text:
Is my thesis title academically and technically correct starting with the words 'Study the'?
My thesis title is:

Study the phase-shifting behavior in the complex reaction mechanism.

My external examiner suggested changing it to

Study of the phase-shifting ... .

But due to university rules it is not possible at this stage of Ph.D. Can I continue with the title? Is this at least academically or technically correct?

Aren't the university rules more or less a local definition of what is 'academically correct'?

Sorry, I don't understand your question fully. If I change the title, it will be considered as changing the topic. Consequently, I will have to go through many processes again which I can't afford.

I don't see that the slight change to the wording changes the meaning at all. If the university doesn't want the title changed, don't change it. It changes nothing about your thesis.

Your "title" reads like a command to do something, not a description of what has been done.

What stage exactly are you at?  Are you at the point where you are writing things up and getting ready to defend this term?  This sounds like you are encountering the end-stage bureaucracy of the university press trying to keep their own schedules-- is this the case?

Did someone tell you that correcting a typo-level mistake would count as changing your title?

If you do get a chance to change it, you should also change "the complex reaction mechanism" to either "a complex reaction mechanism" or "complex reaction mechanisms" (depending on whether you studied a specific reaction mechanism or the general theory).

"But due to university rules it is not possible at this stage of Ph.D." <- I absolute don't believe that's true. Go further up the academic authority chain, with the help of your supervisor of course, and make it happen.

@einpoklum It might be (on paper, at least) if this is very late in the process, and the querent is bumping up against the publishing schedules of their graduate college (or whatever the appropriate terminology is-- not their home academic discipline department, but the entity responsible for coordinating the publication of dissertations and other theses.)  Hence my question.  It matters a lot in terms of how to handle it.

You never answer one of the comment above "What stage exactly are you at?". Please answer it. If your external examiner made a suggestion, is that enough to change it? What if the external examiner found an even more serious problem, you are not allowed to correct it?

For a thesis title, I'd suggest just "phase-shifting behavior in the complex reaction mechanism" and avoid the problem altogether.

I have discussed it with my supervisor and changed the title to 'Study of the phase-shifting behavior in the complex reaction mechanisms'.  Thank you all for your valuable suggestions.

I'd say your thesis title as written contains a grammatical error. If your institution considers repair of a grammatical error to be "changing a topic", that's a ridiculous policy but not something anyone here can do a thing about.
Probably the external examiner will roll their eyes at this silly policy if you tell them it can't be changed due to the reason you state, but I can't see why they would make this an obstacle for your graduation, since your thesis is about phase-shifting behavior in a complex reaction mechanism, not about English grammar. It's unlikely that this will be their first experience with a silly policy in academia.

It's technically and academically incorrect English grammar.
A standard English reader would take this as a signal that it comes from a low-quality institution.

I don't know what "academically incorrect English grammar" is. Personally I would view the current title as being likely written by a non-native speaker, but I wouldn't see it as reasonable to make an inference about the quality of the research based on that, let alone the whole institution.

@N.Virgo: No, faulty grammar does not necessarily point to faulty research. And it can even be argued here that the title might be "ok-ish, though unusual and not overly pretty". But I think the point is rather another - I agree with this answer in that there may be a non-negligible risk of a certain portion of readers thinking something like: "If the supervisor/institution missed even this obvious and trivially fixable style issue, what else did they miss? Do they actually check what the student hands in or do they just rubber-stamp it?"

It doesn't conform to the usual style for academic paper titles in English, which is that the title usually functions as a noun phrase describing the paper's content.  Your "Study the..." title seems to instead be a verb phrase describing what the author did, or maybe what the thesis is going to do.  It also happens to function as a complete sentence with "study" in the imperative mood, which as others mentioned, makes it sound like a command.
Adding "of" helps, in that it makes "study" function instead as a noun (meaning "examination", "investigation", etc), and so it sounds more like a noun phrase.
Personally, I would remove "study" altogether as it's redundant: the reader already knows that the paper is studying something, that's the whole point of a thesis.  So I'd just make it "Phase-shifting behavior in the complex reaction mechanism".
I'd also look carefully at the definite article "the" before "complex reaction mechanism".  If this is a term of art in your field that refers to a specific mechanism, and when you say "the complex reaction mechanism" people know exactly which mechanism you mean, then "the" might be okay.  But if you are simply talking about an unspecified reaction mechanism that happens to be complex, then you would not use a definite article, and would instead say something like "Phase-shifting behavior in a complex reaction mechanism", or "Phase-shifting behavior in complex reaction mechanisms."  Articles ("a", "an", "the") are often a challenge for learners of English, so you might want to consult with someone who knows the terminology of your field, and is experienced with reading and writing academic English.
If I were in your situation, I would make a reasonable effort to get the title changed.  If it's a matter of filling out a form, or making a phone call, or contacting the boss of whoever told you that you couldn't do it, it would be worthwhile.  Even if it's a university rule, there is almost certainly some person or group who has the power to make an exception, and there is also very likely to be a process for making a formal request to that person or group.  On the other hand, if it would require a major hardship to get it changed, like paying a large fee or delaying graduation, then I would just let it go.
Relatively few people are likely to read your thesis anyway, so it probably isn't such a big deal.  But if you will be publishing one or more papers based on your thesis, they will be more visible, so you'll want to be more careful with your grammar and proofreading.
Also, when listing the thesis title on your website, CV, etc, I would be inclined to list the corrected title.  Yes, yes, normally you should always cite documents by their exact title with no changes, but adding a stop word like "of" isn't really going to cause any problems.

I would say to either correct the title everywhere or nowhere; having even slightly different titles in different places can make searching for the article (depending on the search engine and configuration used) and making sure it's the right one much more difficult.

Talk with your University's admin and say it was just a small typo and you just want to add two letters to correct the typo.
Most admin will help you to do this.
However, if they refuse your request, just change nothing. You are a chemistry researcher and people will look into your chemistry contribution (not English grammar); one typo, which is not meaning-changing, is very forgivable.

I would disagree that it is "forgivable". This title shows you as naive to the academic process. (The title should not have been allowed in this form in the first place). However it is indeed textual/grammar change not a change of topic. I hate these policies that confuse titles (you put on the front of the "thing" with the topic).

"people will look into your chemistry contribution (not English grammar" seems a bit optimistic. I'd say there's a non-negligible chance that some reader might see this and think "wow their advisor didn't even catch such an obvious mistake in the title, did they just rubberstamp the whole work? What other mistakes did they miss?"

@Voo Mediocre English skill is not an indicator poor Chemistry skill. I'd say more than fifty percent of chemistry researchers in history or at the present are not native English speaker. Hell, even the Declaration of Independence, written by native English speakers, contained a typo in its early versions. If an organization look down upon you only because of one typo, it is not the organization you want to stay with.

@PauldeVrieze If it is a typo that make researchers misunderstand the meaning, then I'd say the writer is kind of “naive“, as suggested by you. However, in this specific case, no one would misunderstand the meaning because of the typo. Don't overthink a typo.

As most others have commented, the title is grammatically incorrect. Nor do I think a great deal of your supervisor's suggestion. My suggestion would be to make a simple change that would place your title in a grand tradition. Specifically, replace "Study the" with the word "On" so that the title reads:

On phase-shifting behavior in the complex reaction mechanism

The tradition of commencing the titles of scientific articles with the word "On" reaches back more than 200 years from the present. Examples, including modern examples, include:

On the Feasibility of Side-Channel Attacks with Brain-Computer Interfaces (Martinovich, 2012)
On the Cognitive Benefits of Cultural Experience (Lee, 2012)
On the Origin of Species (Darwin)
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (Einstein, 1905)
On the Theory of Relativity (Carmichael, 1913)
On the Quantum Theory of Radiation (Einstein, 1916, translation)
On the Problem of Empathy (Stein, 1916)
On the Nature of the Chemical Bond (Cunningham, 2017)
On the Problem of Three Bodies (Chalis 1856)


text:
How long should an academic CV be for someone applying to post-doc positions in Europe?
I am preparing my CV for applications to post-doc positions in the field of social sciences. I will apply to positions in the EU, mainly in German language countries.
I have updated my CV with my current position and experiences and I am wondering myself how long it should be at the max. Currently, with all details (Experiences in academia and in teaching; my course of education, language skills, a brief summary of my diploma thesis and my dissertation -- about 5 sentences each -- social commitments, IT skills and interests) I reach about 4 pages.
A CV for a job in a company is said to have at a maximum 2 pages. I could not find any hints how long a CV should be for a academic position. Does anyone of you have ideas or experiences how long it should be?

