text:
How to exchange email with potential professors
I sent an informal query to a professor in UK and she replied me with her strong interest in my research works and considering me as a potential postdoc. She mentioned that she wants to apply for research grant this year and will inform me when she gets that. But she did not provide some details on the approximate time which she probably get the grant. In the meanwhile, I am a postdoc in another country and my contract will be finished within 4 months. As I need to make some plan about renewing my contract, is it appropriate to ask her to let me know about the approximate time of approving her application for grant?
As a note, one of her postdocs has resigned but the remaining time of the current project is rather short. Can I make a request to join her team for recent project as well and wait to confirm her new grant in the meanwhile?

It happens all the times: professors say they have applied for grants but they are unsure of the probability of getting it. If she believe that you are able enough, she'll have you to help writing grants.

Don't be intimidated that she is a professor. It is certainly appropriate to continue your "conversation". Let her know of your interest in joining her team (possibly subject to funding) and give any constraints you might have. You don't need to say a lot, but thank her for her interest and express yours.
Ask her for any advice about what you can do at the current time if it seems like there is a possibility to work together.
In other words, write as if you are a colleague, not a subordinate.

Thank you for your answer. Can I ask the name of her future and current projects?

Better to ask more generally about things you might read now to become more familiar with her work.

May I also ask about approximate time of availability of funding? Or it is a private matter of professors?

You could do that or you could also hope that you get a response to your first email that is positive enough that you go into more detail in a follow up. Don't make replying to you a chore. Say enough to be able to gauge interest, then go deeper.  This is not the only way to proceed, of course.

I appreciate for your time replying my question and comments.

Talking about money and timetables isn't a problem depending on how you frame it. You want to communicate the reason you want to know is because it's important to doing the job. Because it is.
If grants are taken care of already, you won't have to write them.  If they're not. You will. If it's somewhere in the middle, is there a plan for what you should be doing to make the best use of the time regardless? These are things that are very reasonable for you to need to know.
I would approach it as: "In order to focus on the work I need to do for you and appropriately prioritize things, I need to understand your expectations and how they may change based on the funding situation."
And then ask more specific questions per your field and your expected responsibilities.
I'd make sure not to be demanding, pushy, only curious in passing, or apologetic as if you see yourself as "not important enough to know."
If you have a good reason to know, you have a good reason to ask.


text:
I want to keep doing the sort of work I've been doing as a PhD student, rather than becoming a supervisor or bureaucrat. Can I remain a PhD student?
Note: I am aware of this other post that covers why doing many PhDs in different subjects is not a good path. My question is different: can I do multiple PhDs in the same subject, or very similar subjects, rather than climbing the ladder?
I chose to do a PhD because I like to design and manufacture very novel microstructures for the betterment of the mankind. I did pretty good job. I will be graduating in a couple of months and I'm thinking what to do next.

I don't want to work in industry, because as I witnessed, you end up in endless "project meetings" with not much space for actual intellectual or laboratory work.

I thought it would be nice to do a postdoc, but as I read on the internet, it often involves supervising students, writing grant proposals and doing lots of bureaucracy, with very little actual research compared to a PhD student.

The worst possible ending is to steer my career towards becoming a professor, because as one of my befriended professors said "my job is 75% about workplace psychology". I hate dealing with people. "Please solve our quarrels for us, daddy professor, we are just a group of adults who need a nanny." I know from here that "exceptionally good" professors may be able to avoid this fate, but I know I'm not exceptionally good, just good.

So instead of those three paths, I think it would be good to do a second PhD in a very close field. This way I could still do meaningful work while using domain knowledge that I already have. That would get me much better research results, because I could skip "learning basics".
So is my idea viable? Is it a good idea to do two phds in a row in very close fields? I don't expect high salary. I just want to do interesting research and solve technical problems, and I don't want to go to a completely different domain.

@Sursula-they- the answer you linked is already linked with a comment in my question.

@Roland wow, this sounds very interesting! Almost all the articles on the internet say that postdoc is to a large degree an exercise in managerial skills. A postdoc which skips the boring parts almost sounds like an unicorn! Where to find it?

@user46147: In the fields I'm familiar with, they are the rule, not the exception. Online feedback for academia is like that for Yelp or a doctor: the 1% who had a bad experience belabor their 1 star rating; the 98% who had an ok or good experience move on w/o leaving a review. About supervising students...as your ability and understanding of a field expands, you are more efficient if you work as a team. The students you might supervise allow you to do more, not less research (assuming they are reasonably competent).

