text:
Mathematics teaching position in the UK
I hold a PhD in pure mathematics and am looking for mathematics teaching positions in the UK, preferably at University level.

What would be some websites where to find such ads?
What is the standard application procedure/requirements? When are the deadlines for applications? When are the offers typically made?

A note on question#2:
I would be interested in finding out whether there are any general comments one could make regarding the application/selection process by analogy to the US postdoc application system outlined in the next sentences. In the US, in order to apply for a postdoc position [research and teaching] one typically needs to submit 3 research recommendations, 1 teaching recommendation, a research statement, a teaching statement, cv, cover letter. Most deadlines are around November, December, January and I believe most offers are made in January - early February.
Thank you.

You'll get better answers if you stick to just one question per SE post.

I have just edited the question to fit the rules in the help center. Thank you.

Academic jobs in the UK are usually advertised on jobs.ac.uk website, but there are of course many others. Typically, you will be asked to submit your application online, including application form, cv, supporting documents and details of your references. Answers to other questions are more specific to each position. You may wish to familiarize yourself with the positions currently advertised on the website, to get a sense of the job market at the moment.

Such jobs are also sometimes posted on the site of the European Mathematical Society and on the mathematics departments webpages of the universities.

Thanks to Dmitry Savostyanov and Fabrice Baudoin for the very helpful advice. I would still appreciate any related comments/advice.

In particular, I would still be interested to read answers from persons who currently hold [or held in the past] such teaching positions.

I would also be interested in finding out whether there are any general comments one could make regarding the application/selection process. For instance, in the US there is a fairly standard application process for postdoc positions [research and teaching]: 3 research recommendations, 1 teaching recommendation, a research statement, a teaching statement, cv, cover letter; most deadlines are around November, December, January and I believe most offers are made in January - early February. My question is: could one make similar ``general'' statements regarding the teaching positions in the UK?

@user1451857, it would be good if you could edit your question to include your last comment.


text:
Edited volume (humanities) for tenure?
Does publishing an edited volume count for tenure (humanities)? And if so, does it count if you are 1st or 2nd editor in the same way?

Do you mean editing an existing volume or editor(s) of a new volume? Does the volume contain various papers of several authors or is it a monograph?

There is no standard.  It probably wouldn't be enough at Harvard.  You might not need to do any significant research for tenure at Southwest Northeast State University.  (I'm voting to close for depending on individual factors.)

Some humanities departments in some universities expect candidates for tenure to have published a book (and expect candidates for a full professorship to have published a second book). In such situations, I would not expect an edited volume to count as equivalent to a single-author book. There could be exceptions if the candidate can convince reviewers, deans, etc., that the editing was equivalent, in terms of amount of work and prestige, to writing a whole book.

It is likely that it would, but whether it counts for a lot or a little, regardless of author order, depends on the institution and on who is judging the tenure portfolio.
And, it might depend on your meaning of "edited volume".

This is the kind of question that calls for asking senior colleagues out for lunch of coffee. Only they will be able to say what the culture in a department expects for tenure.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why did I only receive reviews from reviewers 3 and 4?
I have recently received reviews for my manuscript from Elsevier.
There are comments from Reviewer #3 and Reviewer #4 only, does that mean reviewer 1 and 2 rejected the article??

Ask the editor.

More likely turned down the invite to review or did not respond.

Alternatively: the reviewer backed out after being sent the paper. I'm pretty sure my current paper in the review process had that happen. It went out for review and ended up with a different reviewer after just a couple of weeks.

If a reviewer has rejected your paper, their comments are probably the most important, as those would be the comments blocking your paper from being published.

Reviewer 1 was on holiday and reviewer 2 did not make the deadline due to covid infection

We’re just speculating, but another possibility is they sent a short response that’s not relevant to the author like “Looks interesting and at an appropriate level for the journal, but I’m too busy to write a report, maybe ask X, Y, or Z?”

Most likely they did not respond to the reviewer invitation, or accepted it but did not submit a review in time. The system still logs them as reviewers #1 and #2.

For most journals two reviews is standard, so as the others noted it's likely Revs. 1 and 2 did not submit a review at all, probably because they either forgot or didn't feel like they had sufficient expertise in the subject matter.

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


text:
I have just realized that my PhD supervisor is probably going to provide a bad recommandation letter? How can I stop him?
I spent the last 7 months looking for a postdoc after my PhD graduation. My toxic PhD advisor killed my previous postdoc, as they have withdrawn their offer after his non-negative but not enough positive input. I thought seriously about removing him from my reference list, but it was unavoidable as my other references know him and always mention him as being the one that knows me the best while submitting their own letters of recommendation.
I sent him two emails asking him for a meeting at his office about a month ago to discuss his negative input and to sort out things, but he never answered. He thinks that I am not aware that he sabotaged that other postdoc opportunity. I am currently applying to a better postdoc position, and I stupidly included him again as a reference. I sent a fresh email thanking him in advance for the support he is willing to provide by writing that letter, and again I got no answer at all. I am afraid now he would do the same thing for that position.
How can I stop him from sending his letter, and what can I do in case he also kills my changes for that position? By the way, the other two references have already submitted their references, and they are both positive.

You have my sympathies.  The bad news is that, unfortunately, if your doctoral advisor is working against you, you are probably going to have an extraordinarily hard time finding a research position.

A part from having only one side of the story, I think there are some "nuances" related to cultural environment that cannot be easily expressed. Yes, I mean that an asshole in a country may just be the median person in another country.
Said this, brace for the worst, but avoid moral judgements. "To err is human, to keep erring is stupid". You have not been stupid including him in the reference lists. Unless you do it again ;) .

The question anyone reading this post is going to ask is "Why does your adviser want to sabotage you?" Few people do it because they just are truly evil. Rather, most people actually have reasonably good reasons to write negative letters, but your post does not comment on any of that -- and without that piece of information, you're unlikely going to get useful answers here.

@WolfgangBangerth He wanted me to stay after the PhD but without paying me, so due to my difficult financial situation, I had to kindly decline his offer. And yes, he is evil, let's say that I was the only foreigner in that Lab, the PhD was hell, he was always micromanaging me and setting colleagues against me, isolating me from the rest of the Lab and department, making me feel that It's my fault if experiments aren't working, spending my grant on another project, shutting doors in m'y face, leaking gossips about me, creating conflicts out of nowhere, Never aknowledging my hard work..

@Heidi If you characterize your advisor as inherently evil, then it is understandable that your relation is not good.

@Thissitehasbecomeadump. Sabotaging people's applications is evil! The funny things Is that I have Never made an issue out of any provocation, I have Always shown respect no matter what.  He actually fought with every single student in that Lab, to establish a good relationship with him you have to kiss his ass and accept to be his slave, then you might get some rewards.

It's impossible to know from just one side, but I have definitely known supervisors to sabotage their PhD's postdoc searches in hope that they would remain in their lab as a highly productive, cowed, underpaid postdoc. In one case, the letter was so transparently manipulative that the recipients disclosed its contents to the candidate, because they could tell that there was something fishy, and so the candidate eventually managed to get a position. Good luck, OP.

@Ottie Thank you for your feedback. Indeed, he killed also this position.

We are just anonymous people on the internet, we know only your side of the story, so apologizes if maybe I am missing your point.
The bad news is that you have a difficult path in front of you, the good news is that you already survived your PhD in such an unfriendly environment to you, so the difficult path will be a tad easier.
You got your PhD, you completed this huge building block, but now you need to start from scratch, you will sail among peers in treacherous sea, better alone than in bad company, stop thinking the link to your advisor will help you in any form, he already showed you he will not. The only way he may help you, via his reputation, is already present: if his name is of any help, it already stands on your thesis, so that is enough.
I suggest to get in touch personally with researcher in your area. It was hard before covid, it was harder during covid, now it is halfway beetwen hard and harder. Best way is to attend a conference, a symposium, even a workshop lasting 3 or more days. To get you in the right mood, present a poster. If you do not manage to get your old advisor funding the trip, pay it with your money (consider it an investment). Once there, get in touch with researchers. During the formal moment, try to gather as much scientifical inforamtions about reserarch challenging your advisor work (you need a fresh restart on your knowledge, to clean yourself from the toxic relation, maybe you will discover his contributions are scientifically crap. Or marvellous, who cares, the goal is to rebuild the scientific image you have of your advisor, and forget about them as person).
At informal moments, try to get in touch with former students of your advisor. Ask them how was their experience From what you describe, it is likely that your advisor behaved similarly in the past. Ask them for advice. Ask them for openings.
In short: you only need 6 months of contracts with someone else, to replace your advisor from your referee's list. If you really want to stay in the academia, be open, any position will help you, do compromise on the location, even on the topic of your future position.

