text:
How to answer "Your experience in supervision of research students"?
I finished my PhD in 2013. I don't have any experience in supervision of research students. When I apply for teaching job uni. always ask me "Your experience in supervision of research students". How to answer those kind questions properly?

Are you sure you're applying for the right jobs?  That question sounds like it's for a position for tenure or at least tenure track positions, and 2 years removed from your Ph.D. you're usually still doing post-docs.  I guess that depends on your field and how good your results so far have been, though...

@zibadawatimmy That is country-dependent. Where I work having experience supervising students is a common expectation on every hire from postdoc up.

If the jobs you are applying to expect you to have experience teaching research students and you have none, there is really no explaining away of this problem. I see basically two fixes:

Get this experience. I am not sure how feasible this is wherever you work, but in my university in Europe, everybody who wants experience teaching students can get it. There are plenty of research master students or even undergrads that need supervision, and getting involved with teaching them is usually not more complicated than telling the lab head or responsible coordinator that you would be available. Of course, then you also need to be prepared to put in the hours - teaching research students is definitely not something that you can do with an hour on the side here and there, as these inexperienced researchers typically need some serious time commitment to get them started. Incidentally, the fact that it is so easy to get experience supervising students is also the reason why universities in my area consider it as a red flag if you have none - they interpret this as "I actively tried to get out of supervising students".
Find jobs to apply to that don't require teaching research students. If you for some reason don't want to be involved with teaching research students, you shouldn't apply to positions that require this. What you could maybe still do is apply to positions that are very (undergrad) teaching-centered, such as liberal arts colleges in the US or Universities of Applied Sciences in the German-speaking areas. That being said, if you don't want to be involved with research at all, you may be drawing slim as nowadays most universities seem to expect their junior faculty to do some research on the side.

To anser your literal question:

How to answer those kind questions properly?

Truthfully.
"I currently do not have any experience in teaching research students, as [insert accurate reason]. Of course I will be more than willing to get this experience as soon as possible should my application be accepted."

Just say you don't have any yet.  They may score the candidates, and one zero may affect your total score, but your strong scores in the other four aspects will bring up your total.
Also, please remember, there's a subjective factor which always comes in in hiring decisions.
If you are concerned about the total absence of experience in this one area, call them up and ask them if that puts you completely out of the running.  (If they say yes, you can save yourself some work.)  I doubt they will say yes, though.
Good luck!

For question "Your experience in supervision of research students" ... if you have no such experience, answer "none".
There is no other way to answer it "properly".


text:
Can you sign more than 1 Master Promissory Note Concurrently?
I am in the process of choosing a Master's program.  I have been approved for one program, but I'm still waiting to hear back from two other schools.  The school that approved me said that they need me to fill out my Master Promissory Note as soon as possible so my financial aid can be ready for my summer courses next month.  My only concern is that I may choose a different school if I get accepted into it.  If I'm not accepted into the other programs, however, I would like to have my financial aid taken care of so I can attend summer courses without any problems.
Can I sign the Promissory Note for my currently accepted program and then sign another Promissory Note for a different school if I am accepted?
Thank you and have a good day.

Why not just ask the financial aid office?  They've already accepted you, it's not like they're going to retract it.

@NateEldredge - Sorry I neglected to mention that.  I've tried asking the school I've been accepted to, but they didn't seem very confident with their response.  I called back another day and got a different F.A. specialist who gave me a completely different answer.  I called the second school and they don't have a large graduate program so their financial aid department  insists they only handle undergraduate F.A. inquiries and pend me back to the graduate enrollment advisor (who insists I need to talk to F.A. and forwards me back to their dept.)  I'm still awaiting a response from school #3.

This might depend on where you are and the local law. It might also depend on the specific meaning of "promissory note". But if it is a contract of some form, then it might not be possible. If you add detail it might be possible to answer.

This is a question about contract law, not academia.  I'm pretty sure the answer is "it depends on the terms of the contract."  Don't sign unless you are sure you agree to the terms.

As far as I know, the way this is done normally goes something like this:

You apply to as many schools as you want.
You hear back from them in a couple of months.
You are told that you have until a specific date to accept the offer,
which may be slightly different for all the schools you got accepted to.

This gives people a chance to evaluate (ideally) all their options before they agree to commit to a particular school. These deadlines are usually included in the acceptance documents you get in the mail, if they aren't listed online already in their admission timelines.
Best of luck!

I am not sure you answered the question. The OP is asking can he accept two offers?

I know this isn't really an answer, but it was too long to be a comment. I just wanted to share what I know that's all.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Thanking fellow PhD students in a paper
I am just about to send a paper for publication, and I would be grateful for some advice on how I should acknowledge my fellow PhD students.
The paper in question is my own, in the sense that I am the only author. However, it is clear that science does not happen in vacuum, and it was helpful to have an informal discussion with my collegues from time to time. For instance, I would explain to them the outline of the argument, and they would see if they see an obvious error, or suggest that I use a well-know theorem which might be applicable, or ask a question about a possible generalisation.
What would be an appropriate form of acknowledgement? Is it generally a good idea to add a line like
"The author wishes to thank his fellow PhD students [insert a list of ~5 names here]"
in the acknowledgements section? On one hand, I feel it's best to err on the side of being too polite, but on the other hand I'm not sure if it won't come across as name-dropping or trying to win favor.
If this is relevant, my field is (pure) mathematics.

The acknowledgements section of a paper is a perfect place to thank people who significantly aided you with the paper, but not to the level where authorship is merited.
Unlike the acknowledgements of your thesis, however, the tradition of such sections is generally to be somewhat more strict in the notion of direct and material contributions: you should not be thanking your dog here.  So, for example, if your officemate actually read and critiqued the paper, acknowledgement is appropriate, but if they just helped to keep your spirits up, acknowledgement is not appropriate.
(I am answering from the general traditions of computer science, which are related but may not be quite the same as your area of mathematics)

I have often seen acknowledgements with statements like "The author thanks John Smith for helpful discussions concerning this work". However, I rarely encounter cases where more than perhaps 3 individuals are thanked in this way. I would imagine this is because acknowledgements are intended to include people who directly contributed to an article, but not to the level of co-authorship, and it is difficult to see how many people could all have helped substantially with conceptual issues.
Personally, I draw the line for acknowledgements somewhere beyond water-cooler talks about the work, but anyone who read a draft and pointed out an important concept, relevant prior work, or significant error that I had missed would be included. Regarding earlier conceptual help, I would only include colleagues who made a tangible difference to the final article.

Here's a template you can adapt:

Person A helped with numerical calculations, Person B gave me the idea for Lemma 5, Person C provided helpful pointers to literature, Person D kindly proofread the entire manuscript, Person E provided excellent administrative assistance.  All I had to do was sit around and prove theorems.

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


text:
Found mistake in hypothesis of the Research Proposal after receiving interview call. What should I do?
I am an international student who applied for PhD in the Department of Social Science in UK. I had submitted the proposal as a part of my application for which I received an interview invitation. While preparing for the interview, to my horror, I found that all three hypotheses in my final proposal were entirely wrong. I might have copied them from the wrong draft during final edits and overlooked them before submitting.
The Hypotheses I wrote are :-
H1: x,y,z would be a predictor of A;
H2: x,z would be a predictor of B
while the correct one should be:-
H1: y,z would be a predictor of A;
H2: x,y would be a predictor of B
I have two interviews coming week - The student panel and the PI panel. They did not ask for any presentations on the proposal in any of those interviews, but they will share the proposal with the student panel. What should I do? Shall I write them, convey the issue beforehand, and send the corrected proposal? Or should I speak directly during the Interview(if asked)? Will I be considered incompetent and reckless for this mistake, and will it be counted against me during the evaluation? I really don't want to blow this opportunity.

This is nothing to worry about in the slightest. Every piece of scientific writing contains typos. If you’re asked, it’s good to be prepared, like you are, but I can assure you that if someone read this (and noticed it in the first place) they would think at most “oh, a small typo” and never think of it again.

You've been offered an interview ... and interview panels don't waste their time with people whom they think are idiots. So clearly, you have not been put in that category. Secondly, I doubt that prior to your interview, anyone is going to change their view about you even in the unlikely event that they re-read your proposal with sufficient care to detect your error.
With that in mind, raising the issue at the interview at the earliest reasonable opportunity seems like a very good idea. But note my word "reasonable"! Do not let your anxiety about the problem lead you into trying to discuss it as soon as you get in the door. Let the interview panel guide things. If and when a discussion about your specific research proposal begins, then sure, talk about the error. You might even broach the topic by saying: "I don't know whether anyone picked up my confusing editing error ... but I'd like to take a moment or two to talk about what my hypothesis really is!"
And if the interview panel conclude their business without touching on the issue, they are still (almost certainly) going to ask you what questions you have or whether there is anything you'd like to add ... and once more, you will have your chance.
Good luck.

Thank you so much for the advice. It helped a lot during the interview. I got an offer to join.

