text:
How to cope with YouTube and use it as an aid for effective teaching
YouTube rules the roost. It is first resource that people refer to when they want to learn something new. After all, who would teach me how to replace a RAM on my laptop or to change the new windshield wiper blade on my old car?
YouTube is an extremely valuable resource. However, things do not work out that well if it is something more complicated like Linear Algebra or NMR spectroscopy.
Frequently, I meet students who have watched all the YouTube lectures even before the semester begins. They are also very judgmental about classroom lectures. I am soliciting help from the community about

How to tell them that watching videos is no substitute for learning. Usually this needs to be conveyed at the start of the course, when they pay no attention to it. By the time they understand it, we are well into the depths of the course and it is too late.
Not watching videos is also not a wise thing to do. There are excellent makers who create excellent animations which I wouldn't be able to do ... actually never! How do I tell this to the students without appearing like abandoning my duties?
The biggest problem is enrolling students. Students (often the brighter ones) believe they have learnt the subject via YouTube well enough to skip the course altogether. How do I convince them that I will really help them study this subject beyond what they can manage via YT? How do I do this without sounding like a pimp? How do I politely tell them that they haven't learnt the subject via YT (or other online resources) at all beyond some mumbo-jumbo? Some of them might actually have learnt the subject to some extent ... How do I convince them of the utility of my course?

Thank you all.
EDIT: In light of objections by Anonymous Physicist, I must add that a succinct summary of my question is : "How to handle YouTube-aware students? 1) At the time of enrollment 2) at the begining of the course and 3) during the course?"

@AnonymousPhysicist broad it may be, but no instructor will say that they haven't faced this dilemma. I have changed the title. Hope it adequately summarizes the content of the question.

It's too broad.  Please post questions that have definite answers.

broad questions do have definite answers. and my question is specific to Youtube as an online resource. I am not asking "how to teach" but "how to cope with youtube while teaching". please do not pass judgments like my students.

FYI, a similar issue is the change in preparation of (U.S.) calculus students during the past two or three decades due to the rapid rise in the number of students taking AP-Calculus in high school. This change has led to large increases in students whose self-assessed background in calculus is well above their actual background in calculus, and perhaps much of the possible ways of dealing with these calculus concerns could be transferred to your YouTube concerns. (continued)

For example, see David Bressoud's Launchings columns for May 2015 (Calculus at Crisis I: The Pressures) and (especially) June 2015 (Calculus at Crisis II: The Rush to Calculus) and July 2015 (Calculus at Crisis III: The Client Disciplines) and August 2015 (Calculus at Crisis IV: Best Practices) and September 2015 (Calculus at Crisis V: Networks of Support).

This question’s premise is false. I actually did learn linear algebra and NMR from Youtube back in high school, and it would have been extremely annoying if my university made me retake those courses.

For at least a decade, Youtube has contained the full materials of many excellent courses, as well as links to further resources like exams and homework. In this age of Zoom-based learning, the advantage of “official” courses is even smaller.

I've just embraced YouTube as part of my teaching. I've not used it to replace lectures or any classes but created my own separate YouTube content that serves a different purpose.
I am a copious consumer of YouTube, so I am perhaps familiar with some of the content there. I find that the viewers want to watch someone solve a problem or do something interesting or difficult but not be "taught" in the traditional sense.
I found that students need was to ask how to solve a problem when I was not around to show them how I might solve that problem. Although we had small group sessions when we could discuss problem solving, these were not really frequent enough for many students. Deferred gratification is a difficult thing for some students who prefer not to wait until the next support session.
To solve this dilemma I created some new unique problems that emulate the class work and create similar challenges without being useful for plagiarism. I then solved these problems as if I was a student and made the same set of blunders, many genuine on my part. I then verbalised how I would solve such an issue, create a working solution, and prepare it for classwork submission.
The idea was, that they could use these as a substitute for me being at their side and talking through a problem solution.
In the main, this has worked out. The episodes are not perfect, and could be improved; but it is path that teacher and class can walk together, and one has to start somewhere. Some students, foolishly just copied the work from the YouTube screen and handed it in as a class solution, when it was even a different problem; but they were the minority. Some students complained that  I did not solve their specific problem in the video, when there was clearly an analogue of a solution therein; but in the majority it was helpful. It was also a clear marketing ploy, in that some just picked the class "because it has YouTube" content!
What I did was additional and optional content. No student was required to use it, and all the information it contained was present elsewhere in written class material. It was just another form of delivery to complement existing media which helped some students.
Give it a try!

hmmm.. very interesting and very creative! gives me a lot of ideas to try out. many thanks and kudos!

My students learn excel, and I say when you have built the function / formula following the video and you find yours does not work but you followed every step.
Does the video help you find your error?
Does the video explain common errors?
That’s the difference when you come to class....
Edit:
So, I do mention common errors and as they have a fully worked example to refer to while they do further exercises I can go around solving and explaining their particular errors...

I teach something in which it is very easy to get misled by listening to very good speakers. These speakers are plenty on YouTube and even more on TED. Five minute clips with excellent animation and dramatic background music can fool anybody. Untill they pick up a pen and try to solve that equation. I want to inspire students to reach that stage.

@maggu That's your answer right there. "Can the students do the work or not?" If they can, then the discussion of YouTube is irrelevant. If they can't, they need to do something else besides watching YouTube. Rather than explaining this point hypothetically to the students, make them do the exercises and let them come to their own conclusions whether their understanding is sufficient.

@user2705196 that answers my point number (1) and (2) to some extent. waiting till they come to exercises always works. However I want to convey this before they learn it the hard way. My point number (3) "how to convince undergraduates who are wizened graduates of YT-university to enroll my course, that their YT-degrees are worthless" leaves me most clueless. These are actually the better students whom I enjoy teaching.

And let me add: You should make sure you do help fins errors and explain common errors in class;) (many classes seem to have a "no questions may be asked policy)!:)


text:
Research Article Submission
I got my article with major revision from "Renewable Energy" but as per my knowledge the major revision are seen to be like minor questions were asked by the two reviewers. After submitting my revised manuscript, after 15 days my status was in "under review" the next day it was changed to "required reviews completed". Now so far, for 16 days my article still in "required reviews completed". Why is the editor taking very long time after the second review completed? Please, any one of you gives me the answer.
Why you all people have marked the duplicate of an existing question. My question may be old to everyone, But this question what I raised is new to me....if you are willing to give the proper answer to the question, I am very thankful to them. But don't say existing question for what I asked

@SolarMike There are plenty of reasons when your assertion is absolutely wrong. It would never happen. It should rather be accepted than waiting for a decision.

@coder these are comments....

It's sometimes regarded as a bit of an outdated concept, but have you tried a bit of patience?

@Coder, Enthusiastic User, Buzz, Ander Biguri, Florian D'Souza: Why you people have marked the duplicate of an existing question. My question may be old to everyone, But this question what I raised is new to me....if you are willing to give the proper answer to the question, I am very thankful to them. But don't say existing question for what I asked

@M.VijayKumar We understand your concern. The identical question has already got some answers. So, it should be marked as duplicate as per academia.SE policies to avoid redundancies. Also, here you already have got an answer.

You should note that "Required Reviews Completed" status does not entail that "all" reviews are completed. It just suggests that a "minimal" set of reviews have come in.
For example, for few journals, the required number of reviews to make a decision could be 2; but, sometimes the editor sends an article to more than 2 reviewers. In that case, if he is not satisfied with the received reviews (i.e. at least two), then he waits for the few more.
In my recent paper, the status remained as it is for 2.5 months. Then, I reminded the journal EIC to expedite the process. Still, I had to wait for a month to receive the final decision.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Accepted a job with a year-long deferral to do a prestigious postdoc. Now a better job came along
Last year I got one tenure-track job offer and accepted it, even though I wasn't thrilled about the position. The institution allowed me to defer my start date by a year, so that I can complete a postdoc. I fully intended to start the job when I signed the offer.
Now, several months later, I received a tenure-track offer from a top institution with resources and benefits that can never be matched by the institution that is currently waiting on me.
I understand it is unethical for me to bail on Institution 1. At the same time, I only have one life and one career and don't want to sacrifice my prospect for loyalty to an institution where I haven't even started working.
What would you do?
EDIT: What are the range of professional consequences I can expect if I switch to the new institution?

I understand it is unethical for me to bail on Institution 1. ethicist here, I don't fully understand why you think this is unethical. / But the question is not a good fit here, because What would you do?  = asking a bunch of strangers on the internet to make a decision only you can make based on reading 3 or 4 sentences of description (switching to 100 sentences only transforms the problem to skimming quickly 100 sentences).

Hi Jerry, welcome to Academia.SE. I'm afraid your question will be closed as off topic because it is too subjective. In the end, this comes down to what is important to you personally and this site is not designed to take a poll like this. The goal is to produce a list of high quality questions and answers.

No offense, but I wonder how someone who is offered a "tenure track position from a top institution" cannot make this decision and goes on the internet to find out how to handle the situation...

You signed something. So the problem is less what is unethical, but what is written in that contract about how to get out of it.

I am asking generally about your take on the situation. Obviously I will make the decision alone, but I am debating it at the moment and am interested in hearing from folks who have an opinion on the topic.