Thank you very much for your feedback. I tried everything I could to overcome this hard situation and to not take It personal, but as you Said, It Is hard to get a position especially now, I Just Don't understand why, Why would you do that to your former student? The two postdocs are prestigious and he isn't taking It. I avoided making drama the last time even though I knew that he was behind the offer withdrawal, but this time I can't tolerate another marvellous action from Him, if you won't write a positive letter then dont do It at all!! He said he will write a good letter then stabbed me..

If you do not understand it, ignore it! It works in science, as well as in personal matters (to some degrees). Just ignore him. Don't count on him, you have a PhD, you will learn what you can and what you cannot do on your own. Good luck!

There are a number of questions on this site from graduating students who have a toxic relationship with their advisor and as a result feel the advisor can’t or won’t write them a good letter of recommendation, and want to know how they can still move forward with their academic careers.
The standard answer for this seems to be to not include a letter from the advisor, but to carefully and as diplomatically as possible explain in your job applications why you are not including such a letter. This has some chance of working, since people in academia are generally aware that not all advisors are as professional, ethical, and diligent about advocating for their students as they should be.
If you have already given the name of the advisor as a reference, I can only suggest to contact the employers you applied to and ask to remove the adviser from the list of references and to ignore any letter received from them. Provide an alternative reference if possible. And again, you’ll need to write a pretty compelling explanation of why your adviser’s reference should not be treated as a good faith, honest reference. The point is that the mere fact that you expect their letter would be negative, or not positive enough, is not sufficient, since from the employer’s point of view there is no reason to think that a negative recommendation is less credible than a positive one. You need to find a way to help them see that it’s the positive (hopefully very positive) things that your other references will write about you that represent the “real” you. This of course depends greatly on the details of the situation with your adviser, so I can’t give more specific advice. But that’s the general approach that I think I’d recommend following. Either that, or find a way to quickly mend your relationship with the adviser so that they’ll be inclined to write a more positive (and more truthful) letter. Good luck!

Thank you very much for your feedback. There's nothing I can do at this stage as he already sinked my application.

@Heidi I’m confused. Your question was about what you can do, so I gave you the best advice I could think of. It’s not guaranteed to work, but it’s worth a shot at least. If you say there is nothing you can do, then what are you asking exactly?

Thank you very much for your advices, I would have followed them if he didn't killed the job for me, I was notified earlier that they don't think I would be a good fit for them, that's Why I wrote that there's nothing to do anymore at least for that job.

@Heidi I’m very sorry to hear that. Best of luck with your career in any case.

Thank you so much.


text:
How to write a scientifc work of my design
I want to write a scientific master thesis. I dont want it to look like a technical report.
I had to configure a system: It contains roughly 2 chips.
Then this system has to send data to another system with same architecture.
I had a lot of work to programm one of those chips. Looking at other scientific theses, I don't see that they even mention how they programmed their chips.
I want to show the difficulties of programming it. Maybe only some important code.What do you think about it?
I dont understand the scientific way of writing a thesis.
So maybe you can explain it easy.

I tried to look at other scientifc work:
E.g. a white paper shows everything in one page, or here on three:
For a normal human being, it would not be possible to recreate this, without the basics and also test environment.
Its like someone crazy on the street tells me what they have done. For understanding I should recreate their experiment. This would take a lot of time.
E.g a thesis:
It looks the same but bigger.
It is also not possible to recreate it without knowing more basics.
But I already saw that the author points to some literature.
But it is like someone on the street tells me, what they have done and tells me I can look into books to find out, how to do it in real.
structure
Is it right to use language like:" (...)we
have already discussed in section (...)"
Shouldnt it be like" (...)it was already discussed (...)"?
UPDATE:
I am reading a book about scientific writing: The work shouldn't show the chronology. It is no experience report. It is a result oriented summary. So keep in mind that you choose a logical structure, that has no repetition of results. Don't structure it in that way that you need to present results before they are done in the thesis. The process of creating the thesis means often that you work iteratively, with trial-and-error.
The steps are irrelevant only the planned methods how to do it and the results are relevant. Only present results in text that are relevant.
The whole work process/effort doesn't play a role.
Talking to people, reassembling a working peace or reproducing components are not relevant for the result.
Same is for long looking for an error in the program code.
A big effort is usually treated with little to no scope in the thesis.
The advisor will take it into account....

thank you for your answer! I tried to change it. Hmm I just wonder why in scientif thesis they only describe roughly the methods.  they also show some results and discuss it . but they dont show in detail how they have done it...

ok I added master thesis .

What does your advisor say about those points?

last time he said it looks like I make a technical report. so now I wanted to improve my structure but I saw, that a scientific work is totaly different . Or at least I dont know how to describe the developments I have done in a scientific way

A technical report states how something was done.
A scientific report states a hypothesis and how it was tested.  Your explanation so far does not state a hypothesis.

CS is a bit different from classical science. Not all theses have that structure, actually, though many do.

That's true.  The question is tagged computer science, but the question asks about "scientific work."  Definitely not the same thing.

Actually, I think the OP is a bit confused on this issue. Not unexpected in a novice.

Hey Anonymous Physicist thank you. This what I also wanted to know. A hypothesis and how it was tested. What should I do if the task was to check if I can improve a speed connection by using a specific protocol ? Finally I implemented the connection and tested it. What is scientifc about it?


text:
Associate Editorship in a high-impact journal
Is an Associate Editorship in a good journal a very busy position? Should junior faculties at the very early stage (i.e. at the time of joining the department as a faculty) put an effort of being an associate editor in a high-impact journal?
Or two or three years after working as a faculty, one should get into these editorial activities? To get tenure on the way down the road, how helpful this role is?

In my field, associate editors are not usually positions you apply for.  Someone (usually someone else on the editorial board or from the journal staff) recommends you for the position on the basis of your reputation or previous work done with the journal, v.g. member of an advisory panel, long history of refereeing for the journal, i.e. you have to be a known entity.
Depending on the level of support, it can be quite time-consuming, especially if you want to do a good job, v.g consider going beyond the referees recommended by the system or by the authors, keep everything on track.  I would ration myself only to so-many manuscript at once or else this would become all-consuming time wise.


text:
Is it appropriate for a PI to appoint someone who is a family member?
I am a junior faculty in one of the top-tier research US institutions. I just joined the department and hired two GRAs meanwhile. In addition, I would like to appoint one more individual in my research group who could be appointed as a research engineer/technician. His/her role would be to support my research program and assist my GRAs on their PhD work. I am wondering whether there are any legal issues/conflict of interests if he/she is one of my family members. How will the department see this recruitment?

is this the hill you want to die on? Even if legal and allowed, it would probably be frowned upon and could have unexpected consequences. I would suggest handing over the selection process to a third party, but even then the suspicion of wrongdoing might linger. In some cases, suspicion is enough to royally screw someone.

Are you picking them because they're the best person you know for job, or to help them out? Even if you prefer them as a candidate, wouldn't the institutions' policies require you to advertise the position? and then also recuse yourself from interviewing other candidates?

@FábioDias Avoid answering questions in comments. If you have an answer please use the box marked Your Answer so it can be vetted by the community.

The rules differ from country to country, university to university, and department to department.
On a practical note, I would not want to be in a supervisory role towards a family member. In that role I need to be able to make unpleasant decisions, like tell someone if (s)he did a bad job, handle complaints, or even discontinue employment. That is hard enough as is, but if it involves a family member...

At least in the US, you're probably not even going to be allowed to be the supervisor in charge of someone. You may be the one who says what needs to be done, but all HR things (salary, disciplinary issues, etc) will likely have to be handled by someone else.

@WolfgangBangerth Interestingly at my university (in the U.S.) the conflict of interest rules only extend to spouses and siblings. Or at least they did before someone got in trouble for using that loophole.

Many, if not most, universities have policies that would forbid this, or require extra scrutiny.
Search your university's hiring, HR, and conflict-of-interest policies to see if they address this (it could be under "nepotism").  Even if you don't find anything forbidding it, don't go ahead yet - check with your department chair and/or HR administrators.  Make sure you can make a clear case as to why your family member is qualified, and why the direct hire would be better than an open application process.  Don't go ahead with the hire until you have explicit informed approval from someone who has the authority to approve it.
If the money for this position comes from an external grant, you should repeat the above steps with "university" replaced by "funding agency".