The proposal is less about the exact viability of the work, but rather to see if you are capable of expressing your ideas with some degree of clarity all while proposing something relevant without any huge critical errors.
You have clearly demonstrated that to a reasonable degree otherwise you would not be invited for an interview. You can address this issue as a typo, briefly apologize for the oversight and do not dwell on it - people dwell on critical mistakes, not little typos, so don't give that impression.

Thank you so much for the advice. I remembered it and did not dwell on my mistake. It helped immensely. I received an offer from the university.

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


text:
Does the prestige of a master's program affect your chances for a top PhD (math)?
I'm applying to masters programs in math, in the US. My goal is a PhD, but multiple circumstances make it such that I'm not a competitive applicant.
I have the choice between a few programs, but I'm torn between two of them. One is highly prestigious with highly active and well-known faculty in my field of interest. The other is not well-known, but it has a couple of solid faculty in my field.
Does the prestige of the masters impact my chances for a top PhD (top in my field, that is)? That is, if I go for the less prestigious masters, does it make it harder to get into a top PhD, compared to if I go for the more prestigious masters?
The more prestigious masters is kinda pricy compared to the other one. I can afford it but I'd rather not pay extra if there's no significant difference.

First, and foremost, be aware that you don't need a masters to enter a doctoral program in the US in math. You might earn one along the way, actually.
The prestige might matter a bit at the margins, but more important is what you do yourself and the letters of recommendation you get from those you work closely with. Things might be harder at a high prestige place since the higher prestige sometimes (often?) comes from being more competitive with somewhat better students. Not a universal.
If you work with someone with a good reputation who will support your later applications you can do well anywhere.
Note that entry into a doctoral program will probably come with a TA position which will solve the cost issue. Universities with doctoral programs in math almost always have a need for a lot of TAs to support the undergraduate program.
If you have spoken to people at these two places then talk to them again about a doctoral program instead of a masters. It will be a shorter journey with very few costs and probably some living stipend, assuming you are qualified to be a TA.

Your statement that you are not a competitive applicant worries me a bit, assuming you are correct. If these two places are just places you might apply to, not places you've spoken with or made application to, then you might not get accepted at either. In such a situation, apply to other schools as well, casting a broad net.
And note that the student usually pays for a masters, but is paid a stipend instead in a doctoral program even if they earn a masters along the way.

Thanks, that clears up things a little. I am aware I don't need a masters degree per se, but I've applied for a PhD this cycle, and it's not going so well, so I know I'm not competitive. I did get into the two masters degrees I am considering, since I applied for a PhD there and got my application moved to the masters after rejection.


text:
Is it okay to debug for student?
I am an assistant professor at an R1 university. I am advising an undergraduate student whose major is mechanical engineering. He tried really hard but cannot figure out how to do a python code (~300 lines) for an entire semester. He came up with some code but it does not work. His research progress has just stopped there for several weeks.
What can I do to help him, debug the code for him? I don't think it is common to debug for a student (especially an undergraduate). Are there any other strategies that would be more appropriate?

I think more details are needed:  Is he trying and failing to understand existing code?  Trying to adapt it?  Trying to come up with new code?  I cannot tell from the question.

Recommend reviewing the second half of my answer here.

@AnonymousM You are right. I decided to advise him because his email made me feel like he knows a lot. However, it turns out he has no idea about programming. If I don't know about the concept, I will not say the words to others and pretend I know it.

Realistically, the student isn't going to get this done on their own at the end of the semester.  I would take the time to review the code with the student, discuss any obvious errors that I can see, and work with the student to develop a plan to get the code working in stages.
From a software engineering point of view, 300 lines in one function is unmanageable, especially for a student who is new to programming. You should start by reviewing the design at a high level, and then refactor it into smaller functions (and if the student has the appropriate background, objects)   A test-driven programming approach can be especially helpful with students who have limited experience in programming.

I don't see any evidence in the (sketchy) question that it's a single function?

Agreed- I should have included an "if" in that second paragraph.

Code is not so different from any other assignment. What would you do if a student submitted a project report in which the final conclusions are wrong, presumably because of incorrect data, or incorrect interpretation of data? You could just write "wrong" on the assignment. But I bet you'd probably try to read through the report and figure out where the student went wrong -- primarily because you want the student to learn something, and just saying "wrong" is not conducive to this.
In other words, if your goal is to teach students skills that are useful to them, your job is to debug the code. I've often found it useful to do this side-by-side with the students so they can see how I approach doing this, what tools I use, etc.

Not "for" but with.
Ideally of course, and assuming you can find the time.
I've supervised experimental projects in which a similar amount of Python is an important part.  The students have encountered Python before, but mainly analysing/plotting data in a fairly limited context, while for my project hardware interfacing and flow control were more important.  I provided the simplest possible readout function to avoid them getting stuck on a very steep bit of learning curve.  The Python part of the project was clear up front.
Some students needed no help.  Many of these had additional prior programming experience, but by no means all.
Most needed a little guidance - I could give them pointers and they could debug.
A tiny minority could have been considered lost causes, but that was because of failure to engage with the support they were offered.
The ones of interest here had the capability to debug their code, but had never done so.  So they needed help to get from "My code doesn't work", through defining working/not working, examining error messages and output, checking execution flow and intermediate variables, and on to correcting the code.
As far as I was concerned, debugging experiments* was a key learning outcome of the project; the code was part of that.  And, here at least, the point of the project is that to go with more independence, they have more targetted support.

* For example, a couple of times they got strange results caused by sunlight reflecting off another building, through a small gap, and into the photodiode they were using.  It was only then that they understood my insistence on logging against wall-clock time, not calculated elapsed time (which tended to drift as they started with the implicit assumption that time.sleep (30) in a loop meant the loop executed once every 30 seconds)

Regarding the footnote, perhaps your students got confused because wall-clock time (as well as wall time) typically also refers to an elapsed time, just measured in terms of actual time.

@Anyon no, they'd never come across the term, and I tended not actually use it in that context or with my students (only when trying to be brief e.g. here).  However when I've seen wall-clock time used to mean elapsed (e.g. in contrast to CPU time which might parallelise) it's always been clear from the wording or context that it's a time difference and not a timestamp. But I'm familiar with it from a very long time ago, so my  usage may be dated.  "Timestamp" is a term I introduced them to.

... Certainly the Jargon file supports the point-in-time definition: 1. ‘Real world’ time (what the clock on the wall shows), as opposed to the system clock's idea of time. This was on Raspberry Pi 2 systems, which lack a real-time clock when powered off, so the system clock's idea of time could be badly off without NTP (which I handled for them)

It's certainly one of the definitions of the term, but these days I think people are more likely to go off, e.g., Wikipedia, which only mentions the time-difference definition. "Timestamp" should be clear enough, IMO. But sometimes it doesn't matter how clear one is if the student looks up how to do something using an imprecise search statement and just runs with the first answer... Anyway, hopefully it made for a memorable lesson.

@Anyon I was surprised to find not even a mention in Wikipedia of the non-elapsed definition.  Of course if they'd interpreted it as real (measured, not assumed) elapsed time we could have worked with that and the file creation time to reconstruct the bug occurrence time.  Even if I told them to use a timestamp to ISO8601 some of them still would have added 30s to the previous timestamp.  A simple loop would have been about 30.2s.  It could rise to about 35s, or by using a timer, get pretty close to 30s, but always be long, never short, so there would always be drift

If your student cannot complete the assignment you gave him, then you gave him an assignment that does not match his level of knowledge and skills (an easy mistake to make, and one that I’ve probably made many times, sadly). The correct thing to do is to modify the assignment or replace it altogether with an assignment that the student can complete on his own. If you simply debug the assignment for him, that is a workable solution, but probably the student will end up learning very little from the project, other than getting the (very likely mistaken) impression that he is bad at programming and is not suited for technical work of any kind.
As for the code, if you need it as part of your larger research program, then finish it yourself or find another student to finish it who has the skills to do it.

I completely agree with you especially for the last sentence. It is a part of my larger research program. But I just cannot find qualified student who can do it. Sadly. I think I just wasted too much time in my first year.


text:
Efficient way to determine potentially good AI research groups in mainland Europe
So I want to go about and compare different research groups for their standing, their potential for an exciting and fruitful environment etc. My field is Software Engineering with a heavy tendency towards AI in Reinforcement Learning. I'd prefer to stay in mainland Europe, more specifically the EU until the dust has settled on Brexit.
I googled a few times and found some answers. But as one person correctly noted, that is highly biased. I read "the best" several times and there obviously cannot be 5 number 1. While I don't need "1" everyone is obviously aiming to optimize their future and so am I.
In the past I have been looking at Barcelona, Brussels, Berlin, Zurich, Amsterdam, Vienna, Munich, Karlsruhe, ...
Finally, I decided to go about it a little different and download a few papers to base my decision on the publication / research level of various institutions. So I got myself scrapy and downloaded 2600 papers from ECAI, IJCAI and AAAI. I got them all stemmed and indexed with recoll and thought about doing some kind of structured analysis on them to get an overview of citations, referencing, publication count, names, institutions etc.
Now before I spend a day on this: Has anyone else done this before? Is there some tool that helps doing such analysis already? And is it an appropriate way to get the quantitative side of the research quality of various groups?