@user37208: Thank you for your remark. However, I think CVs published online differ from CVs used when applying for a position. I will ask them though if they let me see their CVs for applying to positions.
I know that a CV is growing in length, however I believe there is a maximum length. When applying for professorial position, I don't think more than 4 or 5 pages are suitable? I may be mistaken though.

The notion of a curriculum vitae is confused by the fact that it gets used in two very different ways:

A comprehensive list of all of one's academic accomplishments
A short summary of one's background and skills (like an American resume)

For a postdoc position, you will generally want to be using the first---at least, that has been the way it has been for all countries that I am familiar with.
That, then, may be as long as it takes to list everything out; when applying for a postdoc position, your record will likely still be fairly short.  Well established researchers, on the other hand, can easily end up with 20+ pages and may consider switching to a "best of" format in which only the most significant highlights are shown.

Thank you for your remark. Can you elaborate a bit more on the difference between the two types? As I understand it, the first one is a complete and detailed overview of my carreer where the second only lists skills and expieriences at the current moment (without any details on past occupations?)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What Affiliation to put for Amateur scientist who is an alumni out of school for 15 years?
I am an amateur scientist who wants to submit a paper to a peer reviewed journal.  While I have an under grad degree... it was in business and I have been out of school for 15 years.  Do I put my undergraduate university as my affiliation because I was educated there?  It would be nice to put something.

Unless you are currently affiliated with it, do not list it as a affiliation.  It is fine to use a home address.  Having a well-written paper is what is important.

Independent researcher

Do I put my undergraduate university as my affiliation because I was educated there?

Absolutely not.  That could be considered fraudulent, since it would suggest you are still affiliated with this university.  You should only list an affiliation if it applies now or applied while the work was done, and in the latter case you should note if it has changed (by including a current affiliation or address).
You don't need to include any affiliation at all.  It's perfectly reasonable to publish a paper with a private address rather than a work address, in which case you can avoid this issue.  If you don't want to reveal your address, you can always get a P.O. box or the equivalent.  The main points are that people can distinguish you from others with the same name and can get in touch with you if needed.
You should not list your current employer unless they are OK with being listed.  If the research is not part of your job, your employer may not want to be seen as sponsoring your research, so you should ask if you don't know their policy on this issue.

The following should be an acceptable affiliation for your specified occupation.

Independent Researcher

Affiliation does not mean necessarily an academic place of work.
The best option is to just use a current place of work. Write "self-employed" if you do not like the above idea. This would mean that you have self-employed yourself at home to conduct the submitted research.
I would not recommend the old place of study, since you are not there, you cannot be contacted there and in the worst case the university may get abused that someone who is not their current or recent employee pretends to be such.

Maybe not so good to use a current employer as "affiliation"...

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


text:
Short-listed, but no interview invitation after three weeks - should I follow up?
Applied for a faculty position and was notified three weeks ago that the Faculty Search Committee has placed my name on the short-list of applicants to be reviewed by all faculty in the department. I was also notified that if I am still interested in this position, I may be contacted within the next few weeks to be invited for an interview. However, three weeks have passed, I have not got any updated message. References were submitted by my referees at the time I submitted the application. Should I be more patient or just contact them by sending a follow-up email? Not sure what has happened. They lost interest to me or just act too slowly?

Just to cross the 't's and dot the 'i's - you've checked your spam mail folder, right?

Could be both.  I would suggest patience.

Congratulations on making the short list! There is no way to tell from the outside what the school is doing, but there is also little that you can do to change it at this point.
If the school's answer would change something for you in the short term - for example, if you have another job offer and want to know if the school is still considering you - then it would be very appropriate to send them an email.
If you are just emailing them to check on the status of your application, I would wait a few more weeks to see if you hear anything from them. This part of the application process is often a waiting game, unfortunately.  On the other hand, I think that a very polite, short message would not be likely to harm your application, particularly if you let them know that you are still very interested in their department.

In the US, schedules for many faculty are crowded right now: holidays + upcoming massive final-grading push. I hate to say this, but add at least a week or so to any estimate a US university gives in November and December!

Unfortunately academic hiring processes are extremely amateurish (in comparison to corporate processes of most well established mid-size and large companies). You are being left in dark, because the university cares for itself (they are hiring!), not for you (you are waiting/hoping for a job). Being several times through the process, the simplest advice at this point is to wait. Alternatively, you can simply ask for the status. My experience is that once the process starts, you will receive an answer. Eventually. However waiting for the answer for several months is rather usual too.


text:
My undergraduate research advisor pressures me to work more hours than I want to, but I don't want to risk ruining the relationship. How to proceed?
I am burned out and exhausted and need a place to rant and get advice. =(
I am an undergraduate student majoring in Information Systems who was hired a few months ago to work in a Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) research lab at my university. My job consists of reviewing academic papers before submitting them for publication, conducting experiments using a variety of HCI equipment, giving lab demos to classrooms, as well as working on my own research paper that is to be submitted to an academic journal in a few months.
When one of the professors in my department asked me to take this job, I was hired to assist in the lab for 10 hours per week. About two weeks later, she increased my weekly hours to 20 because there wasn't enough time to complete everything she was giving me. I was flattered that she was happy enough with my performance to continue giving me projects to work on. Sometimes the work was very boring (performing a literature review on a topic you have no interest in is a nightmare) but I thought it would be a good experience.
As the semester went on, the professor (she's in charge of the lab) just kept giving me more and more projects. She went to HR and increased my weekly hours to 29, which is the maximum amount allowed for students at my school and it's only given in special circumstances, without even asking me if I was OK with it. However, there are many weeks where I have worked much more than this. The worst was last week, which was the week before finals, when I was in the lab 42 hours conducting experiments for her. I only got about 4 hours of sleep each night that week and could barely concentrate on my schoolwork. Since it is against HR policy to have students work more than 20 or 29 hours in one week, she told me to arrange my time sheet to make it look like I worked only 29 hours that week and then claim the additional hours later. I'm pretty sure it's illegal to do this.
While I am flattered that she is pleased with my work performance to continue giving me these projects, I feel like she is taking advantage of me. On the rare chances that I had a few hours of free time this semester, I usually used them to catch up on much-needed sleep or tried to do some sort of task that would get the research work out of my mind. It's been very difficult to enjoy myself. With winter break coming up, I thought it would be a great time to recover. However, she has already given me enough projects that will take about 30-40 hours per week throughout the break, with deadlines for each one.
I realize that the simple solution is to tell her that the work is too much and that I cannot handle everything while focusing on my classes. But at the same time, I do not want to disappoint her. She is the most prestigious professor in my department (in terms of publications, awards, experience, etc.) and is very happy with my performance. She would be an excellent reference to have and I do not want to risk harming that relationship. It's hard for me to determine if this amount of stress is worth getting a (hopefully) better job in the long run. Every company I've talked to has been very impressed by what I've been doing in the lab.
FYI, I am purposely trying to keep my job responsibilities vague to avoid revealing too much information. However, hopefully this example will give a better idea of the types of projects she gives me: In September she introduced a new research area to me (it was also new to her). She gave me 1 month to perform a comprehensive literature review and write an extended abstract to submit to an academic conference. I struggled a lot with it because she gave me no training and could not provide support due to being new to the research area as well. After submitting the abstract, she gave me many other projects to work on, and I never had a chance to work on that research again. Today the extended abstract was accepted for the conference, but the reviewers criticized it quite heavily. She told me that in the next 1-2 months I will need to come up with a research question and hypothesis, improve the literature review, create a methodology, conduct experiments to collect/analyze data, and finish writing the majority of the paper. Then, next summer, she wants me to miss out on my internship to attend the 1-week conference and give a presentation on the research. I feel like this is unrealistic for an undergraduate student. It might be a little different if she had some experience in this research area and could assist me, but she does not.
I've always wanted to go to graduate school, but if it's going to be anything like this, I'm not even going to bother applying.
Someone please tell me this is abnormal advisor behavior.

Publishing papers is hard (especially for newcomers). If you want to publish a paper, I doubt that 20hr / week are enough, unless you are planning this paper to be written one year later or more.

Tangentially related (worth a read, if nothing else): http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2219/how-should-i-deal-with-discouragement-as-a-graduate-student

Also - for some laughs: http://phdcomics.com/comics.php

@Alexandros Papers and scientific results are by no means related to the mere amount of hours put in.