All the existing answers point in the same correct direction, but are in my opinion too mild.
This is an horrendous idea. Don't do it.
It's irrelevant whether your chair / department / university / funding source formally allows it. It does not matter if your family member is the most qualified candidate. You will run into suspicions of nepotism, which are virtually impossible to ever fully get rid of. People will talk. You don't want any of that at a place that you quite likely will spend the rest of your working career at, and you most definitely don't want any of that so early in your career and prior to getting tenure.
If your family member is qualified and in need for a job like this, strongly recommend them the next time of your colleagues is hiring for a similar role. Don't take them on yourself.

Agreed.  Let's be realistic about the following feature of modern professional life: even if something isn't bad, if it looks bad to a sufficiently wide audience then it is likely to be bad for you in the future.  Not all workplace evaluations are formalized and objective; on the contrary, we are informally, subjectively evaluating each other all the time.  (I didn't say it was a good thing...)

@PeteL.Clark I guess that's a feature of life in general ...

Nepophobia: where a brilliant candidate can't get a job or promotion because he/she happens to be related to people of influence. It's a real thing and can be quite damaging to organisations and individuals.

While I think the advice here and here is sound, let me make another observation. If the reason you want to hire this person is because they are a family member rather than in spite of it then it is probably a bad idea in any case, even if legal. Otherwise, it is a bit more ambiguous.
One way to avoid some, but not all, of the conflicts, if you think they are indeed the best person for the job is to see if you can defer the decision to hire to one of your superiors, say the head of the department. If your superior agrees that they should be hired, not just that they can be hired then go ahead. This won't solve the day-to-day supervision issues, nor the issue of what would occur if they had to be fired, of course.

@GürayHatipoğlu Family relationships can always raise suspicion. More so in some place than others, I guess. It is best to help family members from a bit of a distance in general.


text:
How does a recognized and well-known Professor help his students in getting an academic job?
It is often told that working under big shots (I mean, recognized professors) in a particular research field is always beneficial on the way towards getting a faculty job in top research universities (perhaps in the US). My concern is how a big professor can help his students (PhDs, postdocs, project scientists who are badly seeking a faculty job) in addition to providing a recommendation letter? Is there anything else they could favor me on? Or, in other words, is there anything else I could ask them giving me a favor for? For instance, can I ask my professors to give a phone call to the faculty search committee (where I submitted my application) to consider my application with care? Such effort is nothing but highlighting one's application so that the search committee gives a special attention to it.

Theoretically, they should be hiring the best candidate for the job, considering the candidate's skills and merits, not his/her supervisor's.

@DmitrySavostyanov, there are often several (3-10) candidates who would all work in a department, so a personal recommendation beyond the usual glowing letter can go a long way in figuring out who to make an offer to.

This doesn't usually work that way. When your prof gets involved on your behalf, besides writing the most stellar recommendation letter they can, they're just going to pick up the phone and call if they know someone at the place you are applying. A personal recommendation beyond the usual stellar letter from someone trustworthy that you know can go a long way towards differentiating between otherwise equally viable candidates.

... which turns academia into a closed world of "someone you know". I personally fail to see how this is ethical, but perhaps I'm too young to realise.

@Dmitry, there is nothing bad on it. Thats pretty much how such things work in the US and Germany, as far as I know.

@DmitrySavostyanov This won't actually get you the job, just make it more likely that you your application is considered or that you make it to the shortlist. In my field, there is usually a shortlist of 5-10 applicants of whom 3-5 are invited to interview; by that stage, you make it or not on your own effort.

@Dmitry: when you have to assess 200+ applicants for a position, a pointer from someone you know and you trust is welcome information.

@Bill and Martin. I totally agree with you. However, my concern is how could I approach my research supervisor and ask him to give me such favor? How reasonable it is to ask him for giving me such favor, given that I have been working under him for more than a year as a scientific staff? Can anyone share his experiences regarding this ?

@DmitrySavostyanov You are not wrong, but try to see it from the search committee's view - their overarching goal isn't to have the fairest process, it's to find the best candidate with the tools they have. Assessing candidates in advance is extremely difficult, and recommendations from people they know are, unfortunately, a really useful indicator.

@DmitrySavostyanov Another way to view it are as false positives (bad candidate seems good and gets an offer) and false negatives (good candidate seems bad). Rec. letters are very good at preventing false positives, but help very little with false negatives. However, to the faculty, false positives are so much worse than false negatives that they are willing to accept this problem. (the candidate will disagree of course, but (s)he is not making this decision)

One of the advantages of having a well-known professor is that they can introduce you to more colleagues (and potential collaborators!) at conferences or graduate school than a less-well-known professor can. That improves your chance that somebody on the search committee knows you or of you, or has worked with you directly or indirectly on a project.

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


text:
How to address the ability to work with culturally diverse populations and on interdisciplinary teams in an academic job application?
Sometimes it is mentioned in the US academic position announcement that "Applicants must address in their application their ability to work with culturally diverse populations and on interdisciplinary teams" where the following documents are asked from the applicants:
1) resume,
2) work-related references,
3) letter of application,
4) official employment application
I would like to know how to address one's ability to work with culturally diverse populations and on interdisciplinary teams in an efficient and effective way through these above-mentioned documents. No.3 (i.e cover letter, usually not more than 2-pages) could be the most probable one where the applicant may claim briefly that he or she has the ability ...... Is there anything else the candidates should be doing in this regard?

All such things generally go in the cover letter. Where else would you put them? Actually, at least you have something to include in the letter, I usually struggle to write one page of relevant stuff; you get a topic for 10 lines for free! ;-)

Take the free online class:  http://www.cirtl.net/f15-diversity-in-stem
I took a similar class.

Broadly, this can be addressed in (1) and (3) by specifically (re)writing portions of your resume and cover letter to highlight interdisciplinary work you've done and multicultural teams you've been a part of, and in (2) by asking your references to mention it in their conversations/letters.
More specifically:
While it's pretty obvious that most cover letters you send out will be at least somewhat specific to the each position, it may be less apparently that your resume can be the same. In this case, you'll want to modify your resume to highlight cross-disciplinary and multicultural work you've done at previous institutions. List bullet points that specifically call out researchers from other fields. Mention the nationalities of the colleagues with whom you've had a public collaboration. For both of these, it will look waaay better if you also list papers you've written or grants that were funded as a result of the collaboration; it will show that you can not only collaborate, but you can collaborate effectively.
For your references, you should mention that this position is something that the institution is asking to have called out, and request that they do so in their letters and conversations. This is as simple as it sounds; just speak to them and make sure they're aware of it. Hopefully they won't forget and all will be well.
Good luck!

I'm going to answer the "culturally diverse populations" part of your question, and hope that someone else addresses the "interdisciplinary teams" part.
When I sit on a committee evaluating candidates, I look very carefully at this aspect.  (Truth be told, not everyone does... but there are other people out there who share my interest in this aspect of hiring.)  When I see a candidate who is strong in other respects, I pore over the application packet to try to find evidence that the candidate "gets" it, and that the candidate will support the institution's commitment to increasing racial and cultural diversity.
I look in all four places.
I'm not saying you have to cover all four....  I'm saying that if candidates have relevant real-life experience and and a thoughtful attitude regarding the challenges faced in academia by members of underrepresented groups, they may very well have things to include in any or all of those four parts of the application.
In case you are also wondering But what should I do if I don't have any experience working with culturally diverse populations? I would say, in the short term, be honest.  In the long term, you might ask your institution's outreach department how you might support their efforts -- you could start with something as simple as showing people around your lab on an annual community visitation day.

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


text:
What is the meaning of posting a position-opening announcement multiple times at a research-focused institution?
There was a position-opening announcement posted in a department's homepage of a research-focused institution in the US on February 14, 2015. I firmly believe my experiences and track record make me an excellent fit for this opening. Therefore, I applied for this position on-time. It was mentioned in the opening description that  application material must be received by April 14, 2015 to receive guaranteed consideration, though the search will remain open until the position is filled. However, the strange thing which I noticed that the same opening was posted again in their homepage with new a submission deadline (i.e. June 14, 2015). I then reapplied for this opening. Two months later from this new date, I contacted the Chair of the search committee and asked the status of my application. However, I did not get any response from him.  Just today I got notified from job search engine (verified also in their homepage) that the same opening has provided a new application-submission deadline which has been set to November 1, 2015. I am curious to know what this means. Does it mean that they have not found any suitable candidate for this opening or something else?

I don't know what kind of position it is, but are you sure it's not additional instances of the position being offered?
That said, it sounds as if they're not getting the applicant pool or number of applicants that they want.  In my experience, hiring committees want three or four good candidates, even if one stands out from the rest.
Maybe they have found that your qualifications don't meet the requirements as well as you think they do?  Your not getting an email back from the search committee chair is probably significant -- or maybe your email got lost in the internets.

faculty positions at the rank of tenure-track. Initially they asked for tenure-track assistant/associate/professor levels. But today I noticed that they modified this to assistant professor.