There are also some AI research groups in Paris & near Grenoble & Sophia Antipolis (all these in France)

It's my opinion that your relationship with your supervisor and colleagues will have a bigger effect on the success of your PhD than the output of the group you join. Find someone to work for that you get on with and the rest will follow.

@astronat I agree that the people matter greatly. But obviously, if you cannot meet and visit all of them, prioritizing the list based on information you can accumulate now and then pick the group that also clicks from a social level is a good approach imho.

https://cyber-valley.de/en

@Hello THAT is exactly what I am trying to avoid. Some random people giving me their point of view. Unless I get a decent sample of some 1000+ opinions, it's inherently biased. There are equal initiatives for Cologne, Berlin, Paris, any major city or region really. The question is how to create a sorted priority list from these based on some metric that is measurable and fairly representative.

It is a mistaken belief that statistics solves such a individualistic problem. Statistics are good if you work with unnamed numbers of instances and all you are interested in are averages and variances thereof. But if you are going to have a one-shot (or, if you are unlucky, two-shot) attempt at a PhD, then you need to collect and evaluate qualitative rather than quantitative data. Statistics will only tell you so much.

This answer is coming very late, but just in case someone finds it useful:
http://csrankings.org/
This site ranks universities based on their research output in select top conferences in various fields, you could use this to narrow down your list.


text:
I screwed up a talk - how to move on
I recently messed up my presentation in front of the audience because I couldn't answer or understand their questions well enough (even after I asked them to clarify their question). I keep ruminating about the moment and can't focus on work. I'm wondering if you have any strategies to overcome the embarrassment.

In addition to Buffy's actual answer to your question, take this opportunity to learn for the future, that years from now when you're the moderator for a conference and a speaker is in the same trouble, please, throw them a life line and help explain / tell them to take it off-line.

To be honest, my first understandable talk was my 10th or so, I was terrible at public speaking. You learn, and most of the audience has been in your same position, so they understand.

The only practical choice is getting used to it.

The pain of today is the laugh of tomorrow. People screw up all the time and it only makes you more relatable to other people. One time I got so nervous doing a question on the blackboard (I was already in university at the time) that my leg started shaking uncontrollably. No one remembers this but me.

It is impossible to find through google due to the number of pages on his successful speeches, but Winston Churchill's first address to parliament was such a failure he eventually just gave up and sat down partway through (to much derision from the rest of parliament).

The way you write tells me there's a good chance you have an anxiety issue. Some professional help might be appropriate!

It would be useful to know the type of presentation and your expected level of expertise. Are you conducting your own research and presenting it? Were you presenting a paper by someone else to fellow students? Were the audience your academic peers, the general public, fellow researchers, experts in the field, or something else?

It is my observation that such "screwups" in our heads looks at least an order worse than they actually were.

Not all Bromides, Platitudes, Aphorisms and Assorted Mindless Sayings are true.
There IS such a thing as a stupid question.
We may not know what questions got fired at you specifically, but they have a finite possibility of being, you know, stupid questions.

There are several reasons for which one does not understand a question well enough:

The person asking the question uses terms/concepts coming from an other field or outside the knowledge of the speaker.
The person asking the question is not familiar with the subject of the topic hence the question might not have a precise/formally correct sense.
Some concepts are named in a way by a community, an other one by an other community and we can have a "language" issue.

There are also reasons for which the speaker cannot answer the question.

The question is actually subtle, and the answer could be the scope of a paper.
The question is quite broad.
The question does not make sense (I did not say it was the case in the context of the mentioned talk, and this does not have to be taken in a condescending way). This can happen when the audience is not familiar with the topic and can of course happen even if you are familiar with it.
Some questions are almost impossible to answer, like: "this makes me think about (replace by anything you want). Is there a connection between these two concepts?" Of course you can answer if there is one but it will be hard to say that the two concepts are unrelated. It is not impossible that someone in a few years will indeed make the connection.
Some questions require some thinking process but you do not have the time during a talk, like: "do you have an example satisfying this but not that".
Some are unexpected (both in terms of timing and content) and even with a good preparation, we cannot anticipate everything.
Lack of expertise in some parts of what was presented, which can happen very easily in a joint work, no matter how good one is.

These were reasons for which the situation of not answering a question can happen. Now the thing is what to when this happens. There is no miracle solution, but here are some possible approaches:

If you are for example in the situation of 5. (the story with example), you can still give your opinion about the question: what makes you think that such an example can exist, some names of authors that may have explored these kind of things.
Try to write down the questions that were asked just after the talk in order to not to forget. For the next talks, it will help to see the kind of questions you can have and try to anticipate.
Observe actively  the speaker's behavior when you are yourself in the audience of a talk and especially during the question time.

I have a whole lake of expertise, but sometimes it's not enough.

I’d add a fourth reason why the question is not understood – in my experience by far the most common: the question is quite simply incomprehensible. Whenever I attend talks at conferences (in the historical linguistics field), at least half the questions that come from the audience are overlong, overly detailed, meandering, self-contradictory and without any clarity. The presenter often ends up answering a completely different question, because no one really has any idea what the question actually was.

At the moment you just need to move on and recognize that not everything will always be perfect. Take a deep breath, have a culturally appropriate beverage.
For the future, when you don't understand a question and can't say something sensible, ask the questioner to "take it off line" and to either discuss it with you later or to contact you at their convenience.

I'd call this academic machismo. There is the expectation that Smart People always have the answers to all questions and that to not have an answer is a sign of weakness, much like not saying "yeah I can lift that" right before blowing out your entire back.

@Borgh ...and then the real machos are the ones easily willing to accept their limitations, for they have overcome insecurities and are not afraid to... lose their jobs, I don't know? - because of inability to answer a question they presumably should have known an answer to. As to the advice given here, I would say taking questions offline is a part of a broader heuristic, which is limiting the time one spends answering them. 3-5 seconds should be enough to make a decision to answer, to take offline, to say "sorry, I do not know" and/or to make a pleading eye contact with the session chair.

Maybe -- after the culturally appropriate beverage but before too much time has passed -- the OP might try to have a conversation with somebody, partly in order to get an independent opinion (the OP may have perceived an embarrassing "failure" where there was none) and partly in order to do a post mortem: What went wrong, how should I have handled it, how can I avoid it in the future, how do we proceed? That "somebody" could be an acquaintance who was there or the organizers, or even somebody who was not involved at all but is competent.

Public speaking is hard for almost everyone. From a previous question of yours, it seems you also find it hard. Fortunately, like many human endeavors, one can get better at it and ultimately more comfortable.
First, training on public speaking and presentations may be available at your institution. You should ask around in your department, school, or a graduate advisor office if there is such training available. It could be anywhere from an hour presentation up through a multi-day short course with specific instructor feedback on short presentations that you have done.
Second, practice practice practice. This could be something like Toastmasters, or just be part of your normal research group activities. Where I did my postdoc, grad students were expected to present a slide or more on what they had done lately at the weekly group meeting. They got lots of practice standing in front of the group and trying to explain things while getting questions on it. This also meant they had to figure out what the questions where about, since they were not always clear from their fellow students. It also meant that by the time they got to a conference talk, just about every question that could be asked about the work had already been asked of them.
Third, teach a class or review section. While public speaking practice in general, it also is a situation where you need to think on your feet as you get asked questions by students.
Public speaking is one of the biggest fears of just about everyone. You can get better at it, with time and effort.

About Toastmasters: a friend and very prominent person in computing overcame issues related to being on the autism spectrum via Toastmasters (and joining an acting company). He is well known and respected for his speaking ability at conferences.  Yes, practice.

I've been in Toastmasters for several years. I went from being extremely nervous giving even the shortest speeches (and usually doing so poorly that my nervousness was justified!) to actually enjoying giving speeches. Highly recommended.

I agree with others that it's not as big an issue as you're probably making it at the moment, and you'd be well served by taking a deep breath, relaxing about it, and just moving forward. Everyone in academia has attended their share of bad talks, and it's nothing you can't bounce back from.
That said, I'd also recommend you try to turn the rumination into reflection. -- The distinction here is that "rumination" implies dwelling on the issue, continually poking hurt feelings without any sort of forward progress, while "reflection" is ideally an objective (emotionally neutral) process by which you attempt to discern how you might better your performance next time.
In particular, it sounds like the Q&A section was the hard part for you. You probably want to reflect (rather than ruminate) about why you had issues with it. Were the questioners using unfamiliar terminology? Were they asking about a sub-area which you're unfamiliar? Were they coming at the issue from a different perspective? (e.g. a pure mathematician and an experimental physicist attending the same astrophysics talk will have very different ways of looking at things) Or was it just that you were nervous and flustered, and couldn't make sense of things at the time?
One suggestion is to approach trusted colleague(s) who were in attendance at the talk and see how they interpreted the questions. Were they able to understand the questions? If not, keep in mind you do sometimes get befuddled questions from audience members who are deep in the Dunning–Kruger sweet spot for the topic. On the other hand, if your colleague(s) did understand the questions, discuss things with them and reflect to figure out what you were missing at the time. What was it about the question which caused you not to be able to interpret it at the time? What extra thing did you need to know to be properly able to understand the question?
Hopefully, objective reflection (rather than rumination) will point you to what you were missing at the time, and that will present an obvious course of action. (e.g. If you were simply nervous, practice more to gain confidence. If you didn't understand the terminology or perspective used, read more widely from that angle. If it was a sub-area you aren't familiar with, become more familiar with that area.)