This question does not seem like a duplicate of the linked question. I encourage people to read the question carefully before voting to close or downvoting. I attempted to edit the post to make it clearer; perhaps this will help.

While the existing answer has already phrased this better than I could, I want to echo the sentiment that you are altogether much too dismissive of the different career paths you mention, based on what sounds like hearsay. A post-doc is not primarily managerial, industry is not just useless meetings. Nobody will fund you to be a PhD student forever, and even if you find funding for one more PhD, you certainly won't for a third; and I think what you're after can be found in these professional positions, with the benefit of higher pay and more longevity.

Is it a good idea to do two phds in a row in very close fields?

To the title question: no. The article you linked already explains that the purpose of a PhD is to teach you how to do research. You now (should) know how to do research, so there is no reason to do another PhD. In practical terms, governments, universities, and advisors effectively subsidize PhD programs: for example, by funding a PhD student when it would be more efficient to hire an existing PhD. They do this because training a new generation of R&D leaders furthers the university's mission and the national interest. Now that you have already been trained, it does not make much sense to subsidize you again.

So instead of those three paths...

I think you are far too dismissive of these three paths.

you end up in endless 'project meetings' with not much space for actual intellectual or laboratory work -- industry is a very big place, I seriously doubt that every position is like this. Moreover, you are likely to find that your share of intellectual work increases as you gain seniority, since you'll spend more time thinking about the big ideas and less time doing tedious work.
as I read on the internet, it often involves supervising students, writing grant proposals and doing lots of bureaucracy, with very little actual research compared to a PhD student -- your mileage may vary, but post-docs usually do relatively little bureaucracy. There may be some supervision and grant proposals involved, but these also bring advantages: you can choose what you work on and outsource some of the less interesting work to students. Further, post-docs usually have some control over how they spend their time (more so than PhD students).
The worst possible ending is to ...[become] a professor, because as one of my befriended professors said "my job is 75% about workplace psychology". 75% is an exaggeration for sure. It is true that if you are running a large lab, you will need to secure funding and supervise your staff, which will cut into your other responsibilities. But not all professorships involve running large labs and supervising huge staffs.

I don't expect high salary. I just want to do interesting research and solve technical problems.

I recommend reconsidering all three of the above paths. All three present paths toward permanent, well-paid positions doing interesting research and solving technical problems. In particular, it sounds like you may want to consider permanent positions as a technician or (non-tenure track) staff scientist, or the analogous roles in a private company. Some of these paths will be more attractive than others: for example, if you want to stay in the exact same field and not become a supervisor nor a principal investigator, then many of the more lucrative positions may indeed be closed to you. But even the less-lucrative positions will be more secure and better paying than trying to remain a PhD student forever. Good luck.

There are many positions in academia where one can maintain a research heavy lifestyle, without mentoring/teaching. One such position is a research track faculty member. Essentially you pay your salary by getting research grants. Another alternative is to get postdoctoral research fellowships (which is less stable, but I know of one person who lived like this for many years, just traveling the world and doing research). They don’t always require grant writing or mentoring students, that’s only for those who want to become professors later on.
Some academic bodies will offer pure research faculty positions (e.g. the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, the CNRS in France and non tutorial fellows in Oxford). These are more competitive and kinda niche but they exist.
Doing two PhDs in a row is probably not viable, if they’re in the same field. While it’s probably ok to do (like I’m not aware of any rule precluding you from doing it), I don’t know if you’d be able to find an advisor willing to take you. A good part of taking PhD students is to mentor and help them grow. How will that happen with you? You seem set in your research agenda, and already got a PhD. So to conclude- I would suggest the paths I offer above instead.
As a meta comment, quite frankly- I think you are missing a big part of what research is about. If you do not like to teach and collaborate, then you don’t like a significant part of the scientific endeavor.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What are the common criteria of evaluation for a Post-Doctoral or Tenure-Track faculty position?
I am waiting for my PhD viva and I would like to start applying for Post-docs or faculty positions. We all know that a CV is never too good, so I would like to ask some things about the elements of evaluation for Post-Doctoral/tenure-track faculty positions. I know each university has its own rules, so I am looking for a general answer here. My PhD is in the field of Mechanical Engineering from an European University.
How important are:

TPC (Technical Program Committee) at conference?
Reviewer at journals and/or conferences?
Journal papers. What metrics are important? Impact factor, indexing (ISI, Scopus, Scimago quarter). Is quantity  more important or less important than quality?
Conference papers. Are they of significant importance compared to journal papers? What metrics are important here? Indexing? Proceedings resulting in publication are more valuable than those private (only on the proceedings book).
Previous research grants as R&D engineer with a MS. degree. They seem to be really important. How should it be stated? Reference of the grant, name of the project, and length?
Advanced studies diploma (1st year of some doctoral degrees). Is it very important?
Recommendation letters. How many are usually needed? Should all of them be of University lecturers, or engineers working at industry are also appreciated, if they previously worked with me?
Professional references. Are they needed if recommendation letters are sent out?
Does any other metric seem to be important, like teaching experience?

The expectations and evaluation for postdoc and tenure-track positions are so different that I think this ought to be split into two separate questions.

You seem to be most interested in a primarily research position so I'll say a few things about that and then give a broader answer.
Every candidate is different, with a different mix of positive and maybe negative factors. Every hiring committee is different with its own concerns. Every university is different, and usually they have a well-defined "mission."
But it is up to the candidate to make the case to the specific committee. Nothing positive that you do professionally is likely to hurt you unless your interests are wildly different from the "mission." So, for a research focused position at a university with a research focused mission all of the things you mention are good and any of them can be stressed in your application.
All universities love that sweet sweet grant money and some fundamentally depend on it, so be aware of that in seeking employment. It is hard to get tenure in some places without quite a lot of grant support. Other places it means little, but is still valued. Especially if the grant can support students.
However, you should try to match your own interests with the mission of the place. If you are very hot to do research you will be very frustrated at a place with little research synergy. Likewise there might be little future for a person interested primarily in teaching and advising at an R1 university.
Note that some small Liberal Arts colleges have a strong research reputation, others do not. In the US, some state universities stress a teaching mission over research. Others are just the opposite.
At one Ivy League college/university that I know of, faculty in Computer Science were (and maybe still are) given a choice of focus - teaching or research. They valued both and didn't require that every faculty be equally invested in both. But you had to excel in the one you focused on and be "acceptable" in the other. You couldn't ignore one aspect entirely. So, just as you need to make your own case for getting hired, you need to make your own case for tenure and the value of the various things isn't fixed in stone.
Note also that some R1 level universities in the US have a special category for teaching faculty. The criteria for hiring and retention are quite different from that of the research faculty. There can be a place for both.
If you want to do research today, but are at a small place that doesn't support it well, you will need to establish and maintain a wider group of contacts, possibly world-wide. This was impossible before the internet and relatively cheap travel, but is now a possibility. In my later years I collaborated with an international group, a few of whom I only met face to face a few times. But it takes extra effort if the coffee-room crowd can't help you explore your current interests.

Technical note. In some fields, such as CS, conference papers are extremely valuable. In other fields, not so much. Much of the intellectual life of the field can be carried on in good conferences.

Since postdoc funding is usually tied to a project, the most important criteria in evaluating them is generally how relevant their work experience is to the project at hand. If somebody has particularly suitable skills you might bypass someone with a stronger CV on “paper” but might require more training.
As for faculty positions, the goal is to find someone who will be able to establish and sustain high-quality research and teaching. The hiring committee may want particular research disciplines within the larger field or are just looking for the best available candidate. So activities that demonstrate your abilities to publish, bring in money, and earn the respect of your peers are all important. (If you’ve applied for and won a competitive researc( grant as a student, that’s something that should absolutely be highlighted.)

Not all colleges stress research over teaching, however. For "teaching colleges", including some very good Liberal Arts colleges teaching comes first. Research is still valued and required, but it may not be the first consideration. Collegiality is valued also. Those colleges seldom hire post-docs, of course.

Valid point. I’ve edited slightly to make it a bit more general.