If faculty positions, it seems pretty clear that they're not getting the applicants they want.  It would be unconscionable for them to keep reopening the position if they had a good candidate, who now has been kept waiting for almost a year.

Agreed. The scenario seems symptomatic of multiple failed searches.

Understood! Well, then should I reapply for this position with my updated CV (although not much changes in my CV except adding 1/2 publications)? Or should I try to reach out to the Chair of the search committee to make sure that my qualifications really don't meet the requirements ?

If nothing much has changed, I wouldn't submit your CV again.  And it would be pretty unusual for a chair to give feedback on your application or listen to you dispute that you are in fact qualified and the committee just isn't seeing it.  Sadly, it sounds as if you need to move on to applying for the next position.

I appreciate that you don't want to seem pushy.  However, there is nothing wrong with phoning to make sure your application has been received.  During that phone conversation, you can ask a couple of additional questions.  One question to avoid asking in any shape or form: "Do I meet the requirements for the position?"  You may, however, ask: "When the position gets re-announced, should I re-submit my application in order to be considered?"

I totally agree with aparente001 on the fact that I should not be pushy. However, I am not confident of making call to the Chair of the search committee regarding my application. One thing I could tell that the university did acknowledge that my application was received by them and asked me to fill out  Affirmative Action Form 2 -- Employee Information Request as well as the Voluntary Self-Identification of Disability form.

@ArafinArif - Could you edit your question to include that information?  Also, could you clarify whether that was after your first or your second submission?  ---  At any rate, perhaps you would be more comfortable speaking with an administrative assistant on the phone.  Or you could try emailing one more time.  Your question: Do I need to re-submit my application for it to be considered in this third round?  Or, rephrased: Will my previous application be automatically considered in this third round, or do I need to re-apply?


text:
Could conducting collaborative research with more than one professor BEFORE applying for a PhD lower an applicant's chances of acceptance?
I have been doing teaching work in my field for several years while at the same time conducting and publishing research (I am from a developing country). All of these projects have been collaborative, with two being conducted alongside two different professors. Now, I feel I am ready to apply for a PhD but one of the professors, who is also abroad, is keen on doing a couple of more projects with me. I am concerned and ambivalent about this for two reasons:

The first project we did together was relevant to my research interests/expertise and my role/contribution was clear there. But, the new projects are at best tangentially relevant to my interests and future research area. I am worried that conducting research on such topics could mean (to a potential PhD supervisor or graduate admissions committee) that I am somehow intellectually disorganized or still undecided about my main interests.

Relatedly, I am concerned that reporting even more collaborations on my CV at this stage may put off potential PhD supervisors who may become suspicious of my commitment to their program or think my attention will be divided.

Is there any validity to these concerns? Or, am I just passing up on a good opportunity to expand my research profile?

I don't see any problem with adding additional collaborative projects, but make sure you can finish something and aren't stretching yourself so thin that you make no progress.
There's nothing wrong with exploring research interests, if anything, it's a benefit. But you also want to show you have some follow-through. It's completely different to have started 10 different things and finished none of them than if you've completed some projects and also tested the waters on others.

It is hard to see how doing research, especially collaborative research, could be a bad thing. If someone (and there may be a few) would mark you down for that then you probably don't want to work with them in any case.
However, an advisor would probably want some commitment from you that you will focus on the research you do with them. That is natural. But even then, it is useful for a student to have interests beyond their dissertation in order to give their mind a rest when blocks appear. Changing your focus can be a good thing if it doesn't become overwhelming.


text:
My MA thesis has flaws. How do I present it during PhD application?
I think my MA thesis may not be very good in some areas (e.g., research design, data analysis). However, during the past several years I have not only been working in my field, but I have also managed to make up for this by publishing a couple of world class peer-reviewed articles and have a couple of articles under review in flagship journals. Now, I am applying for a PhD and they want my MA thesis among other documents. It does not reflect my "current" research abilities at all so I think it is not a fair way to assess me now after all this time, effort, and achievement.
In any case, how can I confront this situation? I was thinking about adding a cover letter to my thesis which indicates upfront that this thesis is not my best work and may have flaws and then proceeding to more precisely refer to these flaws and how they can be rectified.
Is this a good strategy? Do you have any other suggestions?

If your articles are indeed "world class" then you should have no problems at all.

I believe they are in my field. Firstly, the journals where they were published are considered flagship, leading journals in our discipline and they are published by prestigious publishers (Elsevier). They also have very good impact factors and other indices. But, what do you think about adding a cover letter?

The following is a list of all flawless masters theses that are accurate representations of the authors' ability 7 years later ever produced:

@Sam: Indeed, if any satisfied BOTH these conditions originally, then it probably didn't remain an example, as was the case with this originally submitted Masters thesis that otherwise might have made it onto your list.

It's worth noting that if your research and writing skills are better now then they were in 2014, that's a good thing.  If someone says "hey, your thesis sucks", you can say "yes, I know - I didn't really want to point that out - but I've learned from that, look at my more recent work"

@sam: Claude Shannon has a pretty flawless master thesis, even to the point that people still read it after 80 years (whereas almost nobody reads almost all masters theses): https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/11173

@briandfoy So it satisfies the first condition. Shannon probably wouldn't be happy if you suggested that his abilities didn't improve at all over the following years!

Since you have been less than perfect in research so far, it is imperative that you only apply to graduate programs where your work will be judged by people with imperfect research histories.
Lucky for you, that describes everyone.
No need to dwell on or emphasize past work that you can imagine improving on. If you have interviews you can be prepared to talk about ways you would improve if prompted. Be forward-thinking: what have you learned and how would you do different next time? rather than "my past work doesn't meet my standards". Definitely don't dwell on things like the quality of your supervision - it sounds like an excuse. Otherwise, focus on work you are most proud of when applicable, and feel safe in knowing that research is never a flawless process.

Oh no no no... not meeeeee..    what? ..... never mind. (+1) -- Apologies to Gilda Radner.

(+1) for "Definitely don't dwell on things like the quality of your supervision - it sounds like an excuse", as you've already gotten a +1 for your second sentence.

Gotta love the first two paragraphs!

Do not mention anything related to the master thesis being flawed or of poor quality. It is supposed to be a degree rather than a big contribution.
The situation would vary depending on the selection procedures. Perhaps nobody will even have a glance at it, especially if you have already two papers. Those would be probably scrutinised in more details, or at least taken into greater consideration.

This is a good point thank you. Even if I want to include a letter or note maybe it is better to simply state that this work reflects my very early attempts at learning how to conduct research. Or, maybe not. I need to think about this.

Exactly, no need to think.

While the thesis should be in the CV (etc) there is no need to talk about it at all. Focus on recent work in the application. If anyone asks about the thesis, just say that "I've learned a lot since those days." Don't give excuses, just focus on where you are now. If someone says "this thesis is terrible", just say "yep" and refocus on the present.

In the cover letter, just state that you are happy about how you could progress from writing a Master thesis with very poor supervision and no chance to have it reviewed, since bein written while a student at "university X" of "country Y educational systems plagued with issuesABC" to publishing articles in top journals as first author and that you feel ready to pursue a PhD.

No, don't talk about poor supervision. It is a "whine".

@MorganRodgers congrats. If it was "country USA educational systems plagued with issues of racism and sexism" I am sure you would see the cover letter in another light.
Unless you are the classical white privileged male from US, that cannot see farther than one nose length, while pretending to have progressive views.


text:
What if university guidelines are not clear about contacting professors/potential advisors?
Some universities do not clearly state that I should not or must not contact potential PhD advisors. For instance, one says it is not "necessary" to contact an advisor during the application process. Supervision will be decided later. Does this mean contact is not necessary but you can do it if you like? Or does it mean not necessary so do not attempt at all?
(I am applying to do a PhD in educational sciences).

It means "Don't bother the professors. They are busy and it won't affect anything. Don't be a nuisance." If this is the US, individual professors don't/can't accept people into the program.

Is this for the US?

@Buffy This one is in Canada. My purpose is not to ask a professor to accept me. It is to know my chances of finding an available supervisor at all. Many people do not come from backgrounds where they can't simply pay application fees and hope for the best. So, overall, you suggest I should just apply blind or not apply at all?

@Buffy I must add that I am in the educational sciences and our PhD application outcomes are usually decided by a committee.