As a final note, keep in mind that questions which are formed during a talk are often predicated by missed understandings (this includes situations where it's missed because the speaker forgot to mention it). Instead of spending a bunch of time (and awkwardness) getting the questioner to more precisely define the question, it's often worth simply identifying the part of the talk (e.g. the slide) the question is about and then simply re-iterate or clarify the point at issue. This will either (1) answer the question (2) prompt the person to formulate a more precise follow-on based on your recent phrasing or (3) let the questioner realize that the question isn't worth it. -- I've seen more than one senior professor use this approach to address questions they obviously didn't fully understand.

Probably no-one apart from you is going to remember in a few days time, so learn from the experience and think about how you could do it better next time.
The era we live in seems to be replete with this attitude that we need to constantly beat ourselves up all the time when we mess things up, which is definitely not healthy in the long run.  So you should go easy on yourself, relax and then identify if there is anything you could do to avoid a similar situation happening again.

The question is:

I keep ruminating about the moment and can't focus on work. I'm wondering if you have any strategies to overcome the embarrassment.

Absolutely - give another talk as soon as possible!
While @Buffy's "culturally appropriate beverage" humorously suggests diluting your memory of the experience with something (potentially) other than tea, what really works is to dilute it and make it less relevant by adding more memories of talks that go better.
As soon as possible, schedule another talk, perhaps with a more familiar audience, perhaps with a slightly simpler topic, and welcome questions and answer some.
Distract yourself by having a more immediate and more positive experience, such that this one occupies less space in memory.
While other answers focus on improving, best way to overcome falling off of a bicycle is to get back on the bicycle and put some bicycling distance between you and where you fell.


text:
Student dishartened by joint first authorship (unrightfully) requested by collaborator - what to do?
Clinical collaborator has collected samples of different body sites, performed assays using blood samples and collected metadata for all subjects. Our lab and collaborator's lab has PhD students. Our lab student managed logistics for sample transportation, processed the samples of all body sites for DNA extraction, library prep and DNA sequencing. Our lab student then also analyzed the data, created figures, wrote the manuscript. Both students (clinical side and our lab side) had different primary objective but the primary objective of our lab's student is a secondary objective of clinical collaborator's student too. Clinical collaborator wants equal first authorship for their student. There are specific other coauthors involved from clinical side as rightly deserved and are duly attributed (samples collected by clinician, diagnostic facilities).
The paper we wrote is the thesis work of our lab's student and clinical collaborator hasn't given intellectual contribution to the analyses design or the manuscript writing either. We have given into the ask of the collaborator, agreeing that without samples nothing was possible, however our lab student remains heartbroken. How to console the student in our lab or minimize the feeling the student is going through?

I don't really have any insight on the authorship culture in biology, but your "true" question seems to be: I/We/Someone had to share first authorship although they do not feel like it was warranted - what can we do? The (unsatisfying) answer here is most likely: It's too late to change anything and sometimes you must bite the bullet to get along with others. Being upfront about this may or may not help depending on the person, but ultimately it is an uncomfortable, but important lesson to learn.

I don't know how to put this any nicer. Your student needs to suck it up and get over it. An academic career will be judged by the body of work (over a long period of time), not by one paper. Seeing people get so twisted up to the point they make themselves physically ill over truly meaningless authorship details is sad. Sharing lead authorship on a collaborative work does not detract from ones work, it merely shows it was done with a bigger team, and that team felt they should be valued just as yours does. If that's a problem, then find someone else to collaborate with next time.

Your student is first co-first or second co-first?

A CREDIT statement would make sense here as well. https://credit.niso.org/

In a sane world the clinical contributor probably deserves authorship, but not first authorship if the paper produced, not the project, was initiated, and driven by the "lab student". Distinguish between the paper and the project, however. Lots of contributions to a project don't have a critical bearing on every paper produced within that project.
I'll note, however, that CERN, who do high energy physics, seems to be very generous about authorship, though not every author (hundreds, perhaps) is a first author.
But in the real world, if this is a first paper by the student then it probably matters little to a career if first authorship is shared or not.
For the future, though, these questions should be worked out in advance, not when a paper is about to be submitted. That is the question that you should be discussing among yourselves.

It seems that the clinical student just collected the samples and shared it with your student. The work for this project, including sample processing, data analysis, and writing of the manucript was done by your student. The clinical student will, by the sound of it, use the data for their primary project and that will give this student first authorship on their own paper. I am not sure what role you play, but if you are the PI, you should discuss this with the collaborator and be diplomatic. I am quite certain that your institution has guidelines on authorship, so does the journal you are submitting the work to. See how the two students fit the criteria.


text:
Why would a professor write many recommendation letters?
A practical question:
I have now read a few times that to get a PhD position in the US you need 3 reference letters.
I assume most people apply for more than one position, so you need those 3 letters for every position.
Also, there are a lot of applicants.
So how does one get a professor to write more than one letter?
If I apply for say, 5 positions, I would need 15 different letters, 5 per person if I am always referring to the same persons, even if not probably more than one letter per person---and I am probably not that person's only student who wants letters.
I cannot possibly imagine professors in Europe going along with this (which is why it is becoming common here to just give the address of the referee, not send in a complete letter), so how is it in the US?
Do US students only apply for one or two positions and simply abandon the thought of grad school if they do not get it, or do they really get their professors to write that many letters?

I recently applied to several positions. AFAIK, my five 'recommenders' just sent the same generic letter to all of them....

I don't see the big deal in writing many recommendation letters, honestly.

I once was told by an American professor I met at a seminar that German professors tend to write rather to honest letters (because this is common in Germany) hence ruining chances for students in American PhD programmes where apparently an over the top laudatio is expected.

The academic culture is quite different in the US comparing to the countries in Western and Eastern Europe I have had some experience with. Having lived and studied previously in Europe I am still impressed how much personal attention American students get from the majority of the professors. We didn't even have "office hours" during semester where you can go to a professor's office and he will personally tutor you for free. I cannot also imagine asking the majority of my former European professors for 10+ recommendation letters unless I worked closely with them.

@user1862770 Yes, I saw that many times. Moreover, nowadays you are supposed to rate an applicant comparing to other applicants using the proposed percentage system. It's funny when all applicants coming from the US fall into top 2% or top 5% category in academic abilities, motivation, and ability for independent research while the applicants from Germany are in top 25%.

I suppose one could be super-succinct like Prof Duffin, when he wrote a recomendation for John F Nash, Jr: "He is a mathematical genius." :)

+Vika, not so funny for the German applicants ;)

@Vika At Aachen University, the professors complained loudly that they had weekly office hours and nobody came avisiting. "If you have problems or questions, come along". Nobody (or nearly nobody) did, yet many students failed the homework. I think it's because the German students see a prof as some kind of god; whereas the American students see themselves as the gods, because they pay their profs salaries.

I have assessed many applicants whereby I know a student's professors have simply filled in a template/form.  Unfortunately, given that I know it's a template, they are useless from my point of view.

The answer is simple: you generally only write one letter per person and only customize it insofar as changing the name of the institution to which it is sent (if even that: "Dear Admissions Committee" works pretty well). If there are very different types of programs involved, you might customize a bit more, but not much. That means the incremental work needed for many letters is not much more than is necessary for one.
If you think about it, it should make sense: a recommendation letter is primarily about the candidate, not the institution. If a recommender writes the best letter they can for one institution, how much could it vary and still be the best letter for another?

It's not like the admissions committee doesn't know exactly what's going on. They're probably expecting to get a generic letter too, because that's what they send out. What is important is that a professor is willing to stake a small amount of political capital to support you. That's what they care about.

As someone who did graduate admissions for four years at my department's PhD program, I can confirm that I am absolutely not expecting the recommendation letters to be personalized for my program in any way.  If there is really a personal connection to be made, this can be done by sending an email to the right person.  Considering the amount of time I spend writing just one letter per candidate (including, of course, for graduate students, postdocs and junior faculty), the idea of writing separate letters for each of the places the candidate is applying to scares the willies out of me.

jakebeal's answer is spot on. I write (and send) virtually the same letter of reference to all places my students are applying. However, there are a few cases where I expect professors may write more than one letter for a student. In particular, I might expect a letter writer to prepare a substantially different letter to a program/department/institution/whatever where the letter writer has a personal connection or other inside information specific to that program. Perhaps you are asking your professor for a letter as part of a postdoc application, and you are applying to be a postdoc in the same research group where your professor did a postdoc ten years ago. I expect your professor will write a very different letter in this case.
For example, I write two letters for many of my students applying to PhD programs. I write a generic letter to most programs and a more specific letter to the program I graduated from. Since I am a recent alum of that program, I have the unique opportunity to connect my student's capabilities and aptitudes to the expectations of the program. I might send an even more personalized letter if the student is interested in working for my advisor or members of my dissertation committee.