Jerry you should change the last question to " What are the range of professional  consequences I can expect if I switch to the new institution?" It is more objective and people can better help you.

@virmaior In Stack Exchange language, "unethical" seems to mean "might annoy at least one person." As a non-ethicist, I'd say this one comes closer to ethics than most questions on this site that use the word (e.g., 1, 2, 3).

@DavidRicherby I guess that's fair. For many questions on academia.SE, I think it means something like "fine with the ethos of the profession" rather than a question of "morality" (if the distinction makes sense), but I would guess the OPs themselves don't draw or understand the distinction well.

I hope this question can be reworded to make it on-topic. This sounds like an instance of a larger class of situations that are often encountered on the academic job-market, like how can I deal with multiple commitments or job-offers, how much flexibility should or can I maintain when bargaining for jobs etc.

Please don't write "Edit:" and then a bunch of new stuff. Rather, actually edit the question so it says what it's supposed to say. Anyone who's curious can look at the edit history to see what the question used to say. Anyone else (which is, basically, everyone) shouldn't have to read all the old material and make the edit in their head.

Be upfront, be polite, and be quick.
First make a decision if you really want to accept the second offer. If, so make sure you sign the contract with the institution that made the second offer. At that point, inform the institution who made the initial offer ASAP and let them know in the most polite way that you cannot follow through with the contract you have signed. It will be painful and embarrassing and there is no way to avoid this situation. Then you will feel relieved and can start with the new job.
The institution you dumped might still be able to contact other candidates who were shortlisted. I do not see any other way of handling this, other ways will involve making some excuse and later they would find out that you are at a different institution. Better be embarrassed now and save face later.

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


text:
Should I cite a result if the paper doesn't include a proof?
I'm writing a mathematical paper. In it, I use a lemma. The lemma is not hard to prove and I have verified it myself. The proof is too tedious to include in the paper, so I want to just include a citation. I found a paper that includes the result. However, that paper does not actually include a proof. I cannot find any other place where this lemma appears.
I see three options:

State the lemma without proof or citation.
State the lemma without proof, but cite the paper (that states the lemma without proof or citation).
Provide a proof of the lemma.

Which is most appropriate? Option 1 is easiest, but might annoy some readers who don't believe me. Option 2 seems like a cop out. Option 3 is safest, but I don't think it's necessary, as the proof is really just a long and boring calculation.
ADDED: To be clear, the lemma is basically an integral. The proof consists of splitting up the domain of integration to remove absolute values, evaluating each of the parts (easy enough for symbolic integration packages like mathematica), and then joining them back up. This is "obvious", but messy because the expressions are quite long. My writeup is two pages.
Maybe a better way to phrase my question: The result is trivial -- I think so, the authors of the other paper think so, and the journal they published in thinks so. Should I still provide a citation? Is it misleading to cite the other paper without clarifying that it doesn't provide a proof?

It sounds like you used the lemma first and then searched for other appearances of it in publications. Is this the case? If so, did you create it yourself or did you obtain it from somewhere?

"If only I had the theorems! Then I should find the proofs easily enough." -Riemann . If someone states a lemma/theorem/conjecture you use (even if you reinvented it), you need to cite the source regardless if there is a proof or not. If you easily found a proof, then you should probably be convinced (as long as the original paper acted like it was a fact) that the original writer also knew a proof. Saying that if you use something and the proof isn't widely available, you are probably doing a disservice to the reader to not include it(unless you can show the reader how to reproduce a proof).

If not for providing evidence, you should at least provide a proof for making the life of your readers easier. However, you have multiple options if you don't want to include it in the main part of your paper.

Chemical papers often make use of Supporting Information for these very things: parts the main paper builds on but too irrelevant to be included in it.

Citing the other paper seems necessary in any case, as they have stated the lemma before you. This is for attribution. Citing the other paper for evidence seems not appropriate, as there is no proof given there.
If the lemma is not rather obvious (say the obvious proof strategy works in < 5min), then stating it without proof would be very bad form. Put in an appendix if you don't want a boring lengthy proof to spoil the otherwise elegant paper, but put it somewhere people can find it.

The obvious retort is "If they can state it without proof, then why can't I?"

Well, if they had written down the proof as they should have, you wouldnt have this problem now, right?

I feel like citing a peer-reviewed paper should be sufficient evidence, no? If the reader is really that skeptical, they will be able to re-derive the result.

Peer review means very little - and if there is no proof for that lemma in the paper, the reviewers cant have checked the proof (of course they could have derived a proof themselves, but how many more peole are supposed to do that?).

I guess what I'm saying is that, they (and their reviewers) thought it was trivial enough to omit the proof, and so do I. So I'm inclined to omit the proof. However, it feels odd to cite a source for a result that doesn't actually provide a proof.

Agree with Arno. I don't see any disadvantage in including the proof. This is the only professional solution here: prove it and cite the lemma. I would also add a note "X stated the lemma without a proof, and thus we shall prove it here", which will sound slightly critical of the original authors, as it should be. It seems user80085 believes too much in the system, no offense, as if the fact that a paper passed peer-review means every aspect of the paper is justified. It's obviously not.

Given that two people have now used this lemma, I think a proof is worth presenting even if it is "trivial".  You can send in your writeup (which you say you already have) as an appendix with this paper, and if the reviewers also feel it doesn't belong in this paper, post it as a short paper in arXiv/etc. so the third user of this lemma won't face your problem.

It's not clear that attribution means a whole lot in this case, which I suspect is the whole reason that the question is being asked in the first place. I think it would be helpful to justify the need for attribution, rather than just asserting it. After all, by the classical definition of knowledge as justified true belief, the original authors didn't "know" the result (it's true but they didn't demonstrate any justification), so why do they deserve to have it attributed to them? Isn't an attribution to a result stated without proof just an appeal to authority?

@JeffreyBosboom It probably won't do as a paper on the arXiv if it's just a lemma. However, it could be attached to the main paper on the arXiv.

@user80085: Look at it this way: if you include the proof of the lemma, the next person to use it will likely cite your proof. More citations for very little work on your part == win-win scenario.

@Dilworth: I have seen referee reports where the referee was rather annoyed that a long proof of a rather trivial statement was included. Also, the length of  a paper is sometimes a deciding factor regarding possible journals, as there are many that have a required minimum of maximum number of pages. Annoying a referee and not fitting within a journal's specifications are definitely "disadvantages".

@MartinArgerami: your point is indeed valid. One can write a proof in the arXiv preprint, omit it in the submitted version and explain in the cover letter why the proof was omitted. Then the proof is available, and the page-length constraints we still drag with us will not play against the paper.

@MartinArgerami, this is an anecdotal evidence only.  The risk to annoy a referee due to a "redundant" proof is much smaller than the risk of getting rejected or annoy a referee due to omission of necessary proofs. In the former case, the referee can simply ask to take the proof out.

@Dilworth: of course it is anecdotal; do you know of any scientific study of referees attitudes with respect to long proofs of trivial lemmas? If the referee "asks to take them out", that usually belongs to a "major revision". And if you think that a "major revision" looks the same on an editor's eye as a "recommend publication", you are being naive. So, as I said, it is a disadvantage.

@MartinArgerami, no. The opposite of "anecdotal" here is not a systematic research, rather an experience of many incidents in which papers are rejected due to "unnecessary proofs". Also, taking out redundant computations does not imply a major revision. Further, as I said there's a risk also in omitting proofs, so for your argument to hold, you have to argue that the risk in omission is lower than in inclusion of proofs.

If the result is basically trivial (as you say it is), I think how you proceed should consider how standard this type of result would be in the field.
You could put something like:

The following result can be established by standard (but tedious) computation.

if it's the sort of thing you could expect an early graduate student in the field to do as a homework question, or

The following result, which is stated by (Author) in [(paper)], can be established by standard (but tedious) computation.

otherwise.

The amount of discussion and contemplation on whether to prove "trivial lemmas" already shows why any professional mathematician should include the proof of these "trivialities", and redeem us from such discussions. Indeed, if it's so trivial, why not just prove it and finish with it?

@Dilworth I don't really agree. I don't think citing something trivial is actually a good thing. If it's trivial, the person who wrote it down doesn't really own it in the same way as a non-trivial result. Also, it's not obvious where you would look for a trivial result, as it could appear in papers on a range of topics. Moreover, often if the result is trivial there is not just one version of it. I think whether you include a proof of the exact variant needed for your paper will depend on how crucial the tiny details are to you.

@Dilworth On the other hand, a useful thing a mathematician could do in such circumstances is write a textbook that includes a proof. But of course the incentive to do so it lower. Alternatively, I like the idea of papers in electronic form where most of the detail is initially hidden and you can expand out more layers as you wish. Then the proof could be included for those that want to read it, without getting in the way for those who don't.

Don't say "by standard techniques" say which standard techniques you're using!

@NoahSnyder The OP has said this is an integral. You don't need to say that you calculate an integral using standard integration techniques.

@JessicaB, I was not talking about citation indeed. I was talking about proving what you actually state is true. Papers are written not just to inform us of new results, but to validate and establish true statements. Working out tedious details to yield important results is a contribution by itself.