I wish we could get an answer to the following question for Canada, but I don't have any help for you. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/176908/how-does-the-admissions-process-work-for-ph-d-programs-in-country-x#176908

@Buffy Thanks. So if I understand you correctly, in the US whether they say I "should not" contact or it is "not necessary" to contact it does not make a difference? Your suggestion is  not to do it? What If I go ahead and make contact anyway, will I just be ignored or could it negatively affect my chances?

I'd suggest not unless there are some special circumstances. See my first comment.

Actually, the instructions are SUPER clear.
With these instructions, I would recommend only contacting a professor in that department if there is a real reason why you feel that a professor might choose to advocate for you in the admissions process.  You should consider this a substantially high bar to get over.
For example, if you've met the professor at a conference because of research you've done, or if you've been very immersed in research directly related to that investigators lab.  In this case, you're probably doing the professor a favor by pointing out that there may be an entering grad student they'd have interest in.
An additional time when I think it would be a good idea to contact the prof is if you would only attend that university if offered a slot in that professor's lab.  In this case, contacting the prof to find out if this is a viable possibility can save both you and the program you're applying to time and expense.  If there are three or four labs you'd be willing to work in, skip this.
Generally, at least in the US, it's probably only a good idea to contact the prof if establishing a relationship would be mutually beneficial, keeping in mind that the prof will be competing with other profs for the best grad students in their program.
If your letter to the prof would look like "you don't know me, but I've heard of your field and I think I would like working in it -- please do what you can to get me admitted"  -- that's pretty much just noise.

My advice is that you don't contact individual professors unless it is clearly required, as is true in some countries and in some field more generally.
In particular, don't flood them with the things that would normally appear in an application sent to the department/committee. They have no need to see this and are unlikely to do anything more than delete what you send. The more courteous will send you a note to apply through channels, even if they don't actually look at what you send.
People are busy. Don't ask them for things they probably can't do and that would interrupt their work process. And don't try to circumvent the normal application process. Nobody will be impressed by that.
On rare occasions, it is possible that one professor will recommend a student, out of process, to a colleague at another university, but only if some special circumstance applies that the sender thinks the receiver needs to be aware of. I have done this, successfully, though it was part of the application process, when it was clear that something in the record was misinterpreted. But a student has no "standing" to do this on their own. And, I was putting my own reputation on the line, of course.


text:
If I apply for a PhD in educational psychology in the US, how likely am I to find a job?
If I start an educational psychology PhD, would my background in English hold me back from securing a job after graduation?
Would they even look at my BA and MA degrees, when they are considering me for a position (let's say an academic position in educational psychology)? Is there anything I may be missing regarding this decision?

My initial reaction is one of puzzlement at the question itself. If you have a Ph.D. in educational psychology, then surely you're qualified to teach pretty much all the undergraduate educational psychology courses that one could take as an undergraduate, and presumably the same regarding Masters level courses in your subfield, and at worst your different BA and MA degrees shouldn't subtract from your already established credentials due to your Ph.D. But I'm in math, which is very hierarchical, and perhaps my thinking doesn't apply to educational psychology.

@DaveLRenfro I'm closer to ed psych than you are, and you are correct, a PhD in ed psych should be qualified to teach any undergrad course, although of course they'll have their areas of specialization just like anyone.

While it is difficult to predict what individual employers might do, in general it is your most recent degree that is relevant. Even leaving out the "ranking" of your university, if you have a doctorate in X you are eligible for positions in X.
But, the job market is tight at the moment and you are trying to project several years into the future. But the early degrees are unlikely to have any negative impact for most purposes.
A well-known advisor is a plus, of course.
It also seems like not doing this is your worst option.


text:
Will professors get dismissed for not actively doing research?
According to Wikipedia:

A tenured professor or curator has an appointment that lasts until retirement age, except for dismissal with just cause. A common justification for existence of such a privileged position is the principle of academic freedom, which holds that it is beneficial for state, society and academy in the long run if scholars are free to examine, hold, and advance controversial views.

I know this "just cause" includes academic misconducts and crimes, but my question is about a mild case:
I have heard that professors and associate professors have certain research requirements. If a professor or associate professor stops to be active in his research (for instance, publishing very few or even no papers for years) after he gets tenured (but let's assume he still does a fair job in teaching and outreach), will he be dismissed from the university?
If there are no such examples, then what is the binding power of research requirements upon professors and associate professors?

Professors who aren't producing enough research, but are otherwise competent, generally find themselves with more admin than they know what to do with :) The binding power of research requirements is that many (most?) professors prefer research to admin, and therefore know they won't like the inevitable consequences of not doing enough research. Put another way: firing people is so drastic when there are other ways...

Teaching responsibilities are also set by the department - if you are not doing research, you are going to be asked to be teaching more, and often teaching less interesting courses. I've seen schemes like: active, grant-seeking people teach 1/1, if you write a paper every few years, 2/2, if you've given up entirely, 3/3. Not fulfilling your teaching duties, of course, is just cause.

Related: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/37516/what-are-the-negative-consequences-of-slacking-off-after-attaining-tenure

What is the binding power of research requirements upon professors and associate professors?

Without some specific agreement to the contrary, tenure means you can't be fired for doing insufficiently good research.  Some tenured positions involve post-tenure review, which can weaken the notion of tenure by expanding the cases in which you could be disciplined or even fired, but this is not the default.
On the other hand, there are tons of other ways to enforce requirements.  If a professor is not doing good research, they may be asked to take on extra teaching or service (which is reasonable: if they aren't spending time productively on research, then they should spend it on something else).  In more extreme cases, they might never get a raise again, in which case their salary is gradually eaten away by inflation if they aren't near retirement.  If the chair specifically wants to punish someone, they can assign them the classes or committees nobody else wants, give them the least desirable office, etc.  In short, there are lots of ways a tenured position can become unpleasant, which gives the administration more leverage than one might guess from the definition of tenure.

I don't think tenure guarantees an office space or parking.  Tenured faculty are guaranteed a pee bucket; or access to a restroom with running water and flush toilets.

In the same vein as emory's comment, tenured faculty are periodically reviewed for further promotion, merit raises, and salary raises. There are a lot of ways to make a tenured professor uncomfortable short of firing them.

I don't know of examples, but it's plausible. Remember that the purpose of tenure is to guarantee academic freedom, not to guarantee employment. While there is certainly an expectation of continued employment, it's not inviolable.
A particular institution's employment contract (or their faculty manual, if it has been incorporated to the employment contract, as is commonly done) will outline exactly how and when a tenured employee can be terminated. However, tenured faculty typically sign one-year contracts just like non-tenured faculty. Thus, it's more likely that the tenured faculty will be told they are being non-renewed "for cause". Some institutions make a distinction between termination and non-renewal, while others don't.
My graduate institution has this in their faculty manual:

[Termination of a tenure track appointment for] adequate cause may be academic incompetence, neglect of duty, a
  serious violation of the faculty member’s responsibilities as outlined
  in Section II of this policy, or admission or conviction of a serious
  violation of the criminal code, but the university bears the burden of
  proving that the alleged reason is adequate cause for termination

The relevant part of Section II referenced above is:

The faculty member has an obligation to fulfill his/her teaching and research responsibilities.

Where a specific department will likely have their own specific policies and procedures as to what constitutes the research responsibility. This can be very specific- the "research responsibility" might be defined as a certain number of publications, or a certain number of grant dollars. If the faculty member cannot meet that expectation then they are demonstrably not meeting the research responsibility as defined at their institution. Then it would be within the scope of the employment agreement to terminate the faculty.
A friend at a serious mid-tier research institution has told me that their bottom-line expectation is $250,000 of grant funding per year. Another friend at a good teaching institution that is trying to do more research has said that their bottom-line expectation is to apply for two grants per year. In my current department the obligation is phrased as a percentage of time. The research and scholarly obligation of the tenured or tenure-track faculty in the contract is described to be 50% of your effort (teaching and administrative duties is supposed to be the other 50%). If no such specific definition exists then it would be still possible to argue that a faculty member is not meeting their research obligation, but it would open up the department and university to potential legal issues.
Ultimately, this really comes down to a matter of practicality. Is it worth the time and the effort to remove someone who is severely under performing? If you have a lot of classes to teach and everyone is satisfied with just doing more teaching and less research then it's unlikely to be a fire-able situation. On the other hand, if you're in a competitive and aggressive department where you might be seen as "wasting" a faculty slot that could be better used by someone else, it would absolutely be within the realm of possibility.

This answer is pure speculation. Saying that something is "absolutely" within the realm of possibility when you can't provide a single example of it ever happening sounds to me like a great way to lose an argument.