The reason they bother to write those letters is because they also ask for recommendation letters for applicants themselves. So if I am asking applicants to send me reference letters, it is only fair for me to put in the time to write them.
Also, it is in my best interest that my students get the best position they can after they graduate. This will effect the quality of the next generation students I get.

I have recently written recommendation letters for my former undergraduate student who applied to 15 US PhD programs (including MIT, Harvard, Columbia, Chicago, and Berkeley). I think it's important to make changes in the letters when a student applies to top programs in order to emphasize some qualities of the applicant that a specific university wants to see. It really takes a lot of time even if you make small changes in those letters. The most frustrating part is when students don't even bother to send you a "thank you" email after all. I am not saying that all students are like that, but I've had a few who I wrote letters to, then they got admitted to their PhD programs without notifying me or expressing any gratitude for my time, and then some time after they emailed again asking for a new letter for some scholarships/conference invitation/etc. Should I bother to reply?

emphasize some qualities of the applicant that a specific university wants to see — Unless you were affiliated with MIT, Harvard, Columbia, and Berkeley, how can you presume to know what qualities those specific universities want to see?

Should I bother to reply? — Yes. Moreover, you should generously offer to write them a new letter, for exactly the reason that you agreed to write the first one.

The most frustrating part is when students don't even bother to send you a "thank you" email after all.
Right. I want my good students to succeed, but I do like to be at least thanked for my efforts.


text:
A question about authors listed as having "contributed equally"
There are few collaborating authors on the following list:
Tom Cruise*, Will Smith*, Jackie Chan, Robert John Downey Jr., etc.

*: These authors contributed equally.

Tom Cruise is corresponding author

Will Smith worked for Tom Cruise.
The paper was written by Will Smith and so was data analysis; however, all study design and original data was received from Tom Cruise.
How can Will Smith proclaim this research contribution officially?
And... will the paper be helpful for Will Smith in applying to graduate school in the future?

This is going to very a lot from field to field. Some fields try to have extremely sophisticated order of authorship rules while others do not. For example, in pure math there's pretty much no emphasis on author contribution order. In contrast, astronomy and biology often have first, second and third author at least, and sometimes later authors listed alphabetically (until one gets to the very last author who may be someone who runs the lab but didn't do much directly).
In your hypothetical, all of them will list it on their CVs. They can signal to people that they did more in part by giving talks about the research or mentioning explicitly what they did in research statements or the like. But that will often be a more natural thing to talk about in interview contexts.
And regardless of field, regardless of how much Smith contributed, it will definitely help Smith in terms of graduate school. How much so will depend on the field. For example, I have a friend who is in astronomy. As an undergrad he was on a paper with about 40 authors. They listed five people in order and then listed the remaining alphabetically. My friend was listed third. I strongly suspect that when he applied to graduate school, they noticed exactly where he was on that list. But even if he had been listed in the long alphabetical section, it would still have helped.

Thanks for your reply~~This paper was belonged to psychometric and genetic field. Will Smith feels anxious for applying graduate school in the future, because he had low GPA in his college.

To elaborate on the order of authorship rules a little more explicitly, this sort of setup allows both Cruise and Smith to be "first authors" (or "lead authors"), which can be a significant benefit in fields where the order matters.  This may be obvious to the answerer, but might not be appreciated by non-experts.

Thank you so much to your reply. I just check what is co-first author, and was surprised that it came to great honor for Will Smith.


text:
Canadian PhD application process for international students
I am an Australian interested in applying for a PhD (specifically in mathematics) at several universities in Canada. I have already got a Bachelor of Mathematical Sciences and a Master of Philosophy in pure mathematics.
I have put a bit of time into trying to verse myself in the various scholarship opportunities, PhD programmes and potential supervisors, but I am starting to think I don't fully understand the correct order to do these things in.
Is there a standard etiquette or order for applying to a PhD? For example, would you first apply to the institution, then apply for scholarships once you have an offer, then look for a supervisor? Perhaps all three should be done in unison?
In Australia (it is my understanding that) it is customary to get a supervisor willing to commence a project with you first, then apply for a scholarship.
Any advice on the correct pathway would be greatly appreciated!

What field are you in? In biology, Canada is much the same as Australia.

@Emilie the OP specifically states "mathematics" (presumably pure mathematics, given his undergraduate qualifications)

@YemonChoi Wow, I really didn't see that! My mistake.

You should visit website of universities that you are interested in. Most universities provide detailed information about their application process and scholarships in their website. The application procedure may be different for different universities or even for different departments within a university. For example, as I know and at the moment, Department of Computer Science in Simon Fraser University, University of Toronto  and University of Western Ontario offer entry-level scholarships for applicants that receive an offer of admission. On the other hand, as a part of the application process, Carleton University asks applicants if they are willing to finance their own studies or like to be considered to scholarship knowing that the university will not offer admission if it cannot offer/afford funds. Many professors encourage applicants to contact them before applying but I have seen CS professors at University of Toronto that encourage applicants to apply without contacting them before applying.
So the advice that I can give is to visit the website of the universities of your interest. I know that this is a very general advice and that it can be a cumbersome and time-consuming process but in my experience, it is the most accurate one.

You are welcome all the same :).

I applied to several Canadian universities for a PhD in mathematics. I am attending one of them as an international student.
At the universities I am familiar with, one applies to the department as a whole. Funding for a PhD at the universities I considered was guaranteed at a certain level - generally enough for tuition and basic living expenses. There may be additional university funding that requires an additional application.
I did not reach out to any perspective supervisors, and do not remember the university websites saying I should. However I did mention specific advisors on my application. It was clear from two offer letters at different Canadian universities that I was ultimately accepted by the particular advisor and not the school as a whole, as would be the case in the US.
At one school I know that someone on the admissions committee gave my application a preliminary review. Once I passed this screening my application was sent to the advisors I had mentioned on my application and other advisors the committee knew were looking for students in a similar subject area. The funding I was offered appeared to be partially from the particular advisors' grants. At the other school I was told that I needed to decide on an advisor before the semester began, and the offer email also mentioned which faculty were interested in working with me.
In conclusion it appears the process is somewhere in between the UK and US processes. I would recommend contacting advisors ahead of time, although I would expect most funding to come from the department, and the application to go through the department first.

From what I have seen (in UK at least) many research groups advertise PhD positions there or ask for you to email them if you are interesting in working with them. Should the interview be successful, they ask for you to apply through the university website with that supervisor name and all should be fine.
I would look for supervisors you are interested in first.

This seems to be less common in Canada than in the UK. (I have experience of both)


text:
What do you call a person with a bachelor's degree?
I am a nutritionist in Mexico and I have a bachelor's degree.(I studied for four years at a university) In mexico my bussiness card says L.N. which means licenciada en Nutricion. I don't know how to translate that.

(I don't speak Spanish but) Licenced Nutritionist? Or BSc Nutrition?

In the U.S., by chance I am aware, that the B.S. or B.A. degree in nutrition/dietetics is legally distinct from licensure (state-by-state!) as "registered dietitian", for example. There is a separate examination and licensure process in Minnesota, for example. One can have one without the other, and one must be careful about not making legally-false claims. This is a little like the use of degree-titles in Germany, which is much more legally constrained than in the U.S. (in this case oppositely to the immediate question).

@Paul But "Licenciado" is not the Mexican Spanish equivalent of the degree you are describing. Most likely the degree is equivalent to either a BA or a BS, depending on specific details of the program.

@AndrésE.Caicedo, I certainly do not claim to really know the legal equivalents... I only wished to bring up the legal distinction (in MN, in the U.S.) between "license" and B.A. or B.S., since neither of the latter should be construed as "license". I'm not a great linguist, but I'm aware of the temptations to translate cognates to their cognate, which, after a few hundred years of drift, may say the wrong thing. Just trying to say "be careful"... :)

There are several ways this can be translated. Some of which I have seen are:

Licensed Dietitian
Licensed Nutritionist
Has a BSc in Nutrition

To my knowledge, there is no legal requirement in the United States that one of these be chosen over the others and in my personal opinion either of the first two are sufficient.
In the United Kingdom though, a Dietitian is someone who advises someone on their personal diet and diagnoses issues related to malnutrition while a Nutritionist gives general advice on how to eat.

@paul garret suggests there could be a difference between a state licensed nutritionist and having a BS in nutrition.


text:
How general should my introduction be?
I'm a high schooler (rising senior) writing a research paper on astronomy for the Siemens and Regeneron STS competitions coming up in the fall. My research advisor at my high school wants me to start my introduction very generally (basically almost wants me to write a review of modern astronomy) before diving specifically into my research, whereas every single other research paper I've seen (competition submission or one in my field) starts broad in the first sentence and gets specific immediately.
I'm not sure whose advice to follow. Besides their websites, I can't find much guidance or past successful papers for these competitions (only have found 2 total papers and an outdated ScienceBuddies blog post), so I'm reaching out to you guys. Should I start very general and slowly hone into my topic or should I focus on my specific the entire way through?
Thanks!