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


text:
Internships and their bearing on securing tenure track faculty positions
First off, my field is computer science (data mining and machine learning). I have noticed/observed that many individuals who have secured tenured track faculty positions recently had, while in pursuit of their PhD, done at least one internship. Based on this observation I was wondering:
(a) Is it necessary/expected that, to be a top candidate for a tenure track faculty position, one should have at least one internship under their belt?
(b) If not necessary, to what degree does an internship positively impact the chances of getting a tenure track faculty job?
(c) Given the answerer's  (your) response to (a) and (b), what is the thought process associated with observing the internship experience on a job candidate's CV (e.g., "This individual worked for company X and therefore, if this person is hired, our department will have better ties to company X.")?
-- As a quick note: I'm talking about an internship at major labs such as Yahoo!, Microsoft Research, etc.

"I have noticed/observed that many individuals who have secured tenured track faculty positions recently had, while in pursuit of their PhD, done at least one internship." I have noticed that many individuals who do a computer science PhD do an internship, whether they end up in a faculty position or not. It's useful to explore your options before deciding on a career path (e.g. industry vs academia).

Just adding to @ff524's comment that in computer science and the computational sciences, actually applying the (often theoretical) knowledge you've been gathering during your PhD in real-world projects can be (and most often is) an important experience, regardless of whether you plan to work in academia or industry. Also, you can improve your current skills, and learn new skills and technologies, in a good internship. All in all, internships are a great thing, and many good students choose to do at least one. It's not surprising that some of these good students later on take faculty positions.

@ff524 I agree with your point but the OP wanted to know whether it's necessary. I have a personal interest in this question too.  I can't wait for the answer.

In my field of study (software engineering, distributed systems), industry internships are also exceedingly common. So common, in fact, that I would also assume without having ever actually checked that a majority of young tenure-track (TT) faculty in my fields also did internships during their PhD.
Yet, I would argue that what you observe is a classical case of correlation versus causation. Yes, TT jobs and internships are likely reasonably strongly correlated, because:

Internships are high-profile and the best PhD students (AKA those that are likely to go on to TT positions) are much more likely to get one than weaker students.
Internships are, at least in my field, often insanely productive for the student, leading to one or multiple papers of highest quality. Obviously, having one or more A+ papers (more) helps a lot when you are on the job market.
Internships establish very tight connections to one or multiple, often well-known, industrial researchers, who can write strong recommendations.
Another somewhat indirect advantage is that the close connection to industry experienced in an internship helps people get new ideas and grow as researchers, hence leading to better papers and research statements once they are back.

However, this is not to say that search committees value the internship itself. If you were on an internship, but you were pushed in by your advisor, there was no paper, you did not learn anything useful, and you did not make useful connections, then the internship will not meaningfully help you get a TT position. Conversely, if you never did an internship, but still have good connections to the community and have written great papers regardless, the lack of an internship should not hold you back.

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


text:
Should a special issue follow the regular frequency of the journal or separately?
If a quarterly journal wants to publish a special issue, should it be published as an additional issue or it should replace a regular seasonal issue? Are there any guidelines on this or it's a matter that depends on the journal's policies?

What do you mean by "should"? It's entirely up to the journal. They can publish as often or as rarely as they please.

@DavidRicherby: In some countries, there are legal bodies that set regulations on publishing and oversee them. Moreover,  there are other subtleties. For example, if you're a subscription journal, how should you price the extra issue? Should you include it in the annual membershib package? Is it accepted that you publish a special issue instead of a regular issue? I'm asking for the best practice in this case.

Both ways are possible, but usually they are called differently. If the issue is replacing a regular issue, it is called special issue.
If the issue is added to the standard set of issues, making an extra one, it is usually called supplement. And even here the conventions differ; some supplements are published with a regular issue, and some are published separately. Most often, they are numbered as 1S, 1A or alike, but form an integral part of the volume.

As far as I know, special issues replace regular issues. Sometimes a special issue may have a part dedicated to regular papers.
To make an example, this webpage lists the special issues of the journal Metrologia (a monthly journal): you can see that those issues follow the regular numbering.

This has been my experience as well.

I don't suppose this is always the case, Mr. Ortolano.

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


text:
How do STEM researchers know if their research is actually novel?
I'm a high school student who's been working at a university lab as an intern, and this has been on my mind for a while.
The amount of scientific literature/papers in any field is obviously staggering. To me, it seems like there's no possible way to have read all of it. So, assuming I were a full-blown researcher/professor...

How would I be sure that my research actually does add something novel to the field?
What if there are papers that already address/refute my claim, that simply got buried amongst the masses of other papers that have already been published -- does that mean my own research is worth squat?