I decline to give examples because they're not particularly informative to the discussion, despite that being what the OP asked for. Given the nature of academic departments these things are kept under wraps, and any readily available account of such conflicts inevitably leads to conflicting accounts of the situation. I don't have any personal experience into a tenure track professor being dismissed, so I decline to cite any of the dozens of poor-quality examples you can find online by searching the phrase "tenure track professor dismissed".

A "good" example of such a conflicted dispute would be Ward Churchill,  who was a full professor and department chair that was fired over allegations of research misconduct. Some of the allegations against him are not relevant here (plagiarism) but others are (falsification and fabrication). The university Rank & Tenure committee found evidence of misconduct and fired him. A jury trial later found that he had been wrongly dismissed. That verdict was then vacated on grounds of immunity. Go read all you want, but the ambiguity in this "good" example doesn't really shed any light on the question.

No, it's not a "good" example since it's not even an example at all of the thing we're talking about, which is professors being dismissed for not doing research. Of course it's up to you whether to provide examples or not, but personally I'd say if you want your answer to hold up to scrutiny and to be regarded as a good answer by readers here, you would be well-advised to either: 1. soften the language in your answer from the current hyperbolic tone of asserting that things are "absolutely" true with no evidence to back that and with no indication that that's purely your opinion. ...

... or: 2. Add supporting evidence of a strength that matches the strength of your claims.

It's a "good" example of how these disputes are totally intractable from the outside despite a large amount of media attention and extensive documentation. 2. I do not think that language saying that something is "absolutely plausible" is an egregiously strong claim. The mechanism exists, and although I do not know people who have used it, I absolutely do know people who would use it if they felt like they needed to. Feel free to downvote if you disagree. This answer was an attempt to go beyond the standard "tenure doesn't mean you have an office or parking privileges or a paycheck".

A relative, at the Associate Professor level, had to switch to a non-tenured clinical track position due to not bringing in enough grant money. That way her salary could be paid due to hospital-related work.

Right - doing crappy research is one thing. 'Abandonment of duties' is another.


text:
Should a program I have not finished yet be mentioned in the SOP?
I have followed a program three months ago, which I haven't get a satisfying outcome. It is in the field I am interested in, but the technology and skills required in it is something related not so relative to my major. Besides, since I am spending time preparing for an entrance exam for a graduate school, I cease doing research in the program.
As I haven't get good outcome and I don't want to do research in the chemical way in the future. What should I say in the SOP? should I mention the experience, as it is the only one experience in academic research during my undergraduate years?

If the experience was positive for you in some way, then sure, you can talk about it.  For example, perhaps it gave you a greater appreciation for what research entails, or the scientific method, or it made you excited to get to school every day, etc. etc.
If you only have one sentence about it, then don't include it in the essay.  You can always mention it briefly somewhere else in the application.


text:
Professor deletes me from Skype contact list after Skype interview and promise to give offer. Could this be a rejection?
Recently, I had a Skype interview with a professor several weeks ago, and professor also promised me the PhD offer. My GPA is not high enough to meet the requirement of Department, but she said she would argue for me. After that, I also sent an email to professor and tried to talk about two academic questions, but no reply had been received. Recently, I checked my Skype and found professor has already delete the contact with me. And after I submitted the application, I also sent an email to inform the professor, no reply has been received either. So can I think it as a rejection?

Professors do weird stuff. I'd say not really a rejection, but it is a bit subjective.

It is also impolite to ask professor about it........

@FZW1224 My testimony is anecdotal...  I have had this happen twice.   I received a job offer twice.  I have done this to a student myself (deleted their skype id after meeting).  It makes me wonder if I should have!

@drN So only the formal rejection email can indicate the rejection, right?

@FZW1224 A formal acceptance counts.  It is also true at times that some faculty don't respond to all applicants unless that applicant is being hired for that position..  So I don't think it hurts to check with him/her about the status of your application.  You are looking for opportunities and it isn't fair for you to wait for an unreasonable time beyond any particular due date of announcement of a final decision.

@drN Since my application has just been submitted recently, I think it is too early to check about the status. But thanks a lot for you suggestions.

How do you know that they have deleted your contact?

Have you considered the possibility that she simply doesn't want to keep you as a Skype contact? I have been in several organizations so far where everyone would be using Skype in one way or another (and primarily lots of informal stuff, such as making the daily lunch call), but people of different "rank" would rarely add each other into their contact lists.

@BenCrowell Yes, I feel anxious about it, because it is a precious chance for me to follow a good professor. And the process of waiting for application result is quite long and tough.

@FZW1224 The hardest part about applications is waiting. Do everything you can up until you submit your applications, but you have to accept that at some point there's nothing you can do but wait, possibly deep into February or even March. Pestering faculty about that before then is at best going to do nothing and at worst get them annoyed with you.

No. I don't think you should assume that this is a rejection.

Deleting you from Skype does not sound unusual. If they added you for a specific purpose and don't intend to be contacting you regularly then they may just want to avoid notifications popping up all the time about when you are logged on.
Professors are busy. A lack of email reply, especially at this time of year when they may be about to leave for the holidays (depending on where you are in the world), may simply mean they not have got around to replying to you.
It's possible that the department you are applying to has strict procedures about job/studentship offers, such that the professor is not allowed to give you certain information until it has been formally confirmed by the school. Depending on the exact questions you asked, the professor may feel that they need to wait for the proper process before getting in touch with you again.

Assuming that you have gone through an official application procedure, which it sounds like you have, you will get official notification at some point from the department as to whether or not you have been successful. As I said above, be aware that might be a bit delayed due to the holidays. But I don't think you should assume one way or the other until you get the confirmation.
Good luck!

I was having several Skype interviews lately. Professors respond in different ways. One professor may keep you guessing in the middle of interview regarding acceptance/rejection, while others may hint you on the spot regarding the outcome of the interview.
My experience so far does not suffice to make a statistics. Let’s hope you get the position. The problem is the limited number of positions and the huge amount of applicants. You think you are good and then someone with better experience comes over.

Welcome to Academia SE and thank you for your answer. I edited your answer to correct some language problems taking some guesses. Please check whether everything is still according to your attentions. Also please consider [edit]ing your answer to more directly address the situation in question, namely the deletion from the contact list.

Well, I think it may be rejection, but nobody knows for sure of course.
The professor feels awkward for not being able to argue for you and to withstand pressure of other members of the committee. That is why, deleting you from the contact list is a convenient way to avoid explanations why you are not admitted.
Anyway, I wish you best of luck in your graduate studies, wherever it takes you.

Or the professor just restricts contact list to people who have a genuine need to know that she is online. Or any of several other possibilities that have nothing to do with rejection.

I believe that the professor might have sent the message, indicating that applicant should not worry about being deleted. Also the professor doesn't reply for his emails. This may mean that professor has included the applicant into her ignore list.
But of course nobody knows for sure. Anyway it is better to be prepared to the worst case.

The professor is kind. She could not say no. She wished to give you an opportunity. But maybe she could not manage. So she deleted you.
A PhD is required if you are looking for a job, but if you create an opportunity for others, you don’t need that. You can learn it yourself, there is no alternative.


text:
Professor didn't write a letter because I didn't waive my right to view it. How to let him know that I have changed this?
I'm applying to UIUC and have asked 3 of my professors to write me recommendation letters. One professor, who I discussed my application with before extensively, wrote back to me after I was done with everything that he doesn't write a LOR to students who do not waive their right to view the letter at a later date, because if I don't trust my professors, I shouldn't be asking for their help.
I'm pretty dumbfounded by this, considering that he never mentioned this before and that I've never come across a situation like this. It's not even a trust issue! It's pure feedback. Why would you keep feedback from someone anyway?
So I waived my right to view his letter, but now I'm not sure how to write back to him. I don't want to write an uncomfortable email to the department I'm applying to - UIUC procedure - as to why I have to switch professors if he still refuses to write one. Is there a polite, apologetic way to say to him that I had not intended to convey any feelings of mistrust, and that it was to see what were my strengths and weaknesses from a professor's perspective? Or should I take the weird route and change professors, because he'll write me something less-than-glowing now?

Answers to this question talk a little about why you should always waive your right to view recommendation letters.

The issue here is that the FERPA law gives students the legal right to see their letters, unless the student waives that right.  So the writer on their own cant assure the privacy of the letter by any means other than not agreeing to write letters for students who don't waive.

This is said at the thread linked in the first comment, but even if you didn't waive your right, many people would think it quite rude if you availed yourself of that right.  Similarly for FOIA requests about grant applications.  Or looking at tenure/promotion letters in places where it's illegal to waive your right to see them.