The introduction of a paper has many important tasks. It introduces the topic you will discuss, it gives an overview over the field, etc. One important point, that is sometimes forgotten when strictly following the formal rules, is that a good introduction should answer the readers question "Why should I care about this?". For this, you need to know your reader, you need to know who is your target audience. If you are writing for a broad audience, then it is good to first introduce the general setting, as proposed by your advisor. If, on the other hand, you are writing for a very specific audience of experts, they might get bored if you spend two pages telling them what they already know. Thus, step one should be to figure out who you are writing for. Once you have this figured out, ask yourself how you can motivate them to read your work, to be interested in your results. Do your results have some sort of impact on their life, on their work? If yes, this should be made clear in the introduction.
In short, a good introduction covers all needed points (overview of the field, content of the paper, etc.) and furthermore motivates the reader to keep reading. Note that this motivation is also influenced by your writing style, your language skills, etc.

edit: Regarding the question who is right, your instructor or the other authors: I googled STS and found the term "Society for Science & the Public", so it looks like it might be for a public audience. However, I'd advice you to look into it a little more before deciding, maybe also ask your advisor about it.


text:
Why is the reference style inconsistent in a published paper?
I found a paper in a top journal in my area here. I have a question regarding the inconsistency in citation displaying. For example, somewhere they use (author year), somewhere they use author (year) within a single paper cited as below:

The breakdown of collusive activities that involve higher prices and
restricted output is likely to result in the expansion of production.
It might also lead to technological change: colluding firms have fewer
incentives to innovate, especially when they face little threat of
external competition (Vives 2008)
Indeed, Xu (2012) examines the effect of higher import penetration
(instrumented by tariff cuts and exchange rate changes) on leverage,
and finds that leverage drops even controlling for current
profitability.

I am using Mendeley (Mendeley-Desktop-1.19.8-win32). When I cite a paper, it will display as (author year) automatically as below:

If what the author did above is right, how should I modify my Mendeley to make a similar display? It is possible to manually adjust the reference display for every single citation, but this doesn't seem to be an efficient approach.

A good reference manager will do what you tell it to do.  What you tell it to do is not always right.

Their citation style is correct. The rule is that if you are just giving a citation (as in their first paragraph) and the names of the authors do not form part of the sentence, then the whole citation appears in parentheses.
However, if the names of the authors are to be read as part of the sentence (as in their second paragraph), they appear outside the parentheses and only the remainder of the citation is inside the parentheses. This is to avoid redundancy in e.g. "Indeed Xu (Xu 2012)..." which would be the other option.
See, for example, the Mendeley Harvard referencing guide, which gives examples:

When citing a source with two or three authors, state all surnames like so:
Mitchell, Smith and Thomson (2017, p. 189) states... Or
(Mitchell, Coyne and Thomson, 2017, p. 189)

What you have in "apart from that (Dong, Massa and Zaldokas 2019) prove..." is incorrect. The sentence should make sense even when what is inside the parentheses is removed; even ignoring that rule, (Dong, Massa and Zaldokas 2019) is a paper, not a group of people.

so, whether  "Apart from that , (Dong, Massa and Zaldokas 2019) proves...." is correct then?

@NoviceMindset It's better, but many people would still say it is incorrect for the first reason: sentences should still be grammatical after removing parenthetical stuff. (I personally don't agree with that "rule" when it comes to references, but it does seem to be the majority view.) No-one would complain about "apart from that, Dong, Massa and Zaldokas (2019) prove..." though.

In the first instance, the authors of the paper in question simply cite the source. In the second instance, they actively name the source with the author in question (Xu in your example) being the subject of the sentence, which is why their name is not in parentheses. To avoid this seemingly inconsistent citation (although it isn't that inconsistent after all), you could also write it like this:

Indeed, Xu examines the effect of higher import penetration (instrumented by tariff cuts and exchange rate changes) on leverage, and finds that leverage drops even controlling for current profitability (Xu 2012).

Like that, you would not have to change anything in Mendeley either.


text:
How should we use possessive form in research paper?
In daily writing, I normally use the possessive form as "shareholders' wealth" or "firms' cash holding", but it seems that in research, I did not see people use the " ' " for possession if the subject is not human beings, similar to how my English teacher guided me, except this paper:

Our identification relies on the difference-in-differences estimation based on a staggered passage of leniency laws in 63 countries around the world from 1990 to 2012. In addition to exploiting a leniency law passage in the firm’s country, we look at the leniency law passages in the main export markets of the firm’s industry, and leniency law passages in the firm’s subsidiary locations, and find consistent results.

Would "wealth of shareholders" or "cash holding of firms" be suitable in academic paper writing or I can stick with "shareholders' wealth" or "firms' cash holding"?

This isn't an academic issue, but rather a general English grammar issue. The apostrophe is placed after the s when we are talking about plural entities, and before the s when talking about a singular, to distinguish between the two cases.
So "... the firm's cash holdings..." would refer to the holdings of an individual firm, while "... the firms' cash holdings..." would refer to the holdings of multiple firms. You can even see this in the article you link, where the paragraph you quote is referring to an individual firm and so uses "firm's", while in numerous places elsewhere the authors use the "firms' " form when talking about multiple entities.

sorry if my explanation confusing you, what I concern here is whether I should use " of " or apostrophe when talking about possession in academic papers.

Ah, ok, the switch between the singular/plural in the parts of the question threw me off. There may be times where 'of' or other similar phrasings may be easier to read or used to place emphasis on different parts of the sentence, but here's no general academic rule against using apostrophes to denote possession in academic writing (at least in any area I've worked in).

Thanks a heap, @Stephen Mc Mahon

The term for apostrophe constructions like this is the "Saxon genitive."
In my opinion, it is less a question of correctness and more one of whether the construction is perceived as "awkward,"  especially to the ear of a native speaker. In general, your English teacher's guidance will lead you to the right choice, but there will always be the occasional exception. The example you posted is a good exception. Ordinarily, I would find "firms' industry" awkward, but in this case it is much more concise than using the X of Y construction. Change the phrases to "industry of the firms" (etc.) and you will find the text much longer and wordy ( "a mouthful" is a common idiom for text like that).
You may find this resource helpful: https://www.wallstreetenglish.com/exercises/english-possessives-the-saxon-genitive


text:
It has been 6.5 years of my PhD and I am not seeing the end. What to do?
My advisor is a decent person. She is helpful and supportive. She has continued to support me throughout financially. However, she advices me that I should have offers before submitting my thesis and defending it.
It has been over 6.5 years of PhD. I have 4 journal papers in okayish journals (Journal of thermal spray technology and surface and coatings technology). My research is on modeling a coating process. Here's a paper with similar work as mine.
Now, I can publish many more papers and it is easy to publish in my research area. But, I cannot get a postdoc or industry position, no matter how hard I try. I have applied to so many places, and have received no response.
I don't know what I will do after graduating. My advisor says that I should get a job before graduating and I should keep searching. However, she doesn't have any contacts that she can provide me as she is not well-known in the research area.
I am really clueless what to do considering I am getting no response. My work is purely simulations and I was not involved in developing any open source software. All the postdoc positions require experimental experience or high-level programming skills and vast simulation knowledge. I have none. In this way, I don't see any end to my PhD. I would be unemployable anyways.
I made a mistake with this research field. I shouldn't have done a PhD. I can't be an academic this way. Nor any industry is ready to hire me.
Should I leave my PhD? I don't know if that will be of any help.

Re: "I should have offers before submitting my thesis" To be clear: that means offers for a job, correct?

What is the factual basis for "My advisor is a decent person"? Is there any chance your professor finds having you there so helpful that they are writing bad letters of recommendation for each position to which you apply? It's not unheard of for a professor to squeeze as much out of a useful student as possible if circumstances make that necessary and/or attractive and possible. "I am really clueless what to do considering I am getting no response." Have you tried anything to find out why you are getting no response?

(postdocs) are very expensive, with the funding of a postdoc they can have 2 PhD (students) Is it possible that you are effectively providing the benefit of an experienced postdoc now, for the price of a PhD student? If so, it may be very hard for some advisors to let that go.

@uhoh: Postdocs definitely don’t generally cost twice as much. The salary difference can be around 10%, or even within that. The basic point you are trying to make stands, but I don’t know where your source got their numbers from.

@gnometorule yes, it's a big world and funding schemes may vary from place to place. In some countries the extension of health insurance coverage to families by itself can be quite a financial benefit.

@uhoh I knew a guy who was held hostage by his advisor in a similar way. Refused to sign off on his Masters unless he did a PhD because he apparently had done so much work that he was close to one already. Just a coincidence that the prof really liked his work...Or so I heard over the water cooler.

@gnometorule My memory could fail me but I recall similar numbers from putting together budgets for research grants in the Netherlands (specifically hiring a PhD candidate for 4 years cost twice as much as a post-doc for a year). I am not talking about the salary the person would get and I have no idea where the overhead would go but those were the numbers the university and funding agencies used when planning a project.