@Dilworth You said 'prove it and finish with it'. So you expect others not to have to prove it again, because they can in future cite the version you have written. I am saying I do not think that is a good approach.

@JessicaB, I'm saying that you must prove or refer to a proof of any statement you state is true. I didn't say you are not supposed to cite the original (unproved) statement. If people in future cite you as the one proving the claim rather the original unproved statement, this is a bonus (teaching a lesson to the original authors).

Cite the paper when you state the lemma.  Then write:
\begin{proof}
Split up the domain of integration to remove absolute values, then evaluate each of the parts.
\end{proof}
It's a waste of everyone's time to have two pages of a calculus exercise.  But it's also a waste of everyone's time to have to guess how the proof goes.  The above is the best compromise that makes it clear how the proof goes in the least amount of time.
If the proof were one paragraph instead of two pages then I'd say include it all.

This was my thought also, although perhaps with slightly more explanation if some tricky manipulations are involved (but the OP's description suggests this is not the case), and perhaps also state the result of the evaluation for each of the parts. In addition, I think it would be useful cite the other reference at the beginning and say something to the effect that you (the OP) have confirmed the result stated in [XX] by using the following method, and then give the brief explanation.

Yeah, I don't know the actual calculation. Perhaps another sentence or two would be in order like: "for the third part we use integration by parts with u=blah and dv=blah."  But at any rate it seems clear that two pages is too much, but zero sentences is too little.

Just say you have discovered a truly marvelous proof for it that won't fit in the confines of your paper's length restrictions.  ;)
No one will mind, right?  They can always work out the proof that you had in mind....

I recommend including a proof in the appendix, if none has previously been published.

A proof without proof is just a statement.  If you feel you shouldn't just state something without any proof at all, then don't state "there is a proof" without any proof of that statement.
The historical example I've alluded to is a good illustration of the problems that can arise from the unproven assertion, "I have a proof for this."

This is just a joke, followed by a repetition of a suggestion that had already been posted when this answer was written.

@DavidRicherby the joke has a point, though.  If you think about the parallel I've drawn, you will gain your own insight into the perils of asserting the existence of a proof without...well, without proof.  (Edit: I've made this more explicit in my answer.)

I suggest not including the proof in your paper.
If you need to, cite the other paper which states the lemma   Then, since you have determined that the proof is "obvious", simply state that.
For example;

"Lemma 2 is stated without proof by Bloggs (2007).  The proof is trivial and not included here"    [The wording "and not included here" is optional, since you won't provide a proof];
(If you want to provide some pointer on how to start the proof)
"Lemma 2 is stated without proof by Bloggs (2007).  If one starts by splitting up the domain of integration to remove absolute values, the proof is trivial."

Any competent mathematician will understand your point, since it is fairly common practice in mathematical journals.
If they so desire, the reader will be able to derive the lemma on their own.   In fact, some mathematicians will enjoy doing exactly that as an exercise - why deprive them of that enjoyment?

A mathematical paper is normally written for a target audience of mathematicians - or, at least, people with an interest and appreciation of mathematics.   It is not necessary to assume a completely uninformed reader, nor is it necessary to spoon-feed the reader.

I was talking about mathematicians as well. Many mathematicians are "incompetent" in many aspects of mathematics, as they are only human. Writing papers assuming a priori that everyone obviously knows the basics of "Semi-periodic-C*-elimination-theory" is simply bad writing.

The OP described a pretty simple proof based on elementary calculus, not a proof relying on obscure theory that will only be understood by a small number of mathematicians.

to be fair, the OP added this explanation on the actual proof he refers to, only after the discussion here took place.

If you want to be fair, my answer was written at least two days after the OP added the explanation.

Perhaps. My point still holds. Even routine calculations should be provided in journal versions. First, because what is 'routine' for one person is many times non trivial to another, and secondly, the article should be verifiable easily. If routine calculations are so easy, they could easily be included as well. If they are long and tedious then they are not easy to verify, and so omitting them means you submit a paper without a full proof, only vouching for its correctness, based on the belief that you have done the actual tedious work behind the scene.

I disagree with your point.   The point of a mathematical paper is generally to impart some substantive (e.g. new) knowledge.   Adding additional pages of trivial proofs (which, among other things, are easily verifiable) or minor calculations does not increase substantive content.  It increases thud factor (e.g. the noise made when the printed paper is dropped on a desk) and the time needed for readers to wade through the paper to find the substantive content. That makes the paper less useful overall.  There is value in brevity, and leaving out extraneous information.

I disagree. There is value/benefit in brevity just like there is a value/benefits in full proofs. The question is which is more valuable, and what is more appropriate to a journal publication. A journal publication must be correct, leaving out long calculations means there is good chance the authors made a mistake, the reviewer didn't bother to check, and future readers will be unable to follow the proofs. The possible value in brevity is thus smaller than the cons. I also claim that "substantive knowledge" is a relative term, and cannot solely be the point of a mathematical paper.

You have a completely backward view of how errors get introduced into published materials. Unnecessary inclusion of long calculations or trivial proofs increases the likelihood of error being made (e.g. more chance of typos by the author, by the typesetter, etc) and then remain undetected for longer (author when proof-reading, the reviewer, and eventual reader all are more likely to skim over tedious stuff, or [if they are familiar with the subject] read what they expect to see).    The number of errors, and the time errors remain undetected therefore both increase with size of the article.

I disagree, factually. My substantial knowledge of errors that made their way into peer-review publication have always been the result of not including the proofs of "obvious/trivial" lemmas. Not the other way around, as you suggest. Making the effort to prove everything reduces substantially the chance of errors.

Could you just give the reader an idea of the tediousness by showing just a part of the proof?
Maybe showing the verbosity of just one part of it is the best way to convince any reader that your omission is fully understandable and justified.
Alternatively, if feasible, you could link to an URL containing a (sketch of?) proof, either in LaTeX or, e.g., as a Mathematica nb file.
I would cite the other paper in any case, for attribution, as suggested by others.

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


text:
Prob/Stats Teaching talk (tenure-track interview)
I have a tenure-track interview in a prob/stats department (my research area is quantitative finance), and part of the process is a 30-minute teaching talk:
"...demonstration of how you typically teach a class of undergraduates, or a discussion of your teaching methods, or more ideally a combination of these two. The topic is up to you, but we suggest something aimed at a first or second year student. You are welcome to demonstrate a variety of innovations in teaching methods..."
I have some teaching experience, but I have not given a teaching talk before. I'm trying to choose a topic and find a way to structure my talk, what to avoid, etc. Any suggestions?

You only have 30 minutes so they can't expect this to be too deep. I would break the demonstration into two parts.

20 minute teaching demo
10 minute discussion of teaching methods

Actions speak louder then words so I would show them how I teach first. If you start with a discussion of your teaching methods, the committee will probably interrupt with a bunch of questions and use up all the time. If time matters this could be a serious problem.
For the demonstration, it's best to stick to a topic that I have complete mastery over and need no notes or textbook to teach anymore. I will already be nervous and don't need the cognitive overload of trying to teach a topic I do not totally own.
The actually teaching method that I would use would be a conservative one because I am trying to show mastery of teaching. I would not try to teach in a new experimental way unless I have already thoroughly mastered such a method. Better to lecture with perfection than to try cooperative learning with utter failure. Below is a sample lesson plan that would work for a statistician.

Explain what the students are going to do today (2min)
Demonstrate the new skill (7min)
Practice the skill together (5min)
Allow the students to practice the skill individually or in small groups (5min)
Correct together (1min)

For the discussion on teaching methods, I think they want to know more than just what methods I used because they just saw that. I think what the may want to know is about my philosophy, which is why do I teach or use the methods that I use. So this provides me with an opportunity to explain what I was trying to do during my demonstration. Why did I explain to the students the purpose of the lesson? Why did I demonstrate instead of lecture? Why did I do practice problems together? etc. Please keep in mind that teaching methods are derive from various philosophical positions about teaching/learning so understanding your philosophy of teaching is providing a deeper explanation of the methods you use.
Again, putting the discussion at the end assures that I have time to demonstrate my teaching and allows the committee to ask questions during the discussion.


text:
Erratum for scientific articles
I suspect that I have found a mistake in a scientific article (within the field of mathematics). Before bothering my colleagues with questions regarding the legitimacy of the content, I would like to know if anyone has corrected the (potential) error before me.
So the question is: Is there anywhere online, where I can find an erratum or similar for articles? Do I have to use specific keywords when searching for such content in databases? Or is it simply not possible to find easily?

Have you tried looking on Google (Scholar) for the name of the article and "erratum" or "corrigendum"? I don't know if things are different in mathematics, but if that search showed up nothing then I'd assume that the authors never corrected their mistake (or there was no mistake...).

@Ian_Fin: I did -- no luck. To clarify: I am looking for a general way of finding errata, e.g. an "errata database", that is independent of my specific problem at hand (which spawned the question).

This doesn't really help, of course, but for what it's worth I've encountered quite a few papers that call attention to errors in other papers. Sometimes this is immediately apparent, such as when one of the main results of the newer paper is to correct the earlier paper, and other times the error is buried in a footnote in the newer paper.