@Random832 Well, I won't write LORs if the student hasn't waived right to access.  It's not that I have secrets to keep from the student, it is that I believe others assign more weight to a confidential recommendation.  (I tell everyone that I won't write letters for students who have earned less than B in my classes, so I get to write good recommendations anyway.)

In fact - unless you feel strongly that you want to see other letters by others, you need to go and waive your right on all of them, not just this one.  If I'm on the committee evaluating the candidate I'll see which letters you've agreed to waive the right and which you haven't.  I'll put less weight on any letter that I see you retain the right to read, and I'll wonder why it is that you want to see the letters.  If it comes down to a coin flip between you and another candidate, I won't go for the candidate who might be trying to hide something.

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

...wrote back to me after I was done with everything that he doesn't
  write a LOR to students who do not waive their right to view the
  letter at a later date, because if I don't trust my professors, I
  shouldn't be asking for their help.

In my opinion, your professor didn't need to say "because if I don't trust my professors, I shouldn't be asking for their help." That's his interpretation, not yours.
That being said, don't start to defend yourself even you feel you've been insulted. Look for the kernel of truth of what he's saying and agree with that part. This isn't the first time, nor the last, that someone is going to attribute a negative intent that you do not hold. To be successful in life, you have to be willing to pick your battles and not try to challenge every little misinterpretation someone may have about you. It's not worth it. Look at the problem from his perspective.
This Professor is very busy. Writing Recommendation Letters is just one more chore that he can say 'no' to (when he probably has a backlog of required work that can not wait and that he can't say 'no' to). And out of all the requests he gets, I'm sure that all the students expect a glowing recommendation from him, but in order for a recommendation letter to be valuable and interesting to its intended recipients, it actually needs to be as brutally honest as possible.
In other words, you should indeed acknowledge that he changed your mind, that you do trust him, and that his recommendation letter may probably be the only one taken seriously by its recipients once you waive your right to view it. You should further acknowledge that you know he's very busy, that he doesn't need to write you a recommendation letter, and that it's perfectly fine if he doesn't want to do it, but that you would be super grateful if he did (now that you've waived your right to review it).
In other words, you need to give him a way out, you can't guilt him into writing a letter, nor can you force him through arguments into writing a letter, because if you do any of that, that may taint his letter negatively and having a tainted letter will be a thousand times worse than having no letter or having to call and change the name of the Professor your recipients should expect a recommendation letter from.

Excellent answer - you nailed the psychological dynamics at play here, and the general life advice to pick one's battles is terrific and applies to many more situations.

Just simply write down that it was your mistake not waiving your right to read LOR and ask him to write a letter. Don't wait too long to respond back to him, make your response succinct. Most importantly, do not explain to him why you wanted to see the letter in the email. Good luck.

I don't see why you would say it was your mistake when no mistake was made? Simply say that this is not a problem and you've now waived the right.

"It was my mistake" is a polite way to defuse a potentially awkward situation @Jack Aidley

I would discourage anyone from saying they've made a mistake when no mistake was made; especially in situations like this one where it is completely unnecessary.

@JackAidley, if I were the faculty person in this story, without acknowledgement of "a mistake", I'd still be disinclined to write the letter.

The prof took it as sign of distrust. Whether or not the right interpretation, may depend on the point of view, but one could to some extent support it. Not seeing this as a possible interpretation can indeed be considered a mistake. Insisting on not having made a mistake in a situation whether the other side sees a mistake, might or might not be legitimate, but definitely is not building bridges.

@JackAidley: “It was my mistake” doesn’t just mean a situation like “I thought I had checked the box, but I hadn’t”.  It also perfectly naturally covers a situation like “I didn’t think carefully about it, and went for the default option.  Now that I have considered more, I realise that was the wrong decision.”  I don’t think there is any dishonesty for the OP in saying “it was my mistake” in this case.

@PLL I think there might be. I honestly don't think it's a mistake. It's a preference that should've been made clear on his part.

@Kaya311 (This question is very old, but just popped up again, and I think it's worth replying here for future readers): The default expectation is that all letter writers will  waive their right to read the letters. Recommendation letters are not feedback, but are communications within the professional trust-network of academics in which the writers lend out some of their trusted-status in support of the applicants.

Just let him know that you've waived your right to see it; I don't believe that you've offended him.  It's fine to also ask him for feedback, but be aware that a recommendation letter and direct feedback are quite different and serve different purposes.

It's pure feedback. Why would you keep feedback from someone anyway?

Feedback is information from your supervisor about your performance that is given to you, primarily for your own benefit.
A recommendation letter is not pure feedback.  The letter is information about your performance given to a third party, to help the third party make a judgment.
Another way in which feedback and recommendation letters differ is expectations and interpretation.  When giving feedback, I try to be generous with both positive and negative observations, comparing a student's performance to what I view as the student's potential.  The negative is often the most valuable part of the feedback, since it suggests ways to improve.  In a recommendation letter, I am expected to compare the student not to his/her potential, but to other students.  I focus much more on the positive, because I only agree to write a letter for a student who I see as above average -- and because there is an expectation that the letter will be strongly positive, so any negative comments are taken very seriously.  At the same time, I focus more on achievements than on potential, since the letter will be used to make a material decision in the present.

Not only is a recommendation letter not "pure" feedback, I don't think of it as feedback at all, because the subject of the letter shouldn't see it!

@OswaldVeblen: Doesn't that create a hen-and-egg problem here: the student shouldn't know the content because it is not feedback. It is not feedback, because the student shouldn't see it?

@cbeleites:  There are non-circular ways to look at it. The primary audience for the letter is the admissions committee. To allow for unfiltered commentary, and because the letter may include information that the professor would prefer not to share with the student, the letter is kept private from the student. Therefore, the professor writing the letter does not need to worry about the student as a secondary audience, and as such does not need to worry about the usefulness of the letter as feedback for the student.

I'm pretty dumbfounded by this, considering that he never mentioned
  this before and that I've never come across a situation like this.
  It's not even a trust issue! It's pure feedback. Why would you keep
  feedback from someone anyway?

First, let's be clear, you are not in a position to pass judgment on your professor for making you waiving your right to view the letter a condition to writing it. It is his right to make this a condition for any reason whatsoever (or even for no reason at all), and he is not required to provide any explanation. So, my main advice is that, whatever you write to him, make sure that it doesn't contain even a trace of the slightly judgmental attitude I am sensing in the question you posted here. Just say that you were not aware this would be an issue, acknowledge that you understand his request and that you have complied with it.
With that said, since you ask, there are some perfectly logical reasons why a professor would not want their student to view the letter they are writing. The most compelling reason for me would be the following: a letter, even a very positive one, contains statements about the subject of the letter that normally one would not be inclined to tell someone about themselves in person, both because it's awkward and because it is potentially counterproductive. The knowledge that the subject of the letter would not be reading it eliminates this problem, and provides me with reassurance that I can state my true opinions without fear that my writing would be affected (positively or negatively, and consciously or subconsciously) by any concerns about how the subject would receive those opinions. Again, I emphasize, this reasoning is valid for very positive letters (as well as more obviously for letters also expressing some negative opinions).
As an example, say I believed that a student was the greatest mathematical genius since Euler. I would certainly want to say that in a letter of recommendation, right? Now, you might think that I should have no reservations about telling that to the student as well. I mean, why not -- surely he/she would be flattered and feel great, right? Well, the thing is, hearing that you are the greatest genius since Euler may actually not be good for you, even if it's true. It could inflate that person's ego to the point of making them arrogant and obnoxious, and demotivate them from working hard since they would reason they can achieve great success with very little effort, and maybe have various other negative effects. So, you see, not wanting them to know this opinion that I hold, and not having to worry that whatever I write about them will be influenced by such concerns about secondary and unintended effects of my writing, are completely valid and legitimate reasons for me to request this kind of confidentiality.
The bottom line is, not waiving your right to view the letter is essentially tantamount to making a rather aggressive demand for "pure feedback" from the professor, taking advantage of the fact that he is bound by a promise to provide honest feedback about you to someone else. I think your professor is absolutely justified in refusing to cooperate. If you want feedback from him, ask him for it in the right way and at the right time, without tying your request to anything else related to external circumstances, so that he'll have the ability to consider your request without any pressure and decide if that's something he wishes to do.

Further, apart form information about yourself, such a letter may well compare you to other students (which may be identifiable even if not named), and this is not the sort of thing one would usually want to tell people directly.

@TobiasKildetoft whether or not the OP can read the LOR, wouldn't that be a violation of the classmates rights? OP (hypothetically my classmate) may have asked for a letter to be sent to the grad admissions committee.  Doesn't mean I am ok with prof sharing info about me to grad admissions.

@emory, it would need to be somewhat anonymized comparison, yes.