Job requirements are 100% Bullshit. Every single time. Don't be fooled by what the adverts demand of potential applicants! Just apply, mayber slightly overstate your skills

Consider applying for jobs outside of your highly-specific field.  You will be leaving with a PhD and you have software development skills.  This makes you highly employable in many different fields.  Don't get stuck thinking that you have to stay in spray coating forever.  Take the opportunity to learn something new.  Employers will recognize your PhD as something that tells them you are fully capable of learning and applying your skills to new fields without requiring a mentor to hold your hand.

@gnometorule The difference is larger in the Netherlands but the most important point I was trying to make is that the difference in project costs can be much larger than the actual salary difference.

What country are you in?

@Hobbamok for evidence of this, see all the software job listings requiring "10 years of experience in [piece of software that has only existed for 7 years]"

@ScottSeidman In Canada

Sounds like you'd be a shoe in for new positions in Model Based Systems Engineering organizations https://www.simplyhired.com/search?q=model+based+systems+engineering+%28mbse%29&job=w5Il_GS2zGXiQkilPLEakp1JrNypktPhvDfn-qjJXCarHavX4R9HuQ ... Have you considered pivoting to engineering?

Also, in general you'll have more skills than you get hired for in the private sector. But if you go into defense, don't be surprised if you don't know how to do anything.  MBSE is typically used in Aerospace (i.e. defense).

When you're applying for jobs, employers are going to see that you haven't graduated yet and will wonder when you will be available to start.  How are you communicating your potential start date when you apply?  If a company has to contact you to ask, they probably won't bother.

The way you describe your situation, your adviser's refusal to graduate you is her attempt to protect you. Once you're graduated, you have to move on. The only alternative for her to keep you around would be to offer you a postdoc with her, which she might have reasoned originally to worsen your situation (it's rarely ideal to stick around after your Ph.D.); maybe there were administrative hurdles or financial problems as well. Repeated failures to find employment have now extended the situation to a non-sustainable point.
This is to say, do not just quit your Ph.D. It is very likely that your adviser will be happy to let you defend your work and obtain your Ph.D. with her. The bigger issue is what to do after, which is hard to opine on.

Yeah I agree with this answer, in my opinion it seems to be a kind gesture that advisor is allowing you to stay on- you continue to get funding during the job search.

Since gnometorule left a few things unsaid, let me try to complement it a bit. If you quit, what will you have? That "feels" like the worst option of all.
Times are bad, not just for you. Jobs are hard to find in academia. I don't know whether they are in industry in your field or not. People who do get postdocs seem to get on a postdoc-treadmill that is hard to get off of. Not ideal. This was true before the pandemic as well.
The time it takes to get your degree is irrelevant. I took seven beyond the BA. No one cared about that, only about what I could offer then. In fact, research can't be scheduled unless it is trivial.
You seem to be doing the right thing (writing papers...). Don't let external factors bleed in to your self conception.
As gnometorule mentions, the supervisor seems to be offering you some space/time. Take advantage of that. Some universities will put a time limit on study so be aware of that, of course. But I suggest that you use some of that time to develop the skills that you say you lack. Software? Experimental? Something that will add more than just another paper to your CV. Something different in kind.
Note that you aren't tied to your current research field for life, but it requires some form of a secure position to enable a change. But change is possible.

I graduated in similarly difficult times. I wound up in a position so low on the academic ranking charts as to be invisible. None of my peers did much better initially. But I was able to build a career and move upwards, though not into the stratosphere. Life was good. Met a lot of smart people, had some fun. I was lucky to stay in academia at all, but I gave myself no options. If you have to start out on a similar path, keep your contacts fresh as much as you can and keep your eyes open for opportunities as the situation improves. I ended up highly respected in my field, but it took time and effort. My Dean was very upset when she learned I was putting in for retirement.

She has however offered me a postdoc position if I am interested. Then she will let me me graduate. But she doesn't want me to stick around.

Actually, not wanting you to stick around is a point in everyone's favor. She is boosting you. Greener pastures and all that. I always recommend that my undergrads move to a different university for grad study so that they see and work with others. Your mom, I assume, had the same attitude, wanting you close but knowing that it is better that you move on.  Keep looking, but take the offer unless something better comes up.

@Roland that's a strange assumption.  I wouldn't be surprised if it is actually more damaging to take years for PhD and not eventually finish it.

"The time it takes to get your degree is irrelevant. I took seven beyond the BA. No one cared about that, only about what I could offer then." This is just false. Some people (or institutions) do care, even if you don't.

@user21820, actually, it was my life and no one ever did over my entire career. Of course if you take a lot of time to do something trivial then people will notice. But if you do something significant then time is truly irrelevant. You can't schedule true research since it is about the unknown.

No. You cannot assume that what is true in your life is true in other people's lives. Your statement was a generic one telling other people that it does not matter how long they take to get their degree. That statement is false.

Why do you want to graduate so much? Sure, it's nice to "graduate", but after graduating you'll have to do something else, and as you wrote you "don't know what I will do after graduating". You further write that you "would be unemployable anyways". Under these circumstances, assuming you are paid a stipend as a PhD student, if you graduate you will have no income.
Given the above, if you leave your PhD you will have no income, and you will have no PhD. That's obviously even worse than having no income.
What you should do now is find a job. You are probably more employable than you think you are, but you need to identify what you can do. For example you write that your work is purely simulations, which presumably means you have some idea how to write code. Which is good, because there are lots of jobs that require coding skills. It's up to you to find these jobs and apply for them. Make use of your university's career services center, if they have one.
See e.g. this question for more about job searches. You might want to talk to former classmates who have found jobs as well, see what they did.

+1 I have seen PhD students doing software simulations of biological mechanisms get jobs as low-level operating system software developers after graduation. Think of what technical skills you have acquired, and look for opportunities to put those to use.

All the postdoc positions require experimental experience or
high-level programming skills and vast simulation knowledge. I have
none. In this way, I don't see any end to my PhD. I would be
unemployable anyways.

Why not start learning programming (eg. Python on online courses) and applying this to small tasks within your PhD like automating scripts etc.?

Not everybody likes programming, some people are bad at it - and it isn't a guaranteed job either (no matter what people say). Of course if you do like it or are able to program, it offers alternative options. (And I ended up in the IT/numerical simulations/programming field.)

I have been using python to create small scripts to automate the analysis. Also, I have written few matlab codes to create geometrical models for the analysis. However, these codes were quite straightforward. Implementing an already existing model to develop fractal inspired surfaces or creating cell like porous structures. This could be done using basic programming skills.

Wouldn't OP already know programming, having done simulations?

Let me pick up one line from the end of your post:

I made a mistake with this research field. I shouldn't have done a PhD. I can't be an academic this way. Nor any industry is ready to hire me

NO
Now granted, ideally you get an undergraduate degree, specialize a bit towards then end. Start more independent work in a masters to then join an established research group to do some great PhD work.
While this route is still available in some places, it has become rarer...
If you are in the UK (and you are not as there is a hard 4 year limit for submission at the universities I know), you can start a PhD after a Bachelor's degree (with a Firsts or 2.1) and potentially get thrown into a "random" topic... - I came from maths and ended up dealing with fuel autoxidation chemistry. Another guy in our group was a professional programmer and then did experimental coal combustion... Go figure.
Now one can sink into an endless debate over whether this is good or bad and what needs to change, but this is neither the time nor the place.
What is however a reality is, that you will most likely specialize in a niche subject: fuel autoxidation? Not many people work in that field... Theoretical chemistry? Not that well funded either. A colleague got me a post doc which lead to another post doc after which I ended up joining a consulting company that is more IT based (though as part of a group doing numerical simulations).
Most people do not get to stay in their field - and with the diploma mills in the UK (yes, that is what a UK university is...) we have way more PhD holders than we could offer jobs too.
Incidentally, after both of my post docs I had a similar problem: I was asking "what the hell can I do and where do I go?". At times I wished I lived in the 19th century where nobility entertained generalist scientists who had the freedom to explore a domain of their choosing...
At the same time, I ended up where I ended up and as of writing this right now I'm overall rather happy with my job. But to each their own.
Incidentally, you are in a much better position than me: I published the first journal article during my first post doc.
Now coming back to your area of expertise: You mention that your publications  are in a journal focusing on spray technology and surface coatings.
You won't possibly do 100% the same as you did in your PhD, but any (high tech) industry that deals with paint may be interested. Aircraft, boats, cars, but also paint and equipment manufacturers. Optimizing paint use, tweaking nozzle design.
Then we have coatings, again manufacturers and users.
When I started my PhD, a fellow PhD student had carried out a CFD simulation of an aerosol dispersion device for a masters degree (if I remember correctly).
Research into spray can also come into play in the medical field.
You will just need to be a bit creative - and realize that most people don't get their "dream job". - And you may discover some other very interesting field too.
If you truly have no idea where you are going and are "only looking for a job" at the moment, try any of the big engineering consulting companies. (Though satisfaction and pay will vary between them.)
Incidentally, I see the consulting field as a mixed blessing: You get to explore new fields and contribute your experience to a variety of applications. At the same time, it can be tiring/frustrating at times, basically when you need to "get into a new field".
Then again, other people specialize in A and do A.
Now I know that this is easy to write and finding a position can be hard (don't ask me how often I was ignored...) but as it stands, there is nothing else but to try. Now if you still have a decent amount of funding left to spend on continuing a PhD, great - it takes the stress of your back. Apply for jobs, write the thesis and keep growing it while you search for a job. When you get the offer, schedule the defense and "pick up" the degree.
As a side note: You are more likely to develop tools in academia. In industry, you will typically use tools. (Though again, it depends.)
I would not worry that much about your lack of programming experience. Add to that, the theoreticians benefit from people bringing practical experience along too. - And if you find it interesting, you can learn programming, even "on the job", you might even get paid to do it.

