication, I tried to contact with them, just updating my situation, without any kind of answer. In fact, last communication was like "are you able to perform some exams and continue your tasks?"...

@1up was he suggesting it as a way for you to lead a less stressful life, or as a stronger suggestion "you-are-not-worth-of-being-here"? There is a huge difference between the two.

@Davidmh, I thought about this when he told me that and... I have no answer. This guy is a bit strange :)

Please get in touch with the student disability office at the Ivy League institution you were attending.  That office provides the safety net you need.  They will help you navigate the rocky waters in your department.
In the United States there are extensive protections for students in your situation.  However, the professors in the departments are experts in their fields, not in disability rights.  That's okay; the student disability office is there to guide them.

Hi and thanks for your comment. I already did it. Still waiting for their reply :/

If you decide to go the M.Sc. route, I would think you could potentially turn your Ph.D. work done so far into a viable M.Sc. thesis at your current institution without much work? It is not uncommon for Ph.D. students to cut their losses by graduating with a M.Sc. from the same program.

Dear José, I thought about it, however, as my PhD is totally experimental, I still don't have enough results.


text:
How can I finish my Ph.D within 9 months (when my funding runs out) when I have few results until now?
Currently, I'm doing my Ph.D. in Biochemistry in Germany. I'm now in the 4th year. My fund will finish within 9 months.
My topic was changed after two years. Actually I was a lazy student with many responsibilities. I have very few results, which do not satisfy my supervisor. During my study, I faced many problems which embarrassed me in learning my area of research.
Now I have opened my eyes, but I'm afraid that I will lose everything and I will not get the degree. I'm asking about tips and advice? Is it possible to convince my supervisor within this short time and finish my Ph.D. within these 9 months?

Down voted. I think this falls into the category of shopping questions.

This will depend heavily on how many and what kind of results you already have. Random strangers on the internet can't answer this question for you. You need to talk to your advisor as soon as possible and work out a possible plan of action to salvage what can be salvaged. You may be able to get some money as a TA/RA ("wissenschaftliche Hilfskraft") after your grant runs out, but your supervisor will want to see you put your nose to the grindstone.

My results not that much, I know nobody can answer, what I need are tips and kind of hope and motivation

@Martin: Check out this post then: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2219/how-should-i-deal-with-discouragement-as-a-graduate-student

It is possible to work part time and continue with research and writing up results.

@djechlin: Stephan Kolassa’s answer essentially says the same thing as the close reason. Avoiding such answers is one of the reasons why this close reason exists.


text:
Most common ways of cheating on exams?
I've been thinking how I proctor and design exams, and I suspect (from things I hear) that there is much more cheating than I find evidence of.  What are the most common ways university students cheat, say in a large lecture math or science class?  For instance, some possible ways are:

looking at other students exams
sneaking in a cheat sheet
using a phone/prohibited device in class
getting help on a bathroom break
having someone else take the exam for you
getting a copy of the exam in advance
modifying an exam after grading and asking for points back

But I don't know if any of these happen often enough that I should do more than I currently do.
Ideally, I'd like an answer with data from some studies on cheating, but I'd welcome extensive ancedotal evidence as well.

Female students writing on their thighs and moving their skirts up to see the info - had a female colleague sort that one - but you can see from the posture and how often they do funny movements.

@SolarMike In fact: https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/45128/20058

So, deleted my answer as it did not seem to be taken in the spirit it was intended, thanks.

"... I should do more than I currently do." Whether or not you should do more than you currently do seems largely orthogonal to the question of which ways of cheating are the most common. Catching or detouring more cheaters is only one objective in something which is a multiobjective optimization problem. Proctoring which is too zealous risks creating an adversarial atmosphere which can degrade the performance of honest students who might already suffer from test anxiety.

Especially at large universities, first or second year: having an other student taking the test (for money). If checking id isn't already common practice at your place, you will very probably see some surprises.

I recommend randomly preassigned seats.

@ScottSeidman You recommend this for large lectures?  How do you implement/enforce this?  And how does it solve the issue of students copying?

The larger lecture halls have numbered seating.  When students don't know the people they're sitting next to, they protect their work.

Just in case @MassimoOrtolano's comment was overlooked: in the linked answer, stand the most precious advices in my opinion. 1) if students want to cheat, they will. 2) my suggested strategy against cheating, any kind of cheating, is: design the exam as to make cheating as ineffective as possible, and as detectable as possible during the grading phase.

I had a professor once who was proctoring an exam. One student would repeatedly dip his head into his jacket for a few seconds and then return to the exam. The prof stopped by his desk and glared at him once or twice before confronting him. "Mr., What do you have in there?" the prof asked. "Martini, sir" was the response. And so it was.

If you work at it, you can also revise the course so that cheating can't happen because exams aren't used for assessment. Stress active learning and projects/papers rather than exams. Of course, you need to revise the projects often.

Another method described inadvertently by a student in a question that is probably going to be deleted soon:

Pen cheat method [...] The method is called like that because you take a small piece of [paper] and then you insert it in your pen.

More generally, smuggling notes inside stationery --- for instance a large pencil case.
Another variant I have personally witnessed is a student bringing in notes on a sheet of squared paper of the same kind as the one distributed as scratch paper. Of course it's tricky to introduce it, but then once it's in using it will not look suspicious.

About stationery: there is even a web page to produce labels resembling those of Tipp-Ex cartridges, so the original ones can be replaced by another with a customised text.


text:
Should I indicate to my boss that I will not stay beyond next academic year?
I have been suffering from depression for some years now until I feel I almost want to give up on my job. I have to evaluate my mental condition year by year and keep pondering the point of time to resign. The main reason which caused depression is the overall poor quality of students the university recruits every year coupled with the fact that I am teaching out of discipline so students are pretty much struggling to understand the task requirements etc. I am not going to state in details why I feel depressed.But, I did consult the counsellor who also thought I should leave.
The time has now come for performance review discussions. I have somewhat decided, for my personal well-being, to set the deadline for myself and that is by the end of the next academic year (no matter I can secure an academic position elsewhere by then or not). I am just not too sure how I should put the point across to my boss and whether I should do so. I feel so heavily depressed that I am feeling sick already just by running through the students’ list in the system.

What is your job? And by the end of the next academic year do you mean June, in 5 months or in 13? Or some other system?

is there any possible bad outcome in case you tell him? you are quitting anyway, so consequences like e.g. getting fired are not threatening. I would always try to be honest if your boss did not actively make your life hard. Having a person quit without notice is always very stressfull for the people having to look for a replacement on short notice, so if  they didn't really do anything bad to you, it would be fair to tell them

Virtual hugs Dinamite. Hope you feel better.

Are you on a contract? What happens if you tell your boss now and your boss replaces you this year rather than next year? Do you have money/resources if it takes a while to find another position?

There are three concerns; yourself, the boss, and the students. In as much as it is possible you want to be fair to everyone. I'll have to make some guesses here, but I'd suggest that you should be the first concern in this case as your situation isn't currently a great benefit to the other parties. Your boss will find a way to replace you on short notice and it their job to know how to do that. I'd normally put the students first, but they might be better off with a prof who knows more about the subject.
You say you have talked to a counsellor. I hope you are still doing that and taking their advice.
Given that situations can change, don't make a firm decision before it becomes necessary to do so and don't put yourself into a situation that you can't change if needed. So, as this is an unusual case, I suggest that you keep your plans to yourself, but continue to evaluate them as well as seeking a better position. Good luck.
I've been in some tough situations myself and stayed longer than I should have done. Good luck.