You can probably mail the Editor of the published article/journal. She can tell you about whether an errata was published earlier.


text:
Page references for "far away" figures, equations, tables, etc
I am currently writing my master's thesis, which contains a lot of equations and figures referred to in the text of the report. I use Latex for my writing thus making it easy to refer to the figure/equation numbers, but it is also possible to refer to the page on which the figure/equation is to be found. For instance I might have some text on page 34 saying:

... which is shown in figure 2.1 on page 5.

or with shorter distance (page-wise):

... as seen in figure 3.2 on the following page.

My question is whether this is useful to the reader. Is there any consensus about how/when to refer to the pages? Is it better not to do it?

If the distance between the figure and the paragraph that mentions it is only about one page, such an aid would be overkill, but for longer distances, I would perceive it as useful.
If the distance is very long, you might even consider repeating the same figure, or some excerpt of it, near the paragraph where you refer to it.

This advise seems to be your personal opinion (with which I agree). Do you know if it is the general opinion as well? Are there any "official" guidelines such as The Chicago Manual of Style?

Plus, make sure your references are internal links - then readers can simply click on them to go to the picture or formula in question.

@Thomas: I'm not aware of any official guidelines, but to my impression, it's the accepted consensus in my field (in computer science). Repeating the same figure was actually once suggested to me in a reviewer comment.

@StephanKolassa And there's even a key combination that brings you back to the original page after clicking a link. In Adobe Acrobat and SumatraPDF for Windows, it's Alt + LeftArrow.

@StephanKolassa: I do that already, but I have to hand-in only paper versions, though. :/ Solid advise, still.

@lighthousekeeper: Thanks for the advise. My field is computational physics, so I guess similar "rules" apply.

A suggestion (and this really is a matter of style) I first saw written down by N David Mermin in What's Wrong with These Equations, which he calls the Good Samaritan Rule, is

When referring to an equation identify it with a phrase as well as a number.

The idea is that you want the text to flow: the reader shouldn't need to refer back to the previous equation as long as the idea comes across, unless and until they're trying to reproduce your detailed calculation. The quick hint as to what the equation you're referring to means is far more important than where the equation actually is. So use the words to name the equation or figure, or the principle that's behind it, rather than giving its page number.


text:
Does it matter if you have three or four possible answers when making a multiple choice test for learning?
I have built several apps in Norwegian about hunting, philosophy etc. Students use the app to learn a subject and test their knowledge before doing their exam. In current state i have one question with three alternatives, where one is correct. The student will be presented with the solution to the question after they have chosen the alternative, and not on the end of the test.
For example:
What is the the capital city of Australia?

Canberra
Sydney
Melbourne

I was wondering if anyone know if there is any research on if students learn more/less/equal by being presented with 4 alternatives instead of three.
For example:
What is the the capital city of Australia?

Canberra
Sydney
Melbourne
Edmunton

Does this have any effect for learning, since it's less probable to just check the correct by chance. Maybe students have to do more active thinking since it's more alternatives to think about, and therefore learn more?

I believe your question is more on-topic on Cognitive Science SE than here. I found many hits when I searched "multiple choice" there.

The standard for multiple choice questions is normally 4 answers. However, there is research that indicates that three choices is optimal. Three choices seems to increase the reliability of the test and decreases the number of poor distractors.
If you are worried about the difficult of your assessment. Instead of developing questions with four choices another strategy would be to increase the number of questions with three choices. This will allow you to cover more content.

I am confused by the last sentence. Surely reading the question is not the most time-consuming part of taking a well-designed exam. Why would having fewer options per question increase the numver of questions that can be answered in the same amount of time?

The fewer the choices the easier it is to make a decision. To maintain the difficulty of an assessment with three choices you could ask more questions. Remember 3 choices has higher reliability which is the main benefit.


text:
Career Advice (Math Major): Industry or Academia
I have one year left until I graduate with a bachelors in pure math, and as registration rolls around for next fall I need some advice on deciding which path I should go down. Ultimately it comes down to the decision to eventually go into industry or stay on the path of pure math with hopes of attending a good graduate program.
Ever since I started university I have wanted to get a PhD in math. I think I would truly enjoy being a professor, and I find the idea of studying math for a living very attractive, but as of late I have been considering other options for a couple of reasons.
1) Financial Reasons:
Industry jobs usually pay much higher than jobs in academia, and although money has never been my number one priority I still have to be realistic in planning my future.
2) I'm not Competitive:
So far the upper division math classes I have taken are 2 courses in Real Analysis, 2 courses in Abstract Algebra, 2 courses in Number Theory, 1 Probability course, and 1 course in Complex Analysis from a top 40 school. I have done decent in these courses (3.4), but not as competitive as I know one might need to pursue a PhD at a good school. Originally I thought I could be one of the "top" students in math and eventually go on to make real contributions to math, but it seems that I might not be cut out for it. I definitely don't want to fool myself to continue in a field that I will never be successful in.
3) Mental Stability:
I don't know if I am as motivated as I need to be in order to pursue a PhD. I enjoy math and the mental challenge, but I find that consistently struggling with math problems every day can be overwhelming for me, and I'm not always as dedicated as my peers seem to be. I also suffer from anxiety and find myself very overwhelmed in regards to tests.
4) I might be romanticizing academic life:
I think I was originally drawn to the idea of becoming a professor because I didn't want to end up working for some corporation monotonously running through the same set of tasks daily. I also have always liked the idea of teaching students and helping them discover their interests and harnessing their potential. That being said I think I might be overgeneralizing and overlooking the good qualities of jobs in industry.
With this in mind I have to make my decision for next years classes. I have two options; I can enroll in graduate level classes for analysis and algebra to boost my application for graduate programs, or I can take classes focusing on applied math, like financial mathematics, or some computer science classes.
Sorry that this was so long, but thank you for reading and any advice would be great! Specifically if you have experience in math academia, or if you have experience with industry careers like actuarial work or programming I would love to get your opinions.

This is a site for questions, not general advice. Do you have a specific question that would help you make your decision? Also see "Here's my situation, any suggestions?" is not an answerable question.

@BrianaChavez I was in your situation just last year. Decided to go ahead and apply to a Ph.D. program. I figured that the only way to know for sure whether I'm cut out for it or not is to go for it. I was accepted to two programs that are well-regarded but not "top".

@JohnWayne360 Thank you for your comment. Congratulations on getting into a graduate program. Regarding the workload, do you often feel overwhelmed in graduate school, or would you say it is manageable?

@BrianaChavez Unfortunately, I cannot answer that question just yet. I start in the fall. I just wanted to give you some perspective as someone who used to be in your shoes. Some advice I can give you: take the grad courses and do research or internships. The applied classes won't help you as much as you think. I went to tons of interviews and could have taken jobs in finance, technology, logistics, etc. None of these places cared much about the classes I took. They all offered some form of training. E-mail or PM me if you'd like to know more about my decision. Best of luck to you!

"I don't know if I am as motivated as I need to be in order to pursue a PhD. I enjoy math and the mental challenge, but I find that consistently struggling with math problems every day can be overwhelming for me" – Can you program decently? Go for a PhD in CS.

That sounds like a tough decision but I see no reason why your long terms plans need to be decided now. Keep your options open by enrolling in the graduate level classes that will help you academic applications AND find a summer internship in industry.
Make your decision only after you have applied to grad school (see where you are accepted) and have a better feeling about what you might want to do in the private sector (go on lots of informational interviews).  It is easier to change paths (and leave a PhD program early for industry) than the other way around.
I say act as if you are planning on going to grad school but have a backup plan in case you find an industry job you really like or are not accepted at the grad school of your choice.
Good luck!


text:
What is the difference between a journal whose name ends with "Letters" versus "Reviews"?
What is the difference between a journal named "Letters" & "Reviews" in the end?
e.g. journal named - "Neural Processing Letters", "Machine Learning Reviews".
What is the core difference between these two types of journal?
Thanks.

Partial duplicate: Why are some journals for research papers called “review”?

Letters and reviews are two different types of articles. Notably, letters are expected to be short, and reviews do not usually include new results.
Letter:

These papers communicate brief reports of data from original research that editors believe will be interesting to many researchers, and that will likely stimulate further research in the field. As they are relatively short the format is useful for scientists with results that are time sensitive (for example, those in highly competitive or quickly-changing disciplines). This format often has strict length limits, so some experimental details may not be published until the authors write a full Original Research manuscript. These papers are also sometimes called Brief communications.

Review:

Review Articles provide a comprehensive summary of research on a certain topic, and a perspective on the state of the field and where it is heading. They are often written by leaders in a particular discipline after invitation from the editors of a journal. Reviews are often widely read (for example, by researchers looking for a full introduction to a field) and highly cited. Reviews commonly cite approximately 100 primary research articles.

A journal titled "Machine Learning Reviews" is probably not going to consider letters, and vice versa - so do not submit there.

Thank you so much for the broad explanation.

So what about "Physical Review Letters"? :)

@mmeent - PRL is short articles on new results. The ‘Physical Review’ is the overarching journal family.

@JonCuster, I know. That was an attempt at humor while highlighting that not all journals with "review" in the title publish "reviews" as described in this answer. (In fact the vast majority of articles in the "Physical Review" journals are not "reviews".