Nothing wrong in saying you are overworked... everybody has limits, make sure you don't overdo yours...

sounds like your boss is testing your limit. if she keeps increasing the work load and you don't say 'no', she thinks everyone is happy. it is OK and encouraged to say 'no' when you have too much on your plate. especially as you have finals to deal with. work out what hours you are happy with and then have a frank and honest chat with your boss. saying no is not always a bad thing (it's also empowering)

I voted to close, as a question relevant only to undergrads.  The only part of your question that I find relevant to Academia would be Is this what grad school is like?  (The answer is: to some extent yes, but it's not completely equivalent.)

However, I do have a suggestion for you.  I think it's time for you to get some support from a department administrator, perhaps the undergraduate dean.  You can choose who you talk to, really.  Pick someone you're comfortable with.  An administrator will make sure this professor stops taking advantage of you and overloading you without asking if what she's doing is okay with you.  An administrator will also make sure that there are no negative repercussions.  Please don't delay.

@aparente001 Questions about undergraduate research are firmly on topic.

I was hired to assist in the lab for 10 hours per week. About two weeks later, she increased my weekly hours to 20 — Repeat after me: "No, I can only work 10 hours a week."

If there's one thing I've realized as I've aged, it's that my time is important. And more importantly, it's my time. Set your terms, and do not feel any guilt or feel the need to defend your decision. Have an open discussion about this with your RA and stand firm on what sort of work/life balance you need for a happy and successful life.

If she trusts you enough to do bleeding-edge academic research, this is already something I feel -- vaguely! -- is an extremely good reference. Could you turn the tables on her, to convince her to give you a full-time job and an arrangement to complete your basic degree on the side?

If this behavior isn't abnormal, sadly, it is certainly abhorrent.
It is not acceptable for your boss to expect you to do more than the maximum allowable hours and then lie about it on a time sheet. Your university's human resources department would take a very dim view of this if they found out about it, I expect. You are being taken advantage of and I suggest that for the same of your health and academic record, you put a stop to this behavior. It is essentially an abusive power relationship.
I fully appreciate that telling the top professor in your school/department that you won't do all the work demanded of you appears suicidal. But unless you set the boundaries, and demand they are respected, this isn't going to stop.
Your first duty is to yourself and your studies. If you feel that you need some backup, go talk to your faculty/school/department head prior to laying down your boundaries to your boss. No head of department will do anything other than take your side if he/she hears that one of their students is being asked to work beyond their contracted hours and then to lie about it.

The very first thing you need to do here is stop being flattered.  Seriously.  The professor is mopping the floor with you and is not considering you enough of a human being to even ask before bumping your hours.  And she is telling you to lie about it, and it is your ass that will be the line for your lies, because there will only be a written record by you.  You have no written proof of her conversations, and because it's your neck on the line for lying about your hours, you will not get recompensated for it either in money or in time: this professor will not, I repeat not give you any time off while you are being paid since she obviously has limited amounts of funds (or she would not be leaning on an undergrad in a haphazard manner like that) and an overallotment of work.  She will not give you backpay when she has nothing more to gain from it.  Particularly since she has no respect whatsoever towards you as a person.
So stop being flattered immediately.  You let yourself be maneuvered into a situation of complete exploitation and you need to stop this or you will never finish your studies.  So sit down and make a reasonable plan of what time you need for studying and getting your real work done, the work for which you are paying tuition either in cash or by meeting targets that allow for your studies to continue.
This is your first priority.  Then figure out how much time and energy that leaves you realistically to work on this professor's tasks.
Then schedule a talk with your professor.  Tell her how much hours you can put in for her work since she did not bother asking.  That's the number she can hire you for and that's the number you can deliver and sign for.
Be prepared that you will not get compensated for your "overtime" so far.  Be prepared also that you might lose your "job" picking up everything after behind the professor on the spot and lose her goodwill.  Someone as self-absorbed and egoistic as she is may well retaliate in absurd manners and pick up her next chew toy of which there seems to be no shortage.  But you should be able to continue your studies in a sensible manner.  Either because she accepts what you can offer, or because she declines it.
Even if she accepts, it will be your task continually to ensure you only work the times you are paid (or at least in reasonable relation to them) and to tell her "no" when some tasks she wants to throw at you cannot be done in the time you have available.
Don't put too much importance to what kind of reference she may or may not give you: undergrad references will not interest anybody at some later time.  They are a possible talking point for future interviews, but a talking point not worth prolonging your studies significantly.

You make a good point about being flattered. I think my main reason for that was because I have high respect for teachers and researchers. When she entrusted me with all of these projects, I was honored that someone with so many achievements was taking notice of me. You are right that I need to sit down and talk with her to get this worked out. Our winter break just began today, so for the next few days I am going to collect my thoughts and process everything and prepare what I want to discuss with her. Then, I will get it worked out. Thank you for your answer!

According to what you are describing it seems that they are by all means abusing your performances, which is not to be allowed especially when creating discomfort for the people in question (you, in the case at hand). The simple reason why this happens is that you are much cheaper than a PhD student or a PostDoc doing the same things you are currently doing. It is evident that the supervisors need research (or whatever other project it is) to be done and want to have it done sparing as much money as possible: this translates into addressing the job to undergraduate students who demand little (if not even none at all) pay per hour. It is unfortunately common behaviour.
Especially if you are passionate about your field do not allow such attitude; it will end up draining you out and you will associate the discomfort to science, whilst instead science is what you love and the discomfort is being caused by your advisor.
As an undergraduate student your own responsibility (for yourself) is to complete your master thesis in a affordable limited amount of time: all the rest is superfluous. Only then go into research and start doing it properly: you will have a decent salary (i. e. you will be at least paid decently for all the work you put in) and everything will be fully documented.
The above said, doing research is nevertheless complicated as it asks to conciliate your personal life with (in general) a lot of pressure of strict deadlines, lack of funds, lack of time and so on and so forth. Despite so, I believe that whoever is passionate about their topics should try to pursue the academic career.

Doing research is totally different than being abused on (in quotation marks). I assume that a master thesis is research anyway (and that is what matters), whilst writing conferences proposals, abstracts, preparing apparati to run experiments overnight, writing papers in few days because of someone else's grants is politics rather than science (of course I am exagerating, but I believe you see my point).

This isn't for an undergraduate thesis, but yes, there will be a handful of papers that include my name as a co-author, and in one case as the primary author. There are a lot of benefits for me to maintain this position which adds to the trickiness of how to handle it. However, I have decided that something needs to change, and I will be meeting with my professor in a few days to discuss the issues with her.

As a fellow undergrad, I can relate to you. I got to an ivy league university and have family needs, and severe anxiety. I do not go announcing this to the world, but I make it known that I am very interested in opportunities to work with certain faculty and what hours I can work and if I can work more, that I will. So far having approached, and sought out people who are very well known on campus has let me have more control over the situation. It seems it may be the other way around for you. Never in any case should you kiss butt. I'm telling you that's a one way ride to no respect land. One job is not worth your life. You literally have NO life. Your health is deteriorating. And I don't know what you program policy is, but students at my university cannot suddenly go from an A+ to a B- in one semester without their advisor asking them what's up. Your grades should be a top priority alongside your health. The work you've done so far has gotten your name out there and people will be more than willing ot work with you in the future. If your advisor truly values you, they will work with you. I work with the head of the crop and soil sciences department and he literally trusted me from day 1 to work with his colleagues on major research projects and the more I showed him I could do the work, the more he let me work on anything I asked and when I could. He never dictated my work schedule and I could work from home if need be because he respects and trusts me. This is the type of relationship you want. I realize your tasks are less independant and require a lab, but ideally you should be left alone to work at your own pace. Not hounded for more and more hours. Considering it costs probably $2 an hour to hire you (I'm assuming you use fed. funded work study), I also would errr on the side of caution that this may be the case. My boss was very upfront that if it were not for me, his side projects would never get done because he has NO time and can't afford another full time worker in his department. So hiring me is cheap, but he treats me well, and I have no issues maintaining an A+ average and having time for my partner, friends and family. Sleep is crucial for mental and emotional well being and without it, I'd probably go crazy and kill someone :P so I don't know how you're doing it. I mean I would have literally collapsed due to anxiety attacks. So take my advice and put your foot down. If they aren't concerned about your academics...they're very selfish in my opinion. My boss is ALWAYS asking me how my semester is going.

One of the skills you have to learn is work-life balance. You feel that your job takes up a better part of your life, and this needs to be addressed. Cut down on the job you are doing and work on that no more than 30 hrs/week. I believe you'll still have duties to get you solid 60 hrs/week total workload.
I would only advice working more than that in case of emergencies, that is, life-changing deadlines. Even then, it shouldn't last for more than two weeks.
As for the relationships with your advisor, a reasonable person should not object to you setting up your work/life balance. It might be that your advisor is pushing your limits to see if you have found this balance. It might be that you are being taken advantage of. Either way, refusing to take more tasks than you are comfortable with is a good thing to do.