I went to a low rank state school for my undergrad and phd (high energy physics simulation). I have never published a paper. Then I got a postdoc in a top 15 university in continuum mechanics simulation. Now I have a high paying job building robot prototypes in industry which I love. The point is that if you are willing to be open about what you do for a living (and willing to learn), your phd will carry you a long way towards happiness.

How did you get a postdoc doing continuum mechanics? I finished my PhD in lattice QCD last year and could never imagine doing such a thing.

I applied to 127 jobs, so part of it was statistical. Part of it was that I eventually learned how to interview well. In that particular case, they needed a brain with HPC/parallel programming experience and that was part of what I had done in my PhD.

Interesting; thanks for the data. Did you have to learn continuum mechanics beforehand?

In the United States, the average time to get a PhD is increasing. It can be easily 6-8 years. It took me eight years to get my PhD.
When I graduated, I had a hard time finding any job. Eventually, I found a postdoc position with a relatively low pay, because I had the specific experience they needed and because I already met the future boss when doing experimental shifts.
One year later, I started getting around a 50% human response rate to my applications, and finding a job became much easier. Another year later, potential employers started actually initiating contact.
It is quite normal for a PhD to take 6.5+ years, and also while you are probably correct about your current job prospects, this can change quicker than you think.

From your description, I can't tell the status of your project, or what's holding you up.  Are you actually ready to finish up and defend, regardless of your job search status?
Your mentor has a point about having a job to go to before you leave.  That said, there is nobody responsible for finding you a job other than you.  Work with your school's career center, headhunters, job search sites, ....  You're probably a good deal more employable than you think you are, but you're probably not going to find a job until you start looking for one.

In the U.S. there are frankly typically two reasons to intentionally delay graduation.  1)  Wishing to extend student visa  2) Student loan situations.  If either of these apply, I'd take your advisor's advice and not graduate.
My own intuition if otherwise is to just defend the thesis, graduate, and try to find a post-doc.  However, there are many situations where you might not find an academic job, so how you would deal with earning a living then would be up to you.  Personal note:  I wound up re-meeting the person I would marry in such a situation, so it can work out, but needless to say results are highly variable.
One word of caution:  Academic jobs are easier to get if you have one in sync with your graduation.  The interviews don't always like seeing industrial experience (or non-academic job experience), hence a delay may be beneficial.  However, you would still have to explain the long time it took, so you have a difficult decision either way.
Best wishes whatever you decide.

From how I interpret your question and a couple of comments you dropped, it indeed seems like your advisor is trying her best to support you in the best way possible. This is good, because it should allow you to discuss more openly with her when there is need – and there may be need right now.
I do not know which country you are in but I see a problem with your job hunting strategy. If I were a recruiter and saw a CV that has spent a long time in a Ph.D. position (6.5 years is nowadays considered long in my country although it used to be closer to average), I would wonder what is keeping the candidate from finishing. Insufficient planning? Inability to adjust one's strategy? Are they just bad? Of course, you could (and probably do) address that in your cover letter, probably by writing something along the lines of 'I intend to submit and defend my thesis rapidly before joining your company' – but does that help much? In this country, the time between submission and defence can be months (I submitted around December and defended in May) and a recruiter or a company are probably not willing to wait that long.
To combat this, I would suggest taking the next half-step already, write up your thesis and submit it. Expect it to take quite some time until your defence – but now you can apply for jobs stating that only your defence is still required for your graduation which puts your entire story into a completely different light.
Nonetheless, be prepared to explain why your Ph.D. took as long as it did, but make sure the explanation is relevant to the project or research; not saying that you were delaying in hopes of finding a job.
In addition, job searchers are commonly advised to apply for positions even if they do not fulfill all the qualifications specified in the job posting. The company may be interested in the qualifications you already have and perfectly willing to invest in you by teaching you the ones you are missing on the job.
Personally, I cannot confirm whether this is true because I did not make it to enough interviews to test the hypothesis and I was often rejected off the bat although I ticked off every single requirement on the job posting. Nonetheless, it is surely worth trying.
Having said all that, I am going to loop right back to my first paragraph: I think it is time to have a strategy meeting with your supervisor very soon, to discuss the viability of the strategy I have outlined or whether maybe she can provide you with a short-term (3 or 6 months, maybe?) 'gap-filling' postdoc position to allow you to job hunt more effectively with a graduation in hand.
Everything I said may or may not apply to the country you are working in. It applies to my country but each place is different.


text:
Mailing a relevant researcher before starting to think about the problem
I am starting to think about a problem, inspired by a series of papers on similiar questions. Is it correct for me to e-mail the professors that wrote these papers, and ask them if they already thought about it? If they did, would it be fair to ask for the ideas they had, and what they tried (of course, assuming they are not currently working on it, and don't plan to publish on their own)?

I would not email people before thinking about a problem. People are busy, so you need to respect that. Instead I would do the thinking and if you have concrete questions, then you can contact others.
If you want to "brainstorm" with someone, you can try to attend a conference that that person also attends. You can sent an email before, and ask if (s)he wants to set half an hour aside for you to discuss this or that problem. Again it would help if you narrowed the problem down, such that it can be discussed in half and hour and the person can prepare a bit if (s)he wants to.

At the risk of answering your question with a question, do you really want to contact people who don't know you or owe you anything about YOUR problem? What if they have not considered your idea but think you're really on to something and work on it without you?  If the problem you have devised is truly unique then you should be proud of that and follow through with it yourself. Instead I would look for a faculty member or someone who you are at least somewhat closer to than the mathematicians you cited and see if they can perhaps mentor you through the problem solving process first. That way, should your idea pan out, you can go to the aforementioned researchers with a valid reason as to why you should be involved in the entire process.
I guess in the event that you are just a passive observer then it would be fine to just go ahead and contact them, but as Maarten stated above, "people are busy", and they may not have the time or energy to respond to questions that are not meticulously developed.  Also, even if you inevitably hit a road block where you are unable to go any further on your own, you will learn more from, and get more out of, pursuing the problem as far as you possibly can by yourself.

Is it correct for me to e-mail the professors that wrote these papers, and ask them if they already thought about it?
There is no "correct" or "wrong" in human interaction. (There may be actions that are legal/illegal, ethical/unethical, moral/immoral. But in this case all these are irrelevant.)
So for your question, I would suggest it is completely legitimate to contact the author. Science is advanced (also) by discourse, and there is nothing wrong in contacting scientists. Many devoted scientists would be happy to receive emails about their work. In your case, you also have a fairly concrete question: "Did you already think/published about related notion X?".
Note: They may choose not to answer you, but that is their problem. It also depends on whether your emails are reasonably comprehensible, to the point, and show potential for progress.


text:
Impossible further progress on problem of PhD thesis
I am a PhD student in Mathematics. My advisor proposed me a problem 6 months ago, and I did a lot of progress on it. I have reached a point where I have quite substantial results (admittedly, adapting techniques from other areas, so not a great deal of originality). They can surely form a paper, though not a great one. The original question remains unanswered in its full generality, but I felt that a complete answer would be impossible from the very beginning, and now I have very concrete reasons showing that a complete answer is indeed very hard (in the sense that a general answer/formula might simply not exist). My advisor wants me to keep working on this, but I honestly don't know what to try anymore, and he did not suggest anything. I guess this is a common occurrence during a PhD, what should I do?

Can you write a paper that demonstrates that this problem has no solution? If you can, you have a publishable contribution. If in writing the paper you realize there might actually be a solution, good for you. Other than that see the highest-ranked question on this site, which is almost a duplicate.

To extend the advice by @henning : Even if you don't intend to publish the paper, writing it all down properly might help you see new sides of the problem or get new ideas. And if it doesn't then it might at least convince your supervisor that you really worked hard on that problem.

This sounds very familiar. Concrete advice in this situation: Focus on writing the paper.
You have some contribution, new arguments as to why the general problem is hard, progress on parts of the general problem. This really sounds like a possible paper - so write it and, if discussed with your advisor, submit it to the right journal.
Postpone your decision on further steps to this point. The situation may have changed completely until then - and if not, you will still be much better prepared to discuss the matter and to decide.
(Caveat: It may also happen, that, during writing, you'll find new ways to attack a more general version or find flaws/gaps in your current reasoning… anyway, writing the paper also help with this.)

Excellent advice. Even in experimental sciences, you never really know what you did and what the results are until you try to put it in words that others will have to read and understand (i.e. the paper).