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


text:
How can I include a database/excel spreadsheet that I made in a proposal?
I'm writing my thesis proposal, and as part of the process I've converted what used to be a Word document form to collect data into a database/spreadsheet hybrid. I have to show how I'm collecting data in the proposal, and those before me have simply copy/pasted the form from its own Word document into the proposal doc. However, now that I've converted it I'm wondering how I can show the committee exactly how I'll be collecting and storing data, and do so easily and expediently. I could always copy/paste the form as others have done and note that it's now converted, but I'd like to showcase the work I put into converting it, and why it's useful to do so.

If I were reading your proposal I would rather see a description of the conversion than look at the form itself. Explain (briefly) the shortcomings of the Word document form,  the advantages of the more formal data collection process and the tools/programs you used to implement it. Then go on to say what you plan to do with the data you will have so elegantly collected.


text:
Reworking a Homework Project to Publish as Research
During the final year of my Undergraduate degree, I did a literature review as part of a technical writing class to answer a relevant question in Mathematics Education.
I would like to rework the paper (to make it more geared toward the research community) and submit it for publication in a Math Education journal that accepts literature reviews. I would like to do this because

I believe it would contribute to the field--the question is important, and there aren't any current, comprehensive literature reviews about it (that I know of, and I have spent many hours searching)
I am applying to graduate school soon and I would like to do education research during graduate school

I have two questions:

Are there any problems with my plan--legally, culturally, or otherwise? I have already spent a long time looking through my former Universities' policies, and I can't find any policies disallowing it.
If I submit the paper, do I list the University I was at when I did the work as my affiliation?

Chances are your plan is fine. You created the piece of work, and you weren't funded, so there's nobody else that can claim that as his or her intellectual property. Still, I would suggest working with an academic over this - probably the person who set the homework problem. If there's a potential issue with your plan, he is likely to know; further, he can offer you critical comments to get your work up to scratch (writing a literature review is quite different from a homework assignment), and if he's willing to add his name to the paper that adds a lot of credibility to it. He might even be able to suggest a journal for you.
As for affiliation, yes, you list the university you were at since that's where you did most of the work.


text:
As an instructor can I use previous work history as examples?
I teach computer science (USA - graduate level).  I am teaching a software design course, and for a lecture I am to give on software anti-patterns I would like to use a real world example from an institution I was previously employed with.  To share the example I would create some abstract UML class diagrams showing the pattern that was used, I would explain the general purpose of the application and share where we got it wrong and how the students could learn from the anti-pattern.  I don't have to reveal any code (not that I have any) or share any trade secrets, and I don't even have to use the name of organization.  However if someone was to read my C.V. they could probably ascertain what organization I was speaking in reference to.
Is it considered 'ethical' behavior to share this example? Or should I seek authorization from the previous institution? Are there certain things I should do to protect myself or further obfuscate this example?
As far as I know I never signed any sort of NDA or non-compete covenant.

As long as you don't break contractural agreements (trade secrets, for example), there is no issue here. Ideas are free to use. The fact that someone else had an idea previously doesn't put it off-limits to anyone.
Even patented ideas can be discussed and shared. In fact, the patent application itself needs a lot of detail explaining it. You may not be able to implement those ideas in a "device" while the patent is in effect, but you can still explore and discuss it.
If you avoid revealing secrets that you have agreed not to reveal then there is no issue. But be sure about whatever contracts you agreed to.

Yes, students always like “real” examples. You seem to have “anonymized” it sufficiently.
Those examples that start “You have 3 widgets produced by a widget company...” are SO boring, using relevant material is always good.
Could you re-write it as a case study if that is relevant.


text:
How much code in a computer science thesis?
I'm working in software development and plan to start a part-time masters degree.
I've read in some places that a thesis shouldn't have much code and should use pseudo-code instead. Then on other sites I see thesis that seem to center around a newly developed code base. Then other example thesis relating to mechanizations seem to include code, schematics, and 3d designs.
Are some of these examples I'm seeing project streams or can a thesis still include these?

This varies so much with the topic… Both my Master thesis and my PhD have exactly 0 lines of code. And 0 of pseudo-code.

What is the point of an appendix with printed code? The code should always be open (if possible) but on github or other suitable (understand reusable) format.

For the love of God, please don't include only a link to github (or your university home directory, or your personal homepage, or any other similarly non-permanent location) in your thesis!  Github will eventually die!  Including code listings with your work helps to ensure that anyone with access to the work has access to the relevant code, even if they have to re-type it.  Also, depending on the nature of the thesis, it's quite possible that the ideas & algorithms are more important than the implementation, so reading an appendix is completely adequate.

@FábioDias University regulations are often bizarre and out of date. For example, the copy of my PhD thesis in the university library is printed single-sided and double-spaced because that's the rule, even though it quadruples the amount of paper the library has to store forever. It wouldn't be surprising if some institutions' regulations demand printed code, even though storage in a repository makes more immediate sense. (Having said that, who knows if a github archive will be still exist in 50 years -- the paper copy almost certainly will.)

@DavidRicherby Actually, Modern cheap and nasty paper is quite unlikely to survive 50 years because of its acidity - though 500-year-old paper is probably good for at least another 500.

@alephzero I don't recall if the regulations specified that theses must be printed on low-acid paper, but that's what I used for mine.

@AC if Github is not enough, then a USB, but paste code in the document? What if the code is 10K lines? Code on paper is useless in the 21st century

@AC That happened to me when google code died. I migrated it to a new repository on github, people google my name and the name of the project and find it anyway. And, of course, the thesis itself should include sufficient algorithm details to allow its replication, without the need to type ancient code.

Relevant: https://xkcd.com/1909/

@alephzero most standard printer paper is now acid-free. We no longer source acid-free paper specially for our museum specimen labels, as the regular printer paper we get is acceptable for archival use.

Why not just look at copies of theses written in recent years at the university in question? Or just ask your (future) supervisor.

For someone who's already enrolled, this is prime ‘ask your supervisor’ territory, since thesis requirements and expectations vary enormously between countries, universities, departments, and research groups.
If you’re not enrolled yet and want to gauge the code requirements at a particular department before deciding to do a Master’s there, you have a few options:

Many universities have a publicly accessible, online research repository where theses are deposited. Download some recent Master’s theses from your department of interest and see what they do.
If your department of interest is not too hard for you to reach physically, you can go to their library and peruse hard-copies of theses.
Just about every university should have a written handbook for theses, and these are often publicly available for download. You may find some guidance for code inclusion here.
Contact a professor at the department, or an alumnus of the department, to ask your question. It can be hard to get a reply to an out-of-the-blue email to an academic, but if you are seriously considering study there, and make this clear in your enquiry, your chances should improve :).

Visiting the department, looking at past theses, and making contact with professors are of course things you'll want to do anyway if you’re thinking of applying to that department, so checking the amount of code needed in a thesis is really just another item to add to your checklist when you’re finding out about the institution.

As always: Ask your supervisor, always.
Generally speaking (for personal experience) one doesn't see a lot of code in the thesis themselves. The main logic behind this is that if whatever you are showing is just code, then just link GitHub! The document is meant to be an addition to the code, text explaining why/what/how of the code.
If someone wanted to just look at the code, why would they do it in a PDF instead of in their IDE? Additionally, very often code has a lot of redundant/obvious parts that are completely unuseful to anyone reading it, and would only take space on paper (e.g. input parsing, file reading, output preparing code). However, providing only partial code for a function is generally unuseful also, as its hard to read others code even when its complete. Thus, most people tend to use pseudocode as what you want is to explain what the code does, not show the exact syntax.
All in all, this is partially my experience and partially my opinion, and regardless of what anyone says around here, listening to your supervisors is likely the best option.

+1 for considering the purpose of code in a document like this, which is to illustrate a concept, and not to provide working code. Nobody wants to pore over syntax, especially if it's in a language the reader isn't intimately familiar with. There are far better vehicles for making code available, as you point out.


text:
Is a scholar whose work contributes substantially to my proposed project a suitable arm's length referee?
I am submitting a postdoctoral application that requires an external arm's length referee to write an evaluation of the proposal to be submitted with the application. The referee should be an acknowledged specialist in the proposed area of research. I am thinking of asking a scholar who I have only met once at a conference and have no other connections with. This scholar has contributed substantial theoretical and empirical insights to my topic, and accordingly I draw on their work heavily in my proposal. In particular, I adopt a theoretical framework that they have helped develop in my field and suggest that I am advancing a study conducted by this person.
If this person agrees to serve in this role, could this reliance raise concerns to the multi-disciplinary  selection committee? In particular, I worry that the committee may think that I have biased the referee in my favour by relying strongly on their contributions, and specifically advancing their theoretical and empirical work.
Thanks for your time!