Say no.
There is really nothing more to it than that.

The worst was last week, which was the week before finals, when I was
  in the lab 42 hours conducting experiments for her. I only got about 4
  hours of sleep each night that week and could barely concentrate on my
  schoolwork. Since it is against HR policy to have students work more
  than 20 or 29 hours in one week, she told me to arrange my time sheet
  to make it look like I worked only 29 hours that week and then claim
  the additional hours later. I'm pretty sure it's illegal to do this.

Work as a graduate student can be trying, the hours long, the remuneration poor, and the value of a successful outcome is increasingly suspect.  However, that is not the problem here.  You are presumably legally an adult at this point in your life and if you decide that working outlandishly long hours is acceptable then the opinion of no one else matters.
No, the problem here is that you are being asked to knowingly utter a fraudulent document.  And that is, quite beside being the antithesis of academic integrity, a criminal offence.  You are in a position where you have no choice but to refuse this demand/request.  Because if you do not then you are completely compromised with respect to future requests or similar, and perhaps more exploitive/illicit natures.
Frankly, I have some doubts about your judgement in this matter. Forty-two hours in the lab doing somebody else's research during the week before finals?  What were your results like?

Who do you submit your time sheets to? Is there a departmental secretary who handles them? I would recommend going to her/him for advice. They'll likely know how your supervisor would react to you telling her that you can't handle the work load and could potentially give you advice on how and when to have the conversation with your supervisor. If that doesn't work or isn't feasible, consider going to HR.
I've been in this situation recently, so here's what I ended up saying.
[Name], I appreciate how pleased you are with my work. I am really grateful for the opportunities that this job has given me. However, I am concerned that this recent increase in my hours is interfering with my ability to perform well in my courses. I can only work X hours a week. I understand that things need to get done by a certain time, but I cannot work Y hours a week. I am uncomfortable with not reporting my time accurately.

Looks like riding her students till the last drop of blood made her the top professor at the faculty.
I found myself in similar situations a couple of times. My way out was to find a reason beyond my control why I can't go on like that. The best "excuse" that worked for me was saying that I was feeling sick and the doctor I visited said I have to slow down, get 8 hours of sleep per day, etc. Another one was saying that I had to prioritize some other work (my personal research project, internship, finals, another job, etc.) because my family presses me to do so or because I had set a certain goal and I made a promise to myself to reach it no matter what.
It would also help a lot if you could find or recommend another student to take a part of that workload from you. Then you will be approaching your boss not with a problem, but with a solution.

I would just make sure that the finding another student doesn't sound like the questioner is quitting.

As an undergrad, I did absolutely crazy schedules, sometimes even worse than you described (yes, sometimes down to 2 hours of sleep, sometimes none at all). But it was my decision. And, when I realised that, on the long run, it was not such a good style of life (I did that for about a year), I pedaled down.
What I do not think is that I would have run for such a long period on such an externally driven pressure. You're an absolutely admirable student, one that anyone would like to have. However, I strictly send my group members into weekend, and never, unless it is an emergency, I call or contact them on the weekend with the expectation to respond (I may send off emails on Sundays if that's the time I have to process them, but I do not expect a response before Monday). And, when I do actually need their help on a weekend, I invite them to a dinner afterwards or let them take a day off during the week. Accepting the need of one's people rest is essential, no matter how ambitious one may be.
If you decide, on your own, to work far over hours, that's fine. But self-destruction is not, and even less so when on external behest, ambition or not.
I suggest saying that you need to increase focus on your studies and will have to reduce the workload at this stage until it's over. But don't promise you will increase it later on if you have no intention to or are not sure whether you would do it.


text:
Can publications in which I am not the first author be used for tenure-track faculty applications?
I am applying for tenure track position. In application form, we are asked to upload several publications. Some of my works are with experimentalists (I am more in theory side myself) and have been published in very prestigious journals. But I am 2nd author in some of them. Can I use them or I should be 1st author? What about papers which I am 2nd name but with same contribution?

You do have a thesis advisor, right?  These are the kind of questions that she has the primary responsibility to answer.  Her answers are much more likely to be useful to you than random internet experts' answers, because she knows your academic profile intimately, whereas we know only what you put in a few paragraphs.

No harm in knowing more opinions.

No inherent harm, but if you get multiple divergent answers you will be left with the task of figuring out which one to follow.  Maybe you could tell us what your advisor said, and why her answer left you in doubt of what to do.  Or did she ask you to seek help elsewhere?

She was not sure herself.

Are you second, or are you co-first? This is can be a critical difference in some fields. But in general, every publication counts, the only question is how much.

In one I am second and in another co-first.

You absolutely can. In your research statement you should devote some space to explaining your contribution and degree of involvement. I would imagine that, being part of a multi-disciplinary team, you may well have played some critical role. If you and your adviser find the story compelling, chances are they will, too.


text:
Does a UK degree have the same classification in the US?
Does a degree obtained in the UK have the same classification in the USA? So if I had a 2:1 in England would it be a 2:1 in the USA or something different?

The honors degree classifications that exist in the UK (described in this question and its answers) don't exist in the US. In the US, instead of earning a degree of a certain "class," students (usually) earn a GPA on a scale of up to 4.0 points, and that number is used to indicate their performance.
"Honors" like  summa cum laude and magna cum laude exist, but not at all universities, and don't have a standard meaning across universities (or even across departments in the same university). They aren't used in the same way that UK degree classifications are. For example, you won't find an application for graduate studies that specifies that applicants should have graduated magna cum laude  - instead, they may specify a minimum undergraduate GPA.

Some universities do use "magna cum laude" and "summa cum laude" or "with honors" on diplomas, but the rules for how these honors are determined vary from one university to another. Depending on the school quite a few students might receive such honors.


text:
Is it possible to have a healthy work-life balance as a professor?
I am an MSc student and one future direction I have been thinking about is the potential of pursuing a professorship after I do a PhD. Why do I want to be a professor? I enjoy the back and forth of doing research - while at times it's frustrating to figure things out, I think it's a good proxy for workplace freedom (by my standards) and I know that I would enjoy teaching.
Where I don't think that I would entirely fit the mold of a professorship is that I am not so concerned with having the top publications or cranking out as many papers as I can, but that's not to say I anticipate producing one paper a year and then putting my feet up on my desk. Relative to others who are more concerned about having top publications or many papers, I would probably be the 'less preferred' candidate for the job - which is okay. I am in no hunt for accolades, awards, or praise.
But I think that approaching a professorship from a balanced and holistic approach where I can work on research, teach, and maintain a healthy work-life balance would be something that I could grow to love. However, my perspective and approach to a professorship might be naive, which would also be horrifying to find out when it's too late.
So do you think that it is possible to have a healthy work-life balance as a professor or is that approach to a professorship, at least early on, not realistic for the modern market place of academia?

Career - Work - Life - Sleep: pick any two. ;-)

What is also impossible (or at least very difficult) is to maintain a relationsship before having a tenure.position somewhere, especially if your partner also wants to work and works in an industry where its not possible to come by when only speaking English. Many relationsships broke because of that.

@CaptainEmacs What's the difference between career and work in this context?

@user1717828 Good one! I was waiting for the question. Work is the content of your work - say, content-oriented research/publications only. Career means that actual promotions, influence, leadership duties, politics etc. The US system links both very tightly, but in the old European continental system, once having a permanent position, you could concentrate entirely on doing research and publish papers without aiming to pull up the career ladder or moving up the hierarchy. Perelman would be an prototypical case (or Feynman), only lucking upon a career because of their huge contribution.

@user1717828 Basically, you could sit in your corner and concentrate on your research work, being left "alone" by the system. It's not usually a career in the sense of getting out, being known, influencing the system. Today, this is not really an option anymore, but if at all, probably more in continental Europe than in the Anglophone area.

@CaptainEmacs There's also Four Burners Theory - pick 2 out of 4: family, friends, health, work.

@stackzebra That's even nastier than mine ;-)

To add to the existing answers:

Can you be a (relatively) “lazy” professor and still hold a position?

Yes. Once you have a (tenured) position, you can probably be rather lazy and still hold onto it.

So do you think that it is possible to have a healthy work-life balance as a professor or is that approach to a professorship, at least early on, not realistic for the modern market place of academia?