Thank you for all your help!

Well, if you are active in the field, you are reading the literature, going to conferences, and talking to your colleagues all the time. Now, I'm also getting to that age in life where I remember the last time some area got hot, so I can recall things that were done then and have been forgotten by most now (sigh).

The honest answer is: you don't know, and thus the phenomenon of multiple discovery.  Sometimes this is simultaneous, and other times it is independent, as for example in the case of conductive polymers, which were apparently rediscovered and lost several times.
Now, in practice, you must do a reasonable literature search, and part of the training that one receives over time is how to figure out how large a reasonable literature search is.  It also helps to participate in conferences, where one becomes generally familiar with the thinking and knowledge in one's field.  Submitting one's own work for peer review and presenting it in talks also offers opportunities to be informed of connections that one was not aware of.
While this may seem embarrassing, in fact, as long as one is doing one's reasonable due diligence, it is not worth being embarrassed about.  This is because it's very rare for rediscovery to happen in the same context.  There's a staggering amount of literature out there, but the number of problems is even bigger, and so any given specific piece of work may actually have startlingly few people in a position to conduct it.
Thus, rediscovery in practice often heralds a new connection being made between fields. In this case, the recognition of rediscovery often opens up the "unaware" side of the interaction to be able to import and adapt results that were based on the prior work, thus rapidly advancing the new area in which those results are being applied.
In short: do your due diligence, but don't fear discovering you've reinvented the wheel.

Scientific advances happen within niches, so the existing literature isn't as overwhelming as you might think. We read a lot, but we also read selectively. During our PhDs, we need to get up to speed on all that has been done so far in our general area of interest, and after that, we just need to stay up to date. I read fairly widely in oceanography and fairly widely in environmental modelling, but certainly don't read everything published in these fields. I read a larger proportion of what is published in the general area of coastal biogeochemistry, and a larger proportion again of what is published in coastal biogeochemical modelling, but still by no means everything.
But I do aim to read (or at least skim) everything that is published regarding the coastal biogeochemistry of my favourite geographical area, and everything that is published globally regarding the physiology of the particular biogeochemically-important micro-organism that I am particularly interested in at the moment. That only requires me to read half a dozen to a dozen new papers each year that relate very specifically to my own research area, in addition to the (much wider) general reading I do to stay on top of related recent developments.

It is believed that the work which one is supposed to do would surely add something new to the knowledge of the world, which is called 'Science'.
It is actually very difficult to get all the details of the works which have already been done so far which might include which could refute the claims that you are proposing in your new work.
Moreover, it is also difficult to know whether a work is novel or not. This actually improves with experience and review experiences. If you think that the already published papers refute the claims (in some way), let us leave it to the reviewers. Even if they are refuting the claims or theories or hypothesis, it is actually interesting piece of work which actually gives a counter argument that the previous works were someway different in some context.


text:
Citing literature review APA
I am mentioning briefly research topic that has reached a general consensus and cite a literature review paper. I wonder which of the two ways below provides in terms of the best readability. I dislike both options and suspect I am missing the optimal option.
blabla.... a group of study has found strong association....

See Smith and Pitt (1999) for overview.
See (Smith and Pitt, 1999) for overview.
See ???? for overview

I am following APA standard but not literary so style improvements are more important.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it deals with the APA style guide and not within academics as defined by this site.

Thanks for feedback. My main concern is not with the standard but rather readability and have tried to update the questions accordingly.

@RoboKaren: I don't think there is a need to close this question. This very well fits in the guidelines (refer [tag:citation-style]). Many questions under a similar context have been asked before.

In my opinion, "see [citation] for overview" or similar represents a poor writing style. It is OK for informal writing, however, in a formal write-up (using APA or any other style, for that matter), using the following style is much more preferred: "... [topic/subject] is extensively covered in research literature, including several comprehensive reviews (Smith & Pitt, 1999; ...) ...".

The first form is more common in APA style format.

See Smith and Pitt (1999) for overview.