From what you describe there doesn't seem to be a problem, but who can say how others would evaluate the situation. But, consider:
You have no personal relationship to this person. They haven't contributed directly to your work other than through publishing their own work.
In fact, I would consider such a person to be an excellent judge with the necessary skepticism in making any evaluation. They know their own work (hopefully) and are in a good position to evaluate extensions of it.
But, it might be useful if that person also attests to their independence in any communication with the sponsor.


text:
Case-specific appropriateness of an erratum/corrigendum?
Myself and my PhD supervisors recently published an article (climate science). One of the panels within a multi-panel Figure is a time-series with both a left-hand and right-hand y-axes. The axis labels have been inadvertently reversed and are hence wrong. However:
1) The relative changes of both time-series are so similar that the only way to visually discern them is by looking at axis value ranges (left-hand side extends to 100, right-hand side to 135). Further, the absolute values are not interpreted in any detail, and only the relative changes from one time slice to another matter in this case.
2) All raw data is correct and provided to the reader via DOI links. So if the data was to be plotted by an interested reader, it would be correct.
3) None of the manuscript text is affected whatsoever by the error (i.e. all data interpretation, conclusions, quoted values etc.) are correct.
Does the error above warrant a corrigendum?
This is a tricky dilemma for me as, on one hand, good scientific practice dictates there is not a choice, and any significant error should be fixed at the earliest opportunity. However, whether the error is significant is subjective... On the other hand, highlighting the error to readers via a corrigendum might be perceived as "sloppy", as this was supposed to be caught way before the proofing stage. I am a (barely) post-PhD researcher and do not want this to negatively affect my career unless it is necessary.

Since you specifically ask for opinion, this is a candidate for closure. But I doubt that a correction to a published article will diminish your reputation as long as it comes from you and not from someone else.

The easy answer is to ask the journal (after all, they're the ones who publish the corrigendum, and if you say "yes" while they say "no", their opinion overrules yours). Write to the editor who accepted your paper, or to the editor-in-chief, and see what they think.

That is indeed the thing to do instead of "contemplating the nature of existence" over a mistake. Thank you.


text:
Can pre-print be published as "working paper" after the peer reviewed and revised manuscript has been accepted for publication by the journal?
A colleague wishes to publish a pre-print as a "working paper" after the revised manuscript has gone through the peer review process and accepted for publication.
The rationale is that firstly, there is a long wait (over a year) until the manuscript is published by the journal; and, secondly, the publisher allows the author to deposit the pre-print at any time in an institutional repository.
My question is: Is a working paper series an "institutional repository"? Shouldn't the pre-print be submitted to the working paper series prior to peer review and journal acceptance?

I don't understand the rationale. If the author is allowed to "deposit the pre-print at any time in an institutional repository", then why doesn't he just do that? He could, for instance, make the pre-print available on his website until the paper is published. What's the benefit of putting it in a working papers publication?

Thanks! I couldn't understand the rationale too. My understanding is that a working paper series is a "publication outlet" and not an "institutional repository". Is that common understanding, or am I wrong?


text:
Miscited in a bachelor thesis
I recently discovered, to my delighted surprise, that my bachelor thesis had been cited in another bachelor thesis - however...

my bachelor thesis has been entered in the reference list as an PhD thesis, which it clearly isn't, and
I have been attributed a conclusion that I didn't draw, that is indeed counter-indicated by the data I've collected.

Should I care about this? Is there a course of action I should take?

Forget it. At most, write an email to that other guy, tell him where he misunderstood and wish him good luck in the future. A bachelor thesis is not (supposed to be) a scientific work.

@Karl, I wouldn't be so hard on bachelor theses. They are first attempts, certainly, but they can be very earnest. Some of them are very good. And, I think that in many, perhaps most, cases the intention is to do real science or whatever. Mine was at the intersection of math and philosophy and pretty marginal. But I was earnest.

@Buffy Oh, of course! A bachelor thesis should be an earnest attempt at science. Its to show that you have understood the concepts, and are able to apply them. But the result is not required to be any kind of scientific progress, not even for a very good grade. My alma mater required that a diploma thesis (after 5 ys) shows work at level of the "state of the art".

I'd expect a bachelor's thesis to have at least some kind novel analysis and not just be a review, though it may not have new data.

A bachelor's thesis is only a bachelor's thesis - it may be used as a source by other researchers (or students, as you discovered), but it is commonly agreed on that they are certainly not error-free. At least some universities do not even have a process for allowing the student to submit a corrected version for archival after the review by the examiners. Hence, such errors would still be in the thesis even if found by the reviewers.
The misattribution of your thesis as a PhD thesis should be ignored, as it is likely a simple error. Also, it the author used BibTeX, the author of the other thesis may have had the problem that there is no Bachelor's thesis entry type - and rather than doing the right thing (using entry type "misc"), the author went to use the entry type "PhD thesis".
Misrepresenting your conclusion is a bit more problematic, but may very easily be again a simple error. Either you let it slip, or you write the thesis author an e-mail clarifying your conclusions. Either way, don't accuse, just inform - the misinterpretation is often just accidental, which is not misconduct, but just sloppiness. There is also the possibility that some of the text in your thesis invites misunderstanding it, which led to the present problem. Again, this would not be a case of academic misconduct.

I agree with you here, but would also write a note to the authors, letting them know of the errors. Not a nasty note, but just a friendly update.

I think it is rather the norm even that you cannot submit a corrected version.

@Karl This was also what I thought - but I don't have a good sample size to back up such a claim, so I didn't write it.

@Karl, even if it can't be corrected, it would be good for the authors to know of the mistake and learn from it. Mistakes by beginners are pretty normal and very common, but if you don't know about the mistake it is hard to learn. But I would, personally, want to not condemn them for their attempt.

@Buffy I think that`s what I said above. ;)

In BibTeX, the right thing would have been to use the entry type "@mastersthesis" and the field "type = {Bachelor thesis}" within that entry.

As the song says, let it go.
If you're going to stay in academia, get used to it. This happens at all levels of academia. Count it as a citation and move on. It's not worth your time to worry about it.

https://giphy.com/gifs/frozen-movie-disney-WYoobOj0i6lJm


text:
Can a PhD supervisor take unpublished ideas from a student's dissertation?
Rephrased question: Can a PhD supervisor take unpublished ideas from a student's dissertation and work on them hence denying the student the opportunity to work on her ideas herself?
I completed a PhD and took on a short postdoc immediately afterwards with the same supervisor. The idea was to be doing something while I apply for bursaries or funds to continue research on the ideas I proposed in my thesis. Throughout my PhD I had minimal supervision and minimal input of any sort from him. In fact, in 5 years, he never proposed or even simply put me on track to an idea or a solution. I know for a fact that my supervisor barely read a fourth of my dissertation; however, I had spoken to him about my ideas several times and they are mentioned in my dissertation as my own. I know he is aware of that because I sent him the acknowledgement part by email before putting it in my thesis.
Now he decided to take my ideas for himself and got a new student to work on them with the contacts I developed myself because he was incapable of doing that himself. I supervised the new student who is working on my ideas for a particular application and got him going etc and I will be on the eventual paper. However, my supervisor has now decided to apply my idea to another application which I proposed myself in my thesis as well and given that I am leaving soon, I’ve been told that I will not be on that paper because I haven’t contributed directly. Beside the fact that this is still an application of my idea and one that I suggested myself in my thesis, the supervision I’ve given to the student is perfectly applicable to this idea as well because they are related.
Can my supervisor do this even though he knows I want to work on them myself? Can I stop him from doing this? Frankly, I’m gutted and totally demoralised. There is no way for me to compete with him and get a paper out before him.

given that I am leaving soon, I’ve been told that I will not be on that paper because I haven’t contributed directly — Why can't you continue to contribute directly after you leave?  Don't you have email?

You could write a better paper with the most important ideas you didn't talk about to anyone. If you don't have any of those, well then this is a great chance to learn to always build a buffer of those!

In these kind of situations, the devil is always in the details and students often feel unfairly treated. I am sorry if you feel so. My advice is that on long term try to be useful in a way that that people want to ask your advice or collaboration even when your contract is over and they have no legal obligation to do so, and if you cannot for some reason, learn to walk away. Academia can be unfair, but you better of spending your time with useful arguments. If you already asked your prof, and he is not willing to include you, generally it is not a good use of time arguing with him on it.

@mathreadler Why should one learn that?

@JiK : Because ... situations like this one can happen to anyone and you better not be the one falling on your bare ass when it happens but have some jokers / good cards up your sleaves..

Check the journal intended for publication. It should have some "requirements for authorship" or "authorship policies" link. You'll either follow the criteria of the journal for authorship or not. Notice your work is public and anyone can learn from your ideas and publish new research. If this was done by another team you would be entitled to a citation but not authorship. The question is: have you done enough in this paper to be considered an author? Advice: Don't get stuck on a good idea thinking to yourself you'll never get another one. It will only hold you back.

A PhD dissertation is published work, not a private document. It is publicly available to anyone with a library access (via interlibrary loan or via an appropriate dissertation vendor).
Of course, if anyone (including your former PhD supervisor) uses results from the dissertation, they must include an appropriate citation. That way you get a credit for your contribution.
If your contribution is considered valuable by the standards of your field, you can write it up and publish it in a refereed journal for better visibility (compared to the dissertation). You can also upload your thesis on an institutional repository or arXiv.
My advice: do not waste time arguing about ownership of ideas. It will not help your career. You had one idea that was good enough to interest people; make more!

There's also the converse attribution that even if the student writes up a paper himself, the supervisor is likely entitled (last) authorship by having provided funds, supervision, PI rights at the University, etc. which directly contributed to the research.