The part about "at least early on" is crucial here. While you can (and some do) gear back a bit once you have tenure, you don't generally get into this position by being lazy. Academia is very competitive (as other answers have indicated), and to end up on top of a hiring pile you will need to be considerably more accomplished than your peers. For most people, being more accomplished means that you will have to put in the hours (and even then there are no guarantees, of course).
Generally speaking, the description of how you envision the job indicates more interest in a teaching-focused, low-research position. This is perfectly appropriate. Competition for such jobs may be a bit lower than at the top research schools, but is (at least in most areas of the world) still high enough that a truly lazy person will not see any offers.
However, and this is important, it is my observation that professors at teaching-oriented schools do not actually work less than their counterparts at research schools. In teaching-oriented schools, the teaching load will evidently be (much) higher, and individual students may be weaker (meaning that they often need more time-consuming direct support). TAs are common in research schools, but often rare or completely unknown in teaching-oriented schools. All in all, from talking to colleagues at teaching-oriented schools, I got the impression that they are putting in at the very least comparable hours to me (often for lower status and salary). You should not fall into the trap of envisioning a teaching position as the same as a research-focused professorship, with the only difference being that nobody cares if you do research.
It is still possible to have a work-life balance (in both, research and teaching focused positions), but it will require some planning and working smart and dedicatedly. It is unlikely that you will manage to get tenure by actively being lazy.

I'd give this a +5 if I could; there is far too much BS around claiming teaching positions are a stress-free alternative to the competitive R1 atmosphere. Teaching does get easier once you've gotten the hang of it and taught all your classes at least once, but even then it's still serious and focus-breaking work and a source of stress.

The difference between the teaching and research is the predictability of the outcome. Teaching is difficult, but if you put in the work and have some basic aptitude, you will succeed (at least enough to keep your job). Research is much more of a gamble. Sometimes brilliant and hardworking researchers choose a topic that turns out to be a scientific deadend or just don't have luck in getting funding in the tenure-track timeframe.

Disagree with the claim that a lazy person (who doesn't otherwise have output) will be able to hold on to their tenured position.

"Lazy", "healthy work-life balance", these are all perhaps counterproductively vague. As someone in a similar position to OP, the question of interest to me is whether a young academic can plausibly expect 40 hour work weeks to suffice. (I tend to think not, which is why I choose not to pursue a faculty position.)

The question has been edited to remove the word "lazy". Would you consider a similar edit? Expecting a healthy work-life balance is not the same thing as being lazy.

@indigochild In the original question, OP specifically asks about whether you can be lazy, and this is the question I answered. The edit to the question has kind of made my answer outdated.

I chime in with another answer for the German system (as the one from the user with the exact same user name ).
I am a professor in Germany since some years and have been a junior professor in Germany. So I had to go through some evaluation of my research and my teaching to get tenure. I can assure you that it is possible to go through this with a good work-life balance. Maybe I have been fortunate with a supporting family and lucky with my publications, but for me it feels like a good life apart from the job is actually necessary for being productive in research and successful in teaching.
One rule I follow pretty strict is that I do not work after 5pm (and this includes answering any emails) and there are only two exceptions:

When there are extraordinary circumstances. These are, for example, grant deadlines or conference deadlines (but I know these deadlines in advance so I can give my family a heads up), or when there are urgent matters with students (oral exam is tomorrow, but something unexpected happened... (Beware: This is a slippery slope! When these extraordinary circumstances occur too often, I have to redefine what we extraordinary means or change something else).
When I actively decide to do so because I want to (you know, sometimes there are problems I would really like to solve and have fun trying...).

I followed this rule pretty strict and did neither miss any important deadlines nor got angry responses or complaints about not being responsive.

The hard part, of course, is to get one of those professorships in Germany. Though some would argue that befriending the right people is a matter of work-life balance :)

May I ask if your comment intents to say that befriending the right people is necessary to get a professorship? I can assure you that this is not the case as I personally find it impossible to befriend anybody on purpose.

I'd rather say that the hard part is to be lucky to find a position which fits your expertise in the time window where you are applying for positions (in some town which you find acceptable and to which nobody more fit applies to simply get a raise at their home institution).

This is not a concrete statement that explains 100% of the appointments in German academia. It is a blurry impression that has formed in my mind after seeing things happen over some years and hearing other people's stories. I got hired at a good US university without having ever visited the city or having met anyone from the faculty before except briefly at conferences. So do others. I don't think this happens often in Germany. Note that I never said "on purpose"; from what I hear, it's the natural friendships (over beer, football and clubs) that do a lot of the work. And I am not claiming ...

... a necessary and sufficient condition; competence also counts. The game is probably pretty fair between people who know its rules and are willing to play. (NB: West Germany, specifically, or even South Germany, as this is where most people I know are.)

I have been involved in more than a dozen hiring committees in Germany. Getting hired without knowing the institution or their people is very common in Germany, too. I never had the impression that personal friendship is helpful - on the contrary: it can hurt pretty bad. Also there are extremely strict rule which forbids that close friends, former advisors or the like to be involved in the hiring process involved. Your saying "competence also counts" seems pretty off and should be here.

For example: If there is any evidence that the hiring process did not follow these strict rules and that anything else that competence and fitness for the position was involved in the division process, a candidate can sue in Germany and more often than not is successful and the hiring process has to start again. Happens in Germany every now and then.

@darij grinberg totally anecdotally on my part, but southern Germany (Bavaria) and also Austria, for that matter, work a bit different than everything North of the Weißwurst equator.

Could you elaborate a bit more about the extent of support you got from your family? Your answer has made me extremely hopeful, but I'm wondering if 'support' means something like stay-at-home spouse?

First, my wife and my kid moved with me to the place where I got the professorship.That was not a big deal for her, because her job was about to end anyway. Also, Germany has pretty generous rules for maternity and paternity leaves and both my wife and I took time off (I worked one year half-time and she about two years iirc). You also need support when you want to go to conferences (nowadays it becomes more common that conferences offer childcare, so this changes a bit…).

I am in no hunt for accolades, awards, or praise.

My impression (from the US job market, at a mid-tier research university) is that to get a professorship, one must seek out accolades, awards, and praise. This is probably true, to varying degrees, at any university anywhere: they will receive hundreds of job applications and yours will need to stand out from the pile.

I would probably be the 'less preferred' candidate for the job - which is okay.

As I said, universities get hundreds of job applications. If you are the #2 or #3 job candidate at many universities, then you are likely to get job offers. If you are their #20 candidate, you probably won't be interviewed.
The good news is that most academics I know seem to have a positive work-life balance, with various hobbies and interests, often families, and not all of them are workaholics. In my observation, this has been true for academics at all career stages.
Concerning the "rat race" -- once you've earned tenure, and to a limited extent once you've been hired to a permanent position, you can swear off of it if you choose. But, as a graduate student or postdoc, if you hope for academic employment then you must work hard to attract positive attention to yourself.

Well, being lazy and having work-life balance aren't the same thing. Being lazy, by the standards of your university isn't a path to success. At some places you do a lot of research and less teaching, advanced courses mostly. At some places you do a lot of teaching (and course prep) and need to spend a lot of time on it. It is a lot of work no matter what sort of place you are at.
At very low tier colleges you might be able to get by with little intellectual challenge, but still a lot of work dealing with students.
The one big advantage, I think, of a professorship is that you largely get to determine your own schedule. If you prefer to teach only in the mornings you can probably have that arrangement (most of the time). But for a position in a research focused university or even a somewhat less prestigious "comprehensive university" you will still have a lot of work of various kinds, though you can choose to do much of it when you like. So, you can probably trade evenings at the computer for week-ends off, or other such things.
But the professorate isn't a 40 hour a week (or 30 or whatever) proposition. Most people put in much longer hours. But that isn't, generally, because they have a manager pressing them. It is because they are driven by ideas and work on those ideas more or less continuously. The pressure to perform is primarily inner-driven rather than forced from others. If you don't have that inner drive, then a professorship probably isn't your best choice.
And, your word "relatively" scares me a bit. If there are two candidates for tenure and/or promotion and you are "relatively" lazy compared to the other, you probably won't have a good shot, other things being equal.
Lazy, no. Flexible, yes.

I admit that 'lazy' was probably a poor choice of words.

It's hugely competitive--just look at the numbers. I don't think you will do going well into an academia career without a LOT of youthful "burn the candle at both ends and with a blowtorch in the middle" energy.  It's just not the right choice if you already have a measured approach to work.
And I'm not making a value judgment...just saying the situation.  You gotta be in the fight for this one. Both in grad school and as a pre-tenure prof.