Although I would be more picky in the use of 'see'. The word 'refer' would be used to point to a reference where a point is taken from or pointing to further readings. While 'see' is used to point to a reference that supports your claim (kindly refer this post).
Having said the above, both see and refer are used interchangeably in practice with the nuances not kept in mind.


text:
Concurrent MA and PhD programs at different universities?
I was accepted into an MA in economics at a very prestigious school without funding and a PhD in politics at a reputable state school with full funding/stipend. My intended research in the PhD program is political behavior/behavioral economics, and the MA training would probably enhance my PhD research as it covers formal economic knowledge that wouldn't be covered in my PhD studies + more rigorous than the economics classes available at the state school. Would it be possible to complete both programs simultaneously, e.g. take a 1-year deferral from the MA, start the PhD, and then start the MA as a 2nd year PhD when there is more teaching/research and not as many classes left to attend?
Obviously, if I go through with this, I will make sure that both programs are ok with this, so my question is more about the feasibility of studying in 2 programs simultaneously and completing them successfully. The universities are within 2 hours commute from each other, so it is feasible from the perspective of commute. The MA is not as research-focused, so it's basically attending classes and taking exams.
As a side note - yes, I have a major FOMO about not having a fancy diploma from a prestigious university. It's just that, given the competitive state of PhD admissions, it seems dumb to give up on a top-30 PhD program that aligns perfectly with my interests (and seems quite eager to have me too).

I'm doing a PhD and an MSc simultaneously, both part time alongside a full time job and in different subjects. So, it's possible. It's not easy though.

@ScottishTapWater it is not even comparable, because you have a full time job supporting you, the other things are (by definition) taking less than your full-time. On top of that, please clarify if your PhD is funded. Not funded PhD are way easier to manage: in the end it is simply an agreement and a professor supervising you. (and of course, you are saying it is possible without even having finished, so it is not such a strong anedoctal point, let alone the survivorship bias that necessarily would be relevant if you finished them https://xkcd.com/1827/ )

@EarlGrey - I did say it's not easy... but no, it's not funded which does indeed make it easier

@ScottishTapWater I did not want to sound too negative. My remark was aimed to the fact that being a researcher (a PhD student is one) is a full-time job and additionally a hobby: if you are frustrated with your job, it is very hard to slack off because your hobby coincides with your job :D . At least you have two possible distinct sources of frustration ;) ! Good luck with your endeavour

If your combination of graduate programs will let you pursue some combination of deferrals I suppose it's not illegal to complete both programs in some interleaved fashion, but you absolutely should not expect to work on both at the same time at any point. I fear you are trying to come up with this solution mostly to avoid making a decision between them; I don't think that's a good approach.
If I understand your proposed timeline correctly, it seems like you think that for the PhD degree you'll have a busy first couple years with classes, and then once those are over it's easy sailing and you can complete your masters requirements while you do your research on the side.
I think this is entirely misunderstanding the demands of a PhD and research. It's a lot of work, a full-time job for most, more than a full-time job for many (whether by internal or external pressures).
I think you are also misunderstanding the value of courses applied to PhD research. PhD research is so specialized and boundary-pushing that courses do not really help the PhD beyond a certain point. It's not likely you're going to have a higher-quality PhD because you completed a few extra masters courses; your PhD is going to be pushing past what any courses can possibly provide and if it's not then it's not a proper PhD. I think this is a really great diagram of what a PhD means that I originally saw on a different answer here:
original credit: Matt Might:

The masters degree creates a bit of foundation, but a bit more foundation there does very little to help with that push at the boundary. If you want to continue in an academic career, you'll be competing with people who spent all their time pushing that boundary and their time learning on reading papers specific to their particular area of the boundary and other adjacent areas to help solve their specific problem. You can't replace that with more masters-level courses.
If you want a career outside of academia specifically, this site is probably not the best place to look for advice, but it's possible the masters degree with a fancy name will serve you as well or better than a PhD. If it comes to picking one or the other, that decision will have to depend on your personal career goals and you'll want to get advice from places besides just here. I do not think it's likely that the benefits will come from increased rigor at a fancy named school, though; reputable state schools are just as likely to have rigorous coursework. You may be even more likely to be taught by an actual professor rather than a fellow graduate student, but this will vary by course and school.

Thank you for your answer, that is exactly what I needed to hear to be content with my decision. Most of my circle knows little about academia and how much value the school name may add to your prospects as a researcher, so I was seeking advice from insiders. My thinking was that more degrees = better prospects, and I am certainly influenced by people talking about how "unless your PhD is from a top 10 school, you won't have a job." It's helpful to know that this MA won't add much value to my research (or at least that I can attain the same value by taking econ courses at my home institution).