@emory Individual comparisons are almost always with other current or former students for whom the writer has written letters. Unless a student tells me otherwise, I assume that if they're eager for me to write a recommendation letter on their behalf, they're okay with me giving graduate admisions committees information about them.

-1 for accusing the OP of being "judgemental" over not seeing any prima facie value in what is, in essence, a culture of secrecy.  And for the lengthy defense of that culture of secrecy.  One wonders why FERPA would establish such a right in the first place if having secrecy is really so great in this context.

@aroth Let's say there's someone who wants to date you, but you don't know him/her well.  You have a mutual friend.  You ask that mutual friend to tell you about this person.  Would you trust the response of your friend if the interested party were listening in?  Would you date the person if you knew that he/she will only allow your mutual friend to speak to you if he/she can listen in?

Yes, though I'd probably just date them and find out for myself what they're like, 2) if she's still willing to date me after knowing that I was so unsure about the prospect that I went around to check up on her first, then sure, 3) dating and academics are really very different contexts; the value of transparency increases as the balance of power decreases.  When dating the balance of power is mostly equal, when having your academic fate decided by an admissions board based upon third-party comments it's very uneven.

@JeffE the situation is my classmate Kaya311 asked you to write a LOR and now s/he wants to read it.  You defer b/c of my privacy (perhaps the LOR compared Kaya311 with me).  If that were really true, wouldn't it also be an invasion of my privacy to share the LOR with the admissions committee (unless I agreed to it)?  If a professor does not want to share a LOR with a student, that is fine, but don't attribute it to the privacy concerns of other students.

@Emory and now s/he wants to read it -- No, s/he can't read it, whether it contains a direct comparison with you or not. If you ask me for a letter but you don't want me to make comparisons with you in other students' letters, you have to tell me that.

@JeffE where in FERPA does it say you can do that (implicitly assume I have given you permission to make comparisons with other students and share them with Harvard because I asked you to write a LOR to Yale).  If you are going to cite FERPA as a reason for taking your preferred course of action, you should really be in FERPA compliance.  You can write Kaya311's LOR to Harvard and include comparisons to me.  But if you can not share the LOR with Kaya311 b/c my privacy then you shouldn't be sharing it with Harvard either.

@aroth "culture of secrecy" is a use of loaded language. I'd refer to it as "system to facilitate honest communication of information" instead. To clarify, I intensely dislike the LOR system myself and its many flaws and abuses of various sorts. However, as Winston Churchill said of democracy, it seems to be the worst system except for all the others. And as for your "one wonders" comment, I'd say that one also wonders why the FERPA right you refer to has proved so ineffective if it is so great. IMO that suggests secrecy does have its uses.

@emory If you are going to cite FERPA as a reason for taking your preferred course of action — But I am not citing FERPA as a reason for taking my preferred course of action.

@DanRomik - Well, I do enjoy my rhetoric.  Perhaps a little too much.  But I do think you're taking a somewhat overprotective viewpoint, in terms of deliberately withholding information from someone for fear of how they might take it/to manipulate them towards a certain end.  My view is that 1) students are entitled to honest, unfiltered feedback from their professors (whether good or bad), and 2) professors aren't responsible for how their students react to feedback.  I don't consider secrecy conducive to honesty, because there's no reason why honesty should require secrecy.

@aroth good for you, and I commend you (really!) for your philosophy of brutal honesty. I actually agree with both of your points 1 and 2, though I don't see them as being inconsistent with anything I wrote. In any case, not everyone wants to or is capable of living up to such high ideals of honesty and forthrightness, so I definitely think it's desirable to have a system that gives people an option to require secrecy when they write LORs. In that sense, yes, I'm "defending a culture of secrecy" - just as long as we're clear on what that means precisely.

An important thing to recognize (from here)

studies find that confidential letters contain comments about students that are less favorable than those in open access letters. However, reviewers of letters are also more likely to trust the information when they know that students have waived their access rights (10, 11). In plain terms, everyone is more comfortable when a student opts for a confidential letter, and such a letter will also likely be perceived as more trustworthy.

First: since many people reading the letter and deciding on your admission would be surprised by your unusual choice to not waive that right, I recommend changing the conditions for all the letters so that you waive your right.
Second: Send an email to the professor with something along the lines of:

I apologize.  When I checked the box, I didn't understand what the implications were and why they were asking.  I've waived my right to read the letter (and made the same change to the letters from other professors).  Would you still be able to write me a positive letter in the time remaining?

This tells him 1: it wasn't a trust issue, which is reinforced by the fact you've changed all of the letters.  2: if he is genuinely still bothered, it gives him a way to say "look for someone else" without coming across as a jerk.  You don't want to make him feel like he's trapped into writing the letter.
Do not say: "the reason I wanted to see the letter was ..." as that's going to come across as making excuses.
Alternately - send the same message without that final question.

I apologize.  When I checked the box, I didn't understand what the implications were and why they were asking.  I've waived my right to read letters from all my references.  By way of apology, I'll ask someone else to write this letter for me, but I hope you will be able to write a positive letter in the future.

This means that for this letter you don't have to worry at all that you've offended him.  It gives him time before the next letter to relax about it.  And it shows you are willing to accept the consequences of the mistake without complaint.
Which option you go with may depend on your impression of the instructor.

In addition to recommending a perfunctory apology for an error in failing to waive-the-right...
... as other answers have mentioned, these letters are addressed to a different audience than the student. In addition to issues of ego and such, there is an even larger issue of the huge difference of context of a grad admissions committee (nowhere near 20...) and applicants (typically very near 20). Words mean vastly different things to different people. What is clear and sane in one context can be perceived badly in another.
No, it is not possible to write a single narrative that nicely imparts the same message to all parties... though I occasionally remember that there is a label in "rhetoric" for the capacity to say something that is sufficiently ambiguous, though not sounding overtly so, that it pleases everyone, no matter their disagreements. In any case, this rhetorical device is not what you want your letters of recommendation to be. You do want effective communication to the admissions committee. The compromises involved to make the statement communicate to you what the writer would want would make it fail to communicate necessary things to the committee... I claim.

I think by not waiving the right and not telling the prof that you won't at the time of the letter request, you're putting the prof in an awkward situation.  It's happened to me, and I've taken to specifying that I only write confidential letters when a request comes to me.
I recommend writing the the professor, and just flat out saying that you were unaware of stigmas surrounding non-confidential letters, that you've now waived your right to view, and that you hope you haven't made him uncomfortable.

I've already picked an answer by Stephan Branczyk, but I figured I'd explain here what I actually ended up doing.
I wrote back to the professor:

Dear [Professor's name here]
I did not intend to convey any feelings of mistrust. It was my
  assumption that this would not be a problem based on my other letters
  of recommendation. I completely understand your viewpoint, and have
  made the necessary changes. I would greatly appreciate it if you could
  write me a recommendation letter for my application.
Best regards
  [My name and contact details]

Like most of you recommended, I didn't try to imply I resented his implication that I didn't trust my professors, and respectfully just did what he asked. I'm still not going to pretend I really understand why this waiving thing is so important, because even if the audience or purpose is different, it is still feedback - an analysis of the student's strengths and weaknesses, and their aptitude, scope and overall mannerisms. However, to each their own. That's why the option is there.
I just wish he'd told me sooner, because I've never had this issue before. I've had professors send me the letter separately for my approval, and their idea is that if they didn't want to recommend me, they'd just refuse. Getting into graduate programs is already nerve-racking and complicated.
But anyway, I found out that this professor is careful about these kinds of things because of past experiences, and that some students have acted less than appropriately with regards to graduate programs and LORs. So he acted according to his discretion. I spoke to another faculty member who knows him, and he was very understanding, and said he would help me get through to the professor.

Don't take his comment personally.  He has a blanket policy on not writing non-confidential letters, and he's explaining the reason behind it.  It isn't aimed at you as an individual.
I would write him back with no sense of awkwardness or hesitation.  My sense of the situation is that he is offering you a free choice: To waive your right and get a LOR, or not waive it and not get one (from him).  I have every confidence he'll respond positively if you go with the first choice.
This is obviously a common enough situation that he's worked out a general approach to it.

"Dear Professor ",
"I have waived my right to view your recommendation letter.", or
"I hereby waive my right to view your recommendation letter.", whichever is true. (It's unclear to me whether a separate system is in place for registering your waiving.)
"Would you please reconsider writing it?
I apologize for my previous hesitancy, I was considering the potential for valuable feedback and not seeing other concerns."
I recommend this phrasing because it's concise and brings the relevant information up front followed by your request. The apology is there too, no need to be implicit about it.