Depends on the country, so maybe add a country tag (from your post history I would say Canada?). My answer below is mainly based on what I know about the system in Germany and what I have heard (here and in other places) about the system in the US, so make sure to double-check that it is the same in your country:
First of all, I think you won't get happy in research-heavy institutes with what you want to do. However, there are also a lot of positions with a focus on teaching, or an equal split between teaching and research (and thus not expecting top results that often), or positions where the research is less focused on top theoretical results that everyone will quote but rather on more practical problems like, for example

The organization funding us was wondering if X is possible. We split the research into three bachelor and two master theses, looking at different aspects of X, and then joined the outcome into a final report. Furthermore, we joined forces with department A, who produced a running prototype based on our theoretical analysis.

Such a research might not be considered top level by some, but it still is research, and on top of that it allows to combine teaching (supervising bachelor/master theses) with the research; something that might not be possible if you are the leading expert (read: the only one with your skill level and knowledge) in a field.
Overall, I think it is totally possible to live a happy life as a professor, including good work/life balance, fun teaching young minds and interesting research without deadly pressure to publish all the time. One of the main reasons for me thinking that is that I hope to get such a position in a few years, so if you happen to be especially interested in the German system just let me know.

There is an underlying assumption here that teaching and managerial work (that's what you are doing when you split up a research topic between 5 students) is less tolling on one's work-life balance than research. My experience has been the exact opposite. In research, you can proceed at your own tempo, and you are assessed based on multi-year moving average output. You can take a half-year break after a good project and no one will notice. In teaching and management, you have to consistently be there when needed, no matter how much rest your body and mind are asking for.

@darijgrinberg Agreed. From my experience, it strongly depends on the individual. I assumed that OP is, similar to me, someone who works better with short term goals and (e.g.) weekly deadlines in teaching than with a looming giant project that you have to finish in a few years. There are some for which one is nicer, and others for which the other is. I did long term research, where no one cared what I did as long as after a few years there would be a result to show and I never had more stress, even though the daily work load was low compared to when I was teaching.

@Dirk: From what I've been told, the "trick" with research grants (at least here in the US) is that you don't have to get the project done -- you just have to get something good done by reporting time. If it's on a different topic, fine. Still, it's a challenge, but a much more doable one when you are shooting for 50 stars and just need to hit 1. Is this different in Germany?

@darijgrinberg: In my experience with university teaching (in a system without tution costs), there is unfortunately no quality assurance for teachers at all. Lectures can be abysmally bad or the teacher often away, yet there are no consequences.

@darijgrinberg Similar, I think. And Thomas, you are completely right that there are really good and really bad teachers. And especially on a research heavy university, no one seems to care as long as they produce good research, which, yes, is sad. A friend of mine is a very good teacher and currently working on moving from lectures to a new teaching concept, that incorporates new learning methods like youtube guides, stackexchange and online ressources instead of being an outdated concept where one person reads from a book for an hour. But also said book readers still exist...

As others have said: Academia is highly competitive. Working more helps in securing a job and is a must, if you aim to get a position at very good universities. But there are other factors that you might influence and that might allow you to secure a position without working too much.
First, if you are working on the right topics at the right time this might help. For example, around 2017 there were many jobs related to artificial intelligence / machine learning but relatively few well people with a strong background.
Second, you can benefit from working in a team. Academia encourages writing papers with multiple authors. It is better to have 2 publication with 2 authors than one as a single author. But there are limits, a hiring committee will very likely check if you are first author and even ask you about your contribution.
Third, choices with respect to your research projects and your way of working. While it is non-trivial to predict early on how a research paper will be perceived (peer review comes with a lot of randomness) "working smart" can certainly help. While you should follow your passion, getting too much hooked onto a project that is likely not bearing any fruits can be dangerous. For example, I have seen people working on follow up projects of papers that did not yield good outcomes in the first place. Though in the long run this might change (These papers might be just "too early" at the time of submission and later take-off). This is very risky. Also I have seen PhDs doing all kinds of things that are not contributing to any outcomes.

It's hard for me to imagine any job that would have an easier time establishing a "work-life" balance than being a professor. You're only actually teaching maybe 12-15 hours a week and after you've done it a couple of times, you shouldn't need much prep for it. Office hours? Okay, maybe another 6 hours or so but you're mostly free to do whatever you want during that time. That's barely part-time and with 3 months off out of the year and the option to take a 6 month vacation and declare it as a sabbatical (on top of the 6 figure salary and ridiculous benefits package), I'm having a hard time seeing your point.
Maybe the real question is a "work-life" balance in general since if you con't do it as a professor, I don't see how you can do it anywhere.

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


text:
Can my age play as an obstacle in my Ph.D. application, and while getting student visa?
I'm 42, got my master degree in Feb 2017. I´ve 17 years of work experience in the industrial field and I'm still doing academic research with my former supervisor and publishing papers.
I am going to pursue my higher education in Australia or New Zealand.
I also need to apply for a student visa once I get my admission.
Can my age play as an obstacle in my Ph.D. application?
Would my age cause trouble when I issue a student visa too?

Elizabeth Henning's comment to this question specifically about Australia also seems pertinent.

No, your age won't be a problem for being admitted as a PhD student and being granted a student visa, but you may find it difficult to avoid tuition fees.and to win a scholarship to cover your living expenses. Even if you meet the eligibility criteria for such a scholarship, the committee may simply prefer younger candidates, and you won't be able to prove you were discriminated against. However, a professor may be able to fund your scholarship from his grants, but, again, professors generally prefer younger students.
Also, it will be hard for you to pursue an academic career in Australia after you complete your PhD. In order to get a permanent position in an Australian university, you will need to win external grants (e.g., ARC grants), and, again, the committees will prefer younger applicants. If you do not win external grants, you will be an eternal postdoc on short-term contracts (1-2 years), and you will be hired only as long as your PI wins external funding to hire you. Once he fails to do so, you will have to look for another professor who has funds to hire you, and it is not easy at all. It is a miserable and stressful career path.
I lived and worked in Australia and know the Australian academic system. An old Australian postdoc told me that he had wanted to write an ARC grant application and that his boss had said that he (the postdoc) had no chance of succeeding because of the age, even despite that the age is not mentioned in the eligibility requirements. I would advise against trying to start pursuing an academic career in Australia at such an age.

Thank you very much, Sandra, for your answer. I have already sent several emails to academic staff in Australia in order to secure one supervisor but received no answer.  But in New Zealand, I had some warm reply and their first question was if I need a scholarship? I said yes, and then they asked me to send my proposal and academic transcript. But now after 35 days, there is no reply from their side. A friend of mine said that it is better to pursue my Ph.D. in the USA or Canada. I am still analyzing the situation to see what to do.

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


text:
Academic dishonesty -- math graduate school admissions
I have been somewhat incorrectly convicted of copying another student's test, and the prospects of reversing this seem doubtful. My school's policy is somewhat more lenient here due to it being a first offense so they removed points on questions they think I cheated on and that this happened is kept on file, though it is not on my transcript. How would this affect my ability to get into top math graduate schools (assuming I am unable to successfully reverse this)? In particular, do many ask me to specify such things?

"somewhat incorrectly"?

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/30539/i-was-caught-cheating-on-an-exam-how-can-i-minimize-the-damage?r=SearchResults

This is certainly not going to help your application for graduate school, and it can be fatal if it doesn't look like you've learned from it. I suspect the default position of most people is going to be against you, unfortunately.

If you still have time (i.e. years till you graduate), make sure to show that you can put the incident behind you. Don't cheat in other classes, but get good grades in them anyway.
If you don't have time, that's bad. You'll need to write a good explanation in your application.
You will be asked about this. There's a box in many graduate applications asking if you've ever been involved in academic dishonesty situations. Don't omit this even if you've put the incident behind you, because if you do, you are not reporting full facts and if discovered any offer of admission can be rescinded even if you've already matriculated (see the statement you have to sign at the end of the application).

While it is impossible to say with complete accuracy, not knowing more, I doubt that it will affect you at all, provided that you act honestly and honorably in everyone's view in the remainder of your tenure. If that is the case, then, even if it is still considered an infraction, then it will also be considered an aberration. That is probably the reason for the nature of the policy in place.
Since the record being retained isn't public, the only way it would affect you in the future is if one of your recommenders mentions it. That is unlikely if you show yourself to be honest.
People make mistakes and other people recognize that. You don't actually need to have the record corrected to your satisfaction as long as your behavior is such that people in future want to write you great letters of recommendation.
But your goal is to be seen as a paragon so that your professors will look on the past as an out of character incident, even if they think that you really did cheat on one exam. Look to the future if you can't alter the past.