@KiraK I think even at top 10 schools, people going into PhD degrees should not necessarily count on an academic career afterwards. But it's likely that the program you're accepted to has some statistics available to you about where recent graduates are ending up. That's probably better information to rely on.

the university that offered me the PhD has a pretty impressive placement record + very productive research output, which would probably be helpful in the future. The MA school was a bit more concerning regarding the placement. Yes, they list all the fancy companies the grads worked for since the program was introduced, but it's vague regarding how many people find a top-tear job in the 6 months after graduation (and I only found a handful of those successful grads on LinkedIn). Also, their PhD in economics program admitted 6 of their MA grads in the last 6 years which seems bad

This is likely a bad idea:

You say your MS is without funding. Does this mean you're paying tuition? If so, that's a lot of money, and your field is not particularly lucrative after graduation.
PhDs are a lot of work, and so are master's degrees. Doing both at once is a lot. A two-hour commute is also a lot: two hours each way five days a week is 20 hours/week; that's another part-time job. Even one-hour each way two days a week is a nontrivial amount of time.
As Bryan's excellent answer points out, an extra master's probably won't help you that much. Academics care about your research more than your credentials, and non-academics will care about the fact that you have a PhD and your useful skills. Neither will give much weight to your master's once you have a PhD in the same field.
Your PhD program might not be "fancy," but it sounds like it's a serious program, so I would expect it to be competitive. Further, the second year is really make-or-break for your reputation. It would be better to spend 60 hours/week on your research for that year, rather than 30 on your research and 30 on your master's (or more likely, since there will be difficult exams, 15 on your research and 45 on your master's).

Now to your point...

the MA training would probably enhance my PhD research as it covers formal economic knowledge that wouldn't be covered in my PhD studies + more rigorous than the economics classes available at the state school

I suspect your state school offers economics classes, and as a PhD, you should have the necessary skills to close any rigor gap without taking formal classes.
If you think I'm wrong, I would suggest you discuss this with someone in your field -- either your new advisor/graduate director, or someone at your current institution, if you're still in college. But I wouldn't just frame the conversation as "is this allowed"; instead, I would describe why you think this is a good idea (the economics part, not the "fancy names are fancy" part) and ask if they agree.

I am guessing the difference in economic rigor between the top 30  school that happens to be a state school and the fancy school will not be much. Heck, they may have a lot of collaborations. For instance in the Research Triangle, Duke, UNC, and NC State Econ departments do a decent amount of stuff together. Students can take classes across campuses, etc.

Thank you! Yes, the MA is very pricey and I would have to rely on loans/financial aid to fund it. It will be a lot of money, but, realistically, I could get a job that pays accordingly given my location and existing network (whether I want that type of job is a different question lol). However, as Bryan pointed out above, this won't help me much, and based on your answer I see that I'm overestimating the value of "fancy name." I was a bit scared to bring it up with GSD right after being admitted because I don't want to look like an ingrateful brat, so I'm very grateful for your input.

I did this.  I would not recommend it.  I had a full time job, kids, a wife, and was enrolled in an MS program at one school (online, at least) while completing a PhD dissertation at my alma mater.
It was difficult, and that did not include a separate commute or courses at my PhD school, which thankfully I had already completed.
I would definitely not do what you are suggesting.  The benefits from a PhD from a top-30 school are likely to exceed those from an MS from a top-(<30) school, so I would do that.

On one hand, if you can survive a MA at a prestigious university without funding, i.e. with your money and loans, it means you are rich or rich enough to get a loan, it will be easier to get a job to pay back the loan through your connections and your alumni (what do you pay a lot of money for, otherwise?).
If you can afford it and you are willing to indirectly preserve the current state of affairs, with students put under mental stress by the combinatoin of debt and social pressure of clinging on the circular reputation benefits produced from big names university and their alumni associations, put your FOMO to rest and go ahead, you will get a job, research and progress will be taken care by badly-paid immigrants led by psycopathic professors.
If, on the other hand, you are at or below the median wealth class, it is worthwhile to consider that a PhD is a funded opportunity, at least you can survive in a world of badly-paid workers led by psycopathic professors.
As a plan B you will likely be accepted without funding by the prestigious university in 2 years from now if things with your PhD goes south, and you will find the exams much easier (you know, in 2 years of PhD you will be exposed to many more topics you can possibly adsorb, so your brain will become very efficient) and as you exit your PhD you will be a bit more independent from alumni and family wealth to get a job (or you will be in the academic lottery).