@user71659: 1. Most of these don't entitle to authorship; is the philanthropist who contributed to a research institute one of the authors of the papers? 2. In some fields / countries / universities it's customary for the supervisor to be added as an author, in others it isn't.

@einpoklum In the sciences they definitely do. From the acknowledgements of a random Science article A.B. and C.D. defined strategy, supervised, and procured funding. A person who supervises solely funding (Program Manager at a funding institution) is often credited in the acknowledgements as well, as I have done, Funding was provided by Organization XYZ Project ABC (John Smith).

@user71659 Don't use code formatting for quotes, it messes up screen readers.

I see your point, however, if a PhD dissertation was a published document in the same sense as a paper, a student wouldn't be able to put in her thesis any results she published in some paper before writing the dissertation or vice-versa (i.e. write a paper which includes results already included in the dissertation) and that is something acceptable. Happens all the time. There must be a significant difference between the two. Thanks all for your help.

@M.Mare The usual journal policy is to prohibit simultaneous publication in another journal. Conference proceedings, preprint servers and dissertations are usually OK. (However, it is always wise to mention in your submission any other places where the material has already appeared.)

I agree with the spirit of this answer in more general circumstances, but I think the situation is more subtle due to advisor relationship. The advisor knows that this person is only beginning their career and not an established researcher, thus being more significantly affected by this action. This feels like "academic insider-trading" by the advisor.

There are minor exceptions to your first statement, i.e. "A PhD dissertation is published work", as I noted in my answer. Still a good answer though.

@user71659 In the sciences they definitely do — Not if you consider computer science or mathematics to be sciences!

@JeffE. Nope. Direct counterexample: check out the paper for the WiFi KRACK attack today. Note the final author is the student's advisor.

@user71659: acknowledgement and authorship are completely different things

@Taladris Nope. In the United States, in sciences and engineering a graduate student's advisor is always entitled to last authorship on a published paper. Period. If you think this is untrue, then you have no experience in this topic.

@user71659 I assume the KRACK advisor is an author because he materially contributed to the paper, not because he's the advisor.  In any case, you made the universal statement, not me, and you're wrong. Automatic authorship for advisors is neither universal nor ethical.

@JeffE The provision of funding and PI responsibilities/status is sufficient contributions for last authorship. Recall that nobody may conduct research at a reputable institution without supervision from tenure track (or PI status, differs in medical schools) faculty. Also note that in Germany, the institute head (i.e. department chair) is traditionally included as an author. With regards to KRACK, the first author states "My awesome supervisor is added under an honorary authorship to the research paper for his excellent general guidance. But all the real work was done on my own."

@user71659 PI status does not confer the right to authorship. Students at reputable institutions, even in Germany, can and regularly do conduct research without direct involvement of faculty.  I do not expect to be a coauthor on all my PhD students' papers, even if I'm funding them; I am only a coauthor on papers to which I directly contribute. My advisor was not a coauthor on most of my PhD papers.  Honorary authorship is considered grossly unethical in my research community.  In short, your universal claim is false, and continuing to  repeat it will not make it true.

@user71659 If I were the editor/PC chair, I would insist that the honorary authorship be removed before accepting the KRACK paper.

@JeffE I suggest you file an ethics complaint against the entire LHC experiment. In big science projects, any member of the science team is entitled authorship of any paper put out by their collaboration.

@user71659: 1. I was only commenting that authorship and acknowledgment are different things, as your second comment seems to conflate the two notions. 2. The OP is about Ph.D. advisor, not graduate student's advisor, quite a different situation. 3. Being condescending is not useful. And I would be surprised you have experience in every scientific area.

Your question has two layers in it, and I feel that separating these would be of value:
On the ethical layer, ownership of ideas plays a neglible role in academia: It's commonly said that ideas are a dime a dozen. The hard lifting is in the execution of an idea, and this is also what eventually leads to the most significant kind of academic credit, authorship. So, from this perspective, your supervisor did nothing wrong, as no other person would have done by executing an idea found in some other person's thesis.
On the interpersonal layer, your supervisor is behaving unfairly by consuming your resources (ideas, but even more so skills, time, contacts) while not offering you to join the resulting projects, even though you are interested in them. Unfair treatment feels bad, and you have good reason to avoid your supervisor in the future for that. Other than that, I'm afraid there's not much you can do here.

Edit: In the second part of my answer, I assume that you have unambiguously and clearly expressed your interest in being involved in the work that will lead to the follow-up paper, even though you will leave the group soon. If this is not the case, this is the thing you should do immediately.

They are, but there's also a minimum number of characters that I can edit, which sucks sometimes.

In fact, more than rules and regulations, I sort of was expecting him to be correct on a moral level. I guess I was too naive and trusting. I'm a fool. I also disagree with the concept that: "ideas are a dime a dozen". In my limited experience, to find something (a problem or a solution) which is both relevant and original is pretty hard. In fact, my supervisor has quite literally abandoned other projects to keep working on my ideas/concepts. Thank you.

To your second point, can't OP, as JeffE suggested, request coauthorship on the second paper? Offer to continue to supervise the student from afar and contribute to the final paper?

@Dawn You're right: I assumed that the OP already did that, but this could be a false assumption. I edited my answer accordingly.

“your supervisor did nothing wrong, as no other person would have done by executing an idea found in some other person's thesis.”  I find this surprising: in my field (pure maths), it would be considered bad form at the very least to work on an idea that a colleague had suggested (especially a junior colleague) without first checking whether they were working on it themself, or planning to do so.  Applying their ideas in a direction of your own would be fine, but OP explicitly says “this is still an application of my idea and one that I suggested myself in my thesis” (emphasis mine).

Preamble
Since a country wasn't specified, I'll throw in a case against such re-use. Plagiarism isn't necessarily the case if the work was properly cited, used only in relevant parts and not re-written verbatim in large chunks.

Background
Depending on the intellectual property policy of the university itself, either the student, or the prof, or the university itself, owns the rights to any profit or IP generated through the course of one's studies. Most universities demand that all IP generated in a degree program by a student is owned by the university, regardless of whether or not the university provided any funding or real help.
Two Canadian universities that do not do this (that I know of) are the University of Waterloo in Ontario, and Simon Fraser University in BC. In the case of those two universities, it is very different: the student owns 100% of the rights to his/her research, and around the time of thesis defense, may:

Make the defense private to only people relevant to the defense.
Make all attendees sign legally binding waivers (i.e. non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs) that puts them on the hook for "perceived financial loss" if they disclose the contents of the thesis early.
Decline requests from students, "trouble makers", etc, that want to attend and will sign the NDAs, but likely wouldn't be able to pay for the damages incurred by disclosing the details of the thesis.
Request that publication of the entire thesis, with the exception of the thesis title (don't make it too descriptive), is delayed for one year.

Around 8 months after the (successful) thesis defense, the student may make a request for a second 1 year delay of publication, so that (provisional, draft, or full) patent applications can proceed.

Summary
If you have the right to delay publication due to you being the sole owner of your research, then yes: you can make your prof hold off on the work for 1-2 years. If you have the right to do so, this will likely sour your relationship with your prof, and being able to use him/her as a reference.
It's quite common for profs (at least in engineering) to have a piece of work that a PhD student did become the basis of the work for a fresh graduate student. Since there's now so much information on the subject, it provides a springboard for the next student to jump into academia.

My 2¢

If you intend to patent the work and make money off of it, see a lawyer. Since you likely did not take IP/legal precautions in advance, this likely won't be a fruitful endeavor.
If you're worried you'll be "muscled out" by your prof writing another paper on the subject, get cracking, and churn out more research of your own.
If you're feeling slighted by another student taking over your work, that's the norm in that industry, just like in non-academic settings when a new employee is brought in to replace someone who retired.
If you're upset on general principle that you aren't in control of the research anymore: that's just life, and the advancement of human intellectual progress. Don't resent it: we all benefit by the advancement of this body of knowledge. If that still bothers you, redouble your efforts to be an expert in your specialized area of expertise.

Edit
Here's an excerpt from SFU's IP policy guidelines:

The result of research is the generation of new knowledge. The
"ownership" of that new knowledge, especially when it is knowledge
with commercial implications and/or results in scholarly publications,
is a sensitive issue. The question of ownership in the context of the
student-supervisor relationship is often complicated by the close
collaboration between supervisor(s) and student during the course of
the research. It is further complicated by the fact that the
University and possibly an outside agency provide resources (e.g.
space, library, equipment, supplies) in support of the research.
At Simon Fraser University, unlike many other universities, the person
(student, staff or faculty member) who generates patentable new
knowledge is the owner of that knowledge; the University makes no
claim on it, unless the University is asked to help with the patenting
of the idea [see Policy R30.02]. The main federal and provincial
agencies which support university research through research grants
(NSERC, SSHRC, CIHR and SCBC) also make no claims on the results. On
the other hand, copyrightable new knowledge (e.g. books and software)
is usually owned jointly by the author and the University; consult
Policy R30.01.
Research contracts with government agencies or private companies often
stipulate that the rights to commercial exploitation of a discovery
belong in full or in part to the sponsoring agency. Because it is
University policy that the rights to a patentable discovery belong to
the discoverer(s), the University will approve contracts containing
such stipulations, as long as they do not restrict the ultimate
publication of the results (see Graduate General Regulation 1.11.3).