Has the matter been "expunged"?

If so, then your university should not mention it (you may want to verify this) and you might legally/ethically be allowed to answer "no" when asked about this (you will definitely want to verify this as well, preferably with the new school(s) [anonymously] and in writing).
If not, then you will have to mention it, and I agree with Allure's answer -- this will count against you, possibly in a major way -- all you can do is to address it very nicely in your SOP.

They say they can only say if I waive the right to do so, though some graduate schools might make me do so.


text:
How much to say about a conditionally accepted paper on a resume?
I am an undergraduate student who does research with a professor at my University. Recently we submitted a paper (which I am second author of) to a conference, and it was accepted with shepherding.
I'm obviously proud of my work, and would mention it even if there was no formal paper associated with it. But I also think mentioning that I helped write this paper would strengthen my resumé.
How can I responsibly present this on my resume? Can I say the title of the paper? (I feel like that's reasonable) It's submission status? (I feel like this is a no-no) I'm unfamiliar with the academic guidelines here.
Edit: I'm looking for an industry internship, if that's relevant to the question

What sort of thing are you using this CV to apply for (e.g. graduate school, industry job, fellowship), and when? Might change the answer.

In general, suspect it's worth mentioning it and its title, definitely worth noting that it's been submitted (since that makes it clear there is a real paper, not one "in preparation" which is very nebulous.) Beyond that not so certain.

What is the actual status of the paper? If it's accepted and published, you have the data to put on the CV. If it's formally accepted in the end, but publication is in progress, it's "accepted" or "in press". If it's still in shepherding and there is no formal acceptance, it's still "submitted". If it isn't even submitted, it does not exist. As for me, I do not list submitted papers on my CV.

I usually have three categories for papers on my CV:

Peer-reviewed accepted papers (if published they have the bibliographic info, otherwise they just say "Accepted by journal name")
Submitted preprints (with the month and journal of submission and a link to the readable preprint)
In preparation (means there's a file started but not finished)

You shouldn't move things from 2 to 1 until they're really officially accepted though.  Be honest and accurate, but list it.

This is reasonable, though I don't usually include "in preparation" unless there's something I'd be comfortable showing to someone who asked about it - i.e. very near submission.

Yeah, I’m probably going to stop listing those at all as a get older, but I assume that people know that those don’t really mean much.

I list the accepted and accepted/published ones together, since the actual publication doesn't mean anything it's the acceptance that's important.

A paper goes through various stages of review before either being published or rejected. The stages usually have names, but the names vary by journal so using the journal specific names could make your cv inconsistent.
If a paper is in the early stages of review I make an entry like
Author names, Paper name, Journal name, submitted.
If it is in the later stages I exchange 'submitted' for 'to appear'. If it has been published I add the page numbers. The advantage of this is to have a uniform format in your CV. The difference between early and later is a judgement call. Note that anyone with few publications to their name would be doing themselves a disservice by being overly strict about this distinction.


text:
Create contact for future postdoc without disappointing PhD supervisor
I am a physical science PhD student and after completed my PhD I would like to work as a postdoc in a second, specific, university's research group.
Therefore, I would like to start making some networking with this new group, e.g. by contacting the director OR any academic with same research interests as me, explaining my PhD project and eventually involve he/she in a possible research which will lead to a paper together. This would mean visiting that particular university, meet the staff, spend some time working with them, etc..
The point is that my actual PhD supervisor seems not so keen to these kind of connections for whatever reason (possibly because he imagines my final aim?) and therefore I feel worry to talk with him about this subject because I already know his answer, i.e. No.
I believe that starting early (i.e. during a PhD) making connections with this (or any other) research group would be better for me, instead of contacting them after e.g. my PhD thesis submission or Viva, but I don't want to ruin the relation with my PhD supervisor.
In your opinion, what should I do?
1) Should I impose to him my choice to contact and hopefully work with this particular group, because it is my PhD project but possibly ruining the relation
or
2) Wait until the end of my PhD (I am a 1st year) and tell him to write for me a letter of recommendation for a postdoc job in that group
or
other options?
In any case he will know my decision.
Thanks

Later in your PhD career it's natural to look for the next thing, but doing so in your first year seems a bit odd. Establishing a (new) collaboration between labs right out of the gate could be seen as either bold or foolish...

If your advisor doesn't think it is a good idea then you should trust him (this is part of his job, to advise you, after all).
You're just starting out so get your own projects going before trying to connect with another group. In a year or so if you're still interested you could bring this up to your advisor again. You could always attempt to meet people from the other group casually at a conference or something.
Short answer: Listen to your advisor, especially so early in your career.

If you are a first year student, then you are putting the cart before the horse.
You have a very nice dream.  Savor it as a dream for now.
A couple of years from now, attend a conference your target post-doc group is likely to attend, go to their talks and poster presentations, and introduce yourself.
Take things one step at a time.


text:
How to cite OER textbooks which have had the title and authors removed?
I would like to cite an OER (Open Educational Resources) book in a concise way.  The book is available here.  The online pdf of the book says

Normally, the author and publisher would be credited here. However, the publisher has asked for the customary
  Creative Commons attribution to the original publisher, authors, title, and book URI to be removed. Additionally,
  per the publisher's request, their name has been removed in some passages.

I do have the names of the authors, from the "About the Authors" page, but I don't know the original order they were listed in.  I wanted to do something like first-author et al. Is it fair to select the first one listed in the "About the Authors" page for that purpose?

This is interesting: https://2012books.lardbucket.org/attribution.html

Apparently, this is the "actual book": https://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/catalog/editions/mayerleb_2-essentials-legal-environment-of-business-2-0

Unlike the owners of the lardbucket website, you are under no obligation (legal or ethical) to obscure the provenance of the books. But why "et al." when you can list all names?

@darijgrinberg - Laziness.  I want to cite two such books frequently in some homework exercises.


text:
Want to do mathematical physics - if first choice dept not a good fit, can I switch?
I am writing on behalf of someone else.  But the question will be easier to pose if I put myself in his shoes and speak in the first person.
I will soon graduate with a Bachelor's in economics and mathematics in a Third World country.  I have, however, also studied physics. I actually have more physics than mathematics courses on my transcript.  I want to study for a PhD in mathematical physics in the U.S. I would need support (e.g. TAship).
Where I live, subject GREs are only offered once a year, and one is not permitted to take two different ones on the same day.  It is too far and expensive for me to travel to another country to take a second subject GRE.
Suppose, for the purpose of this question:

I decide to take the Physics GRE, and apply to physics departments
I get admission to a physics department, and a TAship
I take a combination of both math and physics courses and do well
After several semesters I realize I'd rather that my home department were math, instead of physics

How hard would it be to apply to switch over to a math department (either in the same university, or a different one), assuming I had taken sufficient math courses, and done very well in them?

Note: The similar question is somewhat helpful, but I would like to see a specific focus on the math/physics interface; also, please consider the specific option of pausing at completion of a masters, with a switch of department at that point.

@astronat From what I gather, finding funding in Europe for a master's is much harder, no?

Possible duplicate of Switching from one area of graduate study to another?  and see also https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9021/switching-between-different-graduate-departments-within-the-same-graduate-school?rq=1

See discussion here: https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3720/need-help-focusing-question

It seems like "you" should do a lot more research into existing graduate programs, since you haven't mentioned maybe the most obvious thing you should do: apply to an applied math Ph.D. program.  You should look carefully at what different programs expect, since "applied math" is a slippery concept; however, as such, applied math programs don't have an uniform an expectation of student background as pure math or physics programs.  Interdisciplinary programs are hot at the moment, but unlike a usual math or physics degree, what's on offer will vary dramatically from university to university.  In my new hometown of Waterloo alone, there are (I think usually funded)

Masters in Applied Math (https://uwaterloo.ca/applied-mathematics/graduate-students/applying),
Perimeter Scholars International (https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/training/about-psi), and
a special stream in the Institute for Quantum Computing (https://uwaterloo.ca/institute-for-quantum-computing/programs/graduate-studies).

That's a bit out of the norm, but there are many other programs out there.

Do applied math departments typically require a subject GRE?  If so, which one?

@aparente001 I have no idea.  Besides, what's typical doesn't matter; research the programs that interest "you."

We certainly will, thank you for the suggestion. // Your answer would be strengthened with this information, since the problem of the GRE subject tests only being offered once a year was key to the question.