And here's the policy for the University of Waterloo, outright noting that research and all possible IP derived from it, is the property of the owner/inventor(s). It's no wonder these universities churn out so many startups and inventors: the student has a reason to care about the commercial viability of the research due to having an exclusive view to a profit from furthering the research.

University of Waterloo has long been known for researchers who are
entrepreneurial thinkers and industry partners.
At the core of entrepreneurship is Intellectual Property (IP) Rights
Policy #73, also called "creator-owned," which grants ownership to the
inventor. It's the engine for driving commercialization success of
research-based innovations and may be the most entrepreneurial
oriented IP policy in North America.
Waterloo embraces the philosophy that providing incentive through IP
ownership is the best motivator to ensure that commercialization of
research provides broad societal and economic benefit. The policy is a
feature in attracting entrepreneurial oriented faculty and graduate
students who want to engage in commercial enterprise (i.e., through
contract research and licensing opportunities with industry or
independently with their own research outcomes).
The policy and the university's entrepreneurial culture has positioned
Waterloo as a national leader in the transfer of ideas and technology
to the private sector.

The underlying assumption of your answer is that the mere statement of a research idea is already a unit of research work and, as such, automatically protected by intellectual property rights. I don't think that this is the case, but it would be interesting to see evidence for this assumption.

@lighthousekeeper I'll add an example in the case of SFU while I look for Waterloo's equivalent one. I should re-assert my initial assumption: this is assumed to be valid in the case of a select few universities where "original research" is treated as something tangible that can be "owned".

Thanks, but I think that's not the particular assumption I meant. I meant the assumption that an (unexecuted) idea is a research outcome. At least my answer would contradict this assumption.

@lighthousekeeper Ah, I understand you now. Well, in the case above I provided, it's basically a game of "mine" or "I called it" with kids reserving swings on a playground: anything is fair game to "claim".

Not sure where to conclude this from. The quotation from SFU you provided says "The result of research is the generation of new knowledge" and attributes the ownership of new knowledge to the person who generated the knowledge, but it doesn't say that it's fair to claim an unexecuted idea as a knowledge advancement. The quotation from U of Waterloo talks about "granting ownership to the inventor of research-based innovations", but it doesn't say that an unexecuted idea is an invention or innotivation.

Whomever came up with the idea, executed or not, is the effective owner of said idea. If there's a dispute over who came up with the idea, it's a matter for courts or whomever files first, I would imagine.

And that's precisely the claim I'm not so sure about. For example, the U of Waterloo statement explicitly uses the term "invention", which Merriam-Webster defines as "a device, contrivance, or process originated after study and experiment"--unexecuted ideas are clearly out of scope here.

I would explicitly discuss it with him and say that given its your idea and you know the details better than anyone, you want to be involved in the project and still have a leading role. You are leaving so you have nothing to lose by being assertive in a discussion like this. You can say they would lose valuable support and expertise that would help accomplish this whole cluster of projects that just spawned from your PhD. He probably will still come up with an elaborate excuse so that even if you are involved you wont be taking a central role. For the future I suggest keeping your ideas for yourself and share only things with colleagues, supervisors and community overall when they take a more "material" form...  By that point then authorship and ownership should be less fuzzy...

Your Ph.D. advisor should NOT be competing with you.  Even if his actions don't rise to the level of plagiarism, he is likely violating the Faculty Code of Conduct at his university. You should report him to your university's RIO. It's an RIO's job to look into these kinds of matters, and he or she will NOT be annoyed at you for wasting their time.

It is unwise to speculate about what may or may not annoy a third party - especially when it concerns their time.

Just for example, there is a detailed explanation in Ownership of
Intellectual Property for Purdue University.

Under Purdue policy, the University shall own all domestic
  and foreign rights in and to any and all inventions
  made or developed by all faculty, staff, students, and
  visiting scholars in the course of employment by the
  University, or through the use of University resources.
University resources mean any support administered by
  or through Purdue University, including but not limited
  to University funds, facilities, equipment or personnel,
  and funds, facilities, equipment or personnel provided by
  governmental, commercial, industrial, or other public or
  private organizations which are administered or controlled
  by the University

...

If a graduate student/post doc believes that they have
  participated in creating intellectual property that may be
  owned by Purdue University, they should first bring the
  intellectual property to the attention of their major professor
  or supervisor, or the head of their department.
  Then, the student/postdoc, in consultation with their
  advisor, supervisor, or head, should disclose the new
  intellectual property to the Purdue Research Foundation’s
  Office of Technology Commercialization (OTC).
  OTC has been assigned responsibility for evaluation,
  protection, and management of intellectual property
  owned by Purdue University.

...

Under University policy, net proceeds derived from
  licensing University intellectual property will be distributed
  one-third to the inventors/creators and two thirds
  to the University. One half of the University
  share will be returned to the inventors’/creators’ departments.

Basically, if there is no patent corresponding to what your idea is, there is no way you can prevent others from using the idea. Furthermore, the University insists that they own a majority share of any arising patent.

I am not sure what the laws are in other countries, but in the United States, almost every university has a research integrity officer, whose job it is to look into these kinds of matters.
For example, here is a page about research misconduct at UCLA:
http://ora.research.ucla.edu/RPC/Pages/ResearchMisconduct.aspx
If you click on their Policy 993: Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct, you can then click on "Look up contact person" to find that UCLA's Research Integrity Officer is Ann Pollack. Almost every university has such a policy and a person whose job it is to investigate.
You should write up your allegations of plagiarism clearly and include any supporting documents. If you are at a public university in the United States, you can frequently use the Freedom of Information Act (or its state equivalent) to request official copies of emails, for example.

The action being alleged here isn't plagiarism, though, provided that the advisor is going to cite the dissertation.  There is no misconduct here, as far as I can see (as explained in other answers) and an RIO would be annoyed at you for wasting their time.

If he can use the material you developed while working there depends on your local laws. Are the rights owned by the individual teacher/researcher or the university or the boss of the research group or maybe someone else entirely?
However, there is nothing stopping anyone from doing their own work based on anyone elses ideas. Often it is not the idea but how to put it into action and make it work that is interesting.
It is not so seldom that an idea is presented in one paper, does not get much attention and then brought up again later by someone else who gets much more attention because of a better explained application or implementation of the idea.

I really don't think that is fair. A student in your class worked effectively and produced an outstanding piece of work that has not been published before. For you to take credit from your students work shows that you aren't teaching to help your student but instead teaching to improve yourself. Regardless of what is legal, you should not be allowed to teach if you are teaching to benefit yourself and not those who are there to learn from you.

This doesn't seem to answer the question as stated.

You are asking: "Can a PhD supervisor take unpublished ideas from a student's dissertation?"
What do you mean by "take"? My answer is: If somebody "takes" your idea and says: "this idea belongs to such and such person", he/she can take it and do anything with it. But if somebody attributes this idea to him/herself, this is plagiarism.
My definition of plagiarism is: "Plagiarism is a falsification of the fact of authorship." Unfortunately, my definition of plagiarism has not been adopted. In fact, it is legally correct.
Now, there is also another problem here. One cannot simply "take" unpublished idea. If it's unpublished, you can speak about it only with the note "personal communication from ....", i. e. the author gave you permission to publish it.
If the idea was published, you must give valid reference, to journal, published dissertation, etc.

Now, I must add to my answer (second above) a note about so-called ownership. Published science is for anyone to use, well, if it is not patented. I guess there is a lot of misunderstanding and needless regulations here when ownership is somehow connected with authorship. They are totally different things.


text:
How do I politely and concisely ask for an external reference? And how long should I wait on a non-response before moving on?
For two fellowship applications, I need to ask an external referee, so an academic I don't know or don't know well, to independently evaluate my research proposal and background. I'm working on designing an e-mail to this effect, and was wondering if anyone had any thoughts or suggestions on the below? Secondly, how long should I wait with no response before asking someone else? (First deadline is Aug. 13.)
Thanks!

Dear Dr. X,
My  name is X -- I'm a PhD candidate in X at X where my research focuses on [insert 10 words or so]. I hope this message finds you well.
I'm in the process of developing two fellowship applications (X and X) that would allow me to work with X at the University of X on a project related to [insert 10 words or so]. I'm writing to ask whether you might  consider writing a reference letter as an arm's-length referee (i.e., no  professional affiliation with applicant or proposed supervisor) as part of these two applications. With some slight variation, referees are asked to evaluate the applicant's [lists couple things]. Accordingly, with some minor changes, the same letter could  be used for both applications.
I  would be thrilled to have your participation as a referee not least because of your long-standing expertise in and contributions to my current and proposed areas of research. From [article name] to [article name], your work has helped inform my understanding of issues integral to my emerging research agenda such as [X, X, and X]. For that reason, I believe that you may be especially well-placed to comment on the potential contributions of my proposed study and my research background broadly. Simply for your reference, the deadlines for these letters are X and X.
If this might be something you’re available and open to take on right now, I would be delighted to send you my research proposal and CV for your further consideration.
Thank you very much for your time,