@aparente001 I understand your point, but I think you're missing mine.  In pure math, there is a rough consensus about the basic background required for a graduate program (in the US; it can be quite different in other countries) and how that background is evaluated.  As far I can tell this is just not the case with applied math.  Sometimes applied math students go through the same application process as pure math students and thus require the same exams.

Sometimes it's a completely separate department, and thus the students are evaluated differently.  It would be very dangerous to generalize (and I'm far from the best qualified to do so).  "You" need to research programs, and decide on the basis of the programs "you" want to get in to which GRE makes the most sense; it's not helpful for me to just guess which ones those are.


text:
Do scholars blog or only prefer to publish papers?
Are there scholars who blogs independently their thoughts not over papers? If so, which platform do they use?

See this and this. For what it's worth, as-is, this appears to me as a very simple question, with a shopping question tacked on to boot (what platform to use). Not sure this question is currently a good fit for the site.

You might want to go to scholar,google.com, and I think you'll find that if someone really want to be taken seriously, they're going to try and publish in respected journals and not a blog.

@Hank, a lot of "serious" Journals have a blog and even a twitter account.

The answers are: A) Yes, and, B) pretty much any platform they want that makes life easy. The most-respected scholars I know of who blog regularly are probably Terry Tao and Timothy Gowers - both Fields Medalists (one of the highest awards a mathematician can receive). This completes the existence proof.

@0x90, yes many 'serious' Journals have a blog, but that wasn't the question.  The question was scholars who blog 'independently'. My feeling is that if you are a scholar who wants to be taken seriously, then publishing on your own blog does not have the same impact as if you publish in a respected journal

I think this shouldn't be asked as an either/or question. In my field of CS there are plenty of reputable scholars who publish in the most respected CS journals and conferences (FYI in CS there are some conferences that are more important than most journals) and who also blog.


text:
Appropriately thank a supervisor for giving you a chance when you actually failed?
In general:
What is the proper manner in which to thank a supervisor for allowing you to take a really long shot? I am talking about when a professor (supervisor) who did not really know you decides to give you a chance, even though there is clearly a very low probability of success. Especially in the case where the supervisor invested significant physical resources and/or their time and you still failed to accomplish the goal (in this case research result). I am looking for a formal and appropriate way to convey my gratitude to the professor for taking the risk. Again this is in the context where you have specifically failed to reach the goal and cost the supervisor in question a good deal of resources in the process. Is it even proper to convey gratitude at this juncture for giving you an outside shot at tremendous opportunity? Or should I just be extremely apologetic?

So far as I know there is no secret handshake for offering thanks.  "Thank you so much for all your help" works well in large range of situations.

"Thanks for the opportunity" is almost always appropriate and welcome.
As far as "apologetic" goes, I'd think on why the goal wasn't reached. Some research projects are known to be long shots before they're begun and failure, while obviously not desired, is not an unforeseen outcome. Sometimes outside events beyond anyone's control torpedo things. If this is the "flavor" of your situation, then I don't necessarily think abject apologies are called for, though you can certainly commiserate with others involved on how things turned out. Sometimes research just doesn't pan out, and good research supervisors understand that you can't hit if you don't swing.
On the other hand, when I've been part of projects that failed in whole or part due to things I did or didn't do, I've tried to make sure the supervisor involved knows that at least I learned from the experience and that I had an idea of how I would do things differently in similar circumstances should they arise. Really, this is a valuable response in either case. Especially, though, if you hope to have future research opportunities with this supervisor, I'd make sure this is understood.

In this case I tried to skip 3 years of prerequisites and take a research credit grad class which is only one team project which is officially for a grade but truely for a conference paper. This level is requiring me to actually work through proofs to understand and I have never had to plan for that time before (am solid 150 hrs behind by now). I definetely agree with what you said about learning, I am learning at a greater rate than any experience before; just not fast enough to do my part.

So, yeah, definitely in the "learning experience" category. I and most other faculty members I have known give these kinds of opportunities to undergrads that show promise, and in the knowledge that sometimes things don't work out. Don't be discouraged that you're still on the steep part of the learning curve, that's probably not unexpected by your supervisor, and if you keep demonstrating that you're willing to put in the effort you'll likely be given further opportunities to contribute.

Look at the upside, not the "failure" - the professor likely knew it was something of a long shot, and there's never a guaranteed success in research.
"Thank you so much for the opportunity, I appreciate your guidance and mentorship and learned a huge amount."
Or something to that effect, but in a way that sounds like you.


text:
How to ask to review for a specific conference or journal?
I have been invited to review technical content in the past. However, if I want to be part of review process for specific conference/journal – how do I go about and suggest my availability?

While the marked duplicate doesn't necessarily ask about reviewing for a specific venue, the top answer there gives three suggestions that all apply to the case of wanting to review for a specific venue.

In a word: networking.
Most conferences and journals don't have any formal process for people to offer themselves in this manner.  I'm not exactly sure why not, because most publication venues are also always wishing they had more trustworthy reviewing capacity.  I think it's the "trustworthy" part that's the issue: there is a notion that the people in charge of selecting reviewers should have some reason to believe the review you turn in will be a meaningful evaluation of the work under consideration.  Still, in practice I often identify possible reviewers by looking at their online presence, so having a person submit themselves as a possible reviewer seems like it would be no less reliable — it's just that in my experience it's just not done.
Instead, the most frequent ways that I see people getting asked to be reviewers are

by having people get to know them and think of them when they're looking for people to review, and
by having other people who are declining to review point the editor to them as an alternative.

If you put the word out into your professional network that you are looking to review papers, then reviews will likely start coming your way.  Furthermore, once you've reviewed for somebody, you'll be in their database: provide a high-quality and timely review and fill out the reviewer account with keywords and such, and you'll be more likely to be tapped again to review for the same venues, because reliable reviewers are like gold.

This may be field-specific, but I think it's also common for editors to send review requests to people who recently published on the same topic in the same journal (and where the same editor was responsible).

In my field, you don't solicit reviewing work. (In fact, most people would like to avoid being given reviews, as it is work with little reward. It's seen as a responsibility, rather than a privilege.)
Being asked to give reviews shows that you are respected in the research community and it is often listed under "service" on CVs. So I can understand why you would want to be asked.
When the editors or program committee receives a paper, they need to find reviewers. Who they select will be informed by many things, including:

Who they know. If they know you and that the paper is relevant to your expertise, then they will send it to you.
Referrals. They may ask someone else who declines to give a review, but suggests you instead.
Citations. If the paper in question cites your related work, then chances are you might be a good reviewer, so they'll send it to you.
Web presence. Before asking you to review a paper, they will probably google you to make sure you have the right expertiese.  And, if all else fails, they might simply look for reviewers online by googling keywords.

So if you want to be asked to review a paper you should: (1 & 2) network with other researchers so that they think of you when they see a paper in your area, (3) write lots of papers so that your expertise are clear, and (4) have a good web presence so that people can find you and see what you do; that includes maintaining a professional web page and a google scholar account.
All of these tips are of course tips for success in academia in general!

In my field, it's quite uncommon to solicit review assignments, but there are fairly reliable ways to end up with them if one is so inclined. For many of the major annual meetings, there's often a request for abstract reviewers that one can sign up for.
Personally thought, I found the most reliable way to end up as a potential reviewer for a journal is to submit something to it. This is not the only way, but my heaviest review workload comes from journals I submit to regularly.


text:
Writing an email to a professor for teaching assistantship for the second time
I am a graduate student and I had asked for TA/grader position, with a few professors at my institution in fall semester. But at that time there was no position available. Now I want to send another email to them again, asking for a position in spring semester. Should I reply back to the previous email that I had sent, or should I send a new email? How to remind them that I had approached them earlier?

This is a highly personal opinion due to an individual's emailing habits, but I would not attach pre-existing email on something more than a month old.  If you talk to the professor about the opportunity in the future, just add relevant information to the current email.  No need to add the entire backstory, unless it has important information that cannot be conveyed otherwise.
"Hello, I had previously inquired about such and such back in the Fall and nothing came of it.  I was wondering about any potential such and such for the upcoming semester."

In my experience, in the U.S., whether to provide support to a student, through a teaching assistantship, is decided at a department level, and the person to approach is the administrator who supervises the teaching assistants.  The department secretary could clarify for you exactly who this would be.
Here's what I have seen: there are a certain number of students who are guaranteed TA work each year.  But when the department finds that there are still some uncovered courses, and funds are sufficient, they give support to some unsupported students as well, and these decisions are made on a year by year basis in late August.  I can imagine that in some departments this might occur on a semester by semester basis.
When you write your email, proofread it very, very carefully.