I can survive the MA thanks to my DINK household if I take out those loans + I'm a spoiled kid with no student loans (scholarship) and a comparatively well-paying job that provides access to professional networks so it will be a terrible but manageable situation. Reading the responses to my question made me realize that it's not worth it, and your comment about the "world of badly-paid workers led by psychopathic professors" made me appreciate how lucky I am to have an opportunity to choose my research topics without worrying about paying back my student loans in the future.

@KiraK from how you describe your situation and aims, just go for an MBA, you do not need the pain of the MA.

Yeah nah, I find my corporate job pretty boring, and getting an MBA will probably lead to a similarly boring job with higher expectations.

Then the only advantage of MA (big name ---> reputation boost that leads to big placement in corporate job) is even less appealing, isn't it?
If you are ambitious: please consider that a very good PhD will open up the path to being a professor at big name uni ... not the other way around ;)

You state yourself that it seems unwise to give up a place on a fully-funded PhD at a top 30 institution, so it seems you have answered your own question. However, you cannot simultaneously complete each degree. You will not, or should not, have enough time to complete both forms of study at the same time if you are doing it correctly. In fact, universities are very strict in terms of admissions and they usually have regulations in place to prevent students from undertaking too many hours to prevent needless academic failure. Typically, you would not be able to study at two institutions at once and must complete one before proceeding to another course. This rule is in place for a reason as you would more than likely fail. Therefore, you must make a decision.
Alternatively, you could ask to do an integrated PhD course in which you need to complete an MA and pass all of your assessments before proceeding to the PhD if you lack confidence in your ability to complete the PhD, or you believe your previous study is not relevant enough to your current subject area.
As for giving up an opportunity to study at an elite school, a top 30 institution for your subject area will still be very beneficial for your employment opportunities even if the institution is not ivy league or Russell Group (don't know which country you are from). On the other hand, if you are determined to do the master's at the elite university and feel you are not ready to move onto a PhD then you can reapply to a programme after or near its completion. It wouldn't decrease your chances of securing another place if you do well.
You are the only person that can make this decision for yourself, but you must first consider your motivations for study and make an appropriate decision which would benefit you the most rather than studying for this master's, or PhD, for superficial reasons.


text:
Is it unfair to retroactively excuse a student for absences?
A student revealed her pregnancy AFTER accumulating eight absences and missing a crucial midterm exam. The university’s policy stipulates that accommodations are not retroactive, and instructors are not obligated to revise penalties for absences if the accommodation letter is provided later in the term. Despite this policy, I have yet to receive her accommodation certificate. Surprisingly, the dean and provost insist that I allow her to complete all missed work. What are your thoughts on this situation? Is it an instance of accommodation abuse, or is the school genuinely prioritizing student well-being?

"Accomodation abuse"??? What is the issue with letting her complete the work?

"Is it an instance of accommodation abuse, or is the school genuinely prioritizing student well-being?" You seem to think the former for reasons we don’t know, and the dean and provost seem to think the latter for reasons we don’t know. How are we supposed to answer the question?

Does the policy say that instructors WILL not make accommodations retroactive, or that instructors are not obligated to make accommodations retroactive?

A reminder that down votes should be used for questions that are not useful or don't show effort, not for when you think the poster is wrong about something. If someone needs information to change their mind, we should want to elevate their question so that others needing similar information find it, not suppress it.

What is the specific language used in your handbook? If it is "not obliged" rather than "prohibited" or words to a similar effect then this means that it can be done on a discretionary basis. IE, if you think that this was reasonable or excusable, then you may forgive her absences as you see fit.

8 absences + 1 exam missed may be half a semester. OTOH, I had semesters where every day had an instance of the wet lab practicum, so 8 misses < 2 weeks illness, and there was 1 semester where we had a course with intermediate exams every 1 or 2 weeks (IIRC a total of 10 exams over a semester of 15 or 16 weeks), so again: any given illness of 2 weeks would have had more misses than reported here, and almost any given 1.6 week illness would have the result OP reports.

Fair/unfair to who?  In what way?  This question is generating an awful lot of activity despite its lack of clarity.

In all honesty, unless some crucial details were left out (e.g. does the student have a significant history of missing classes or is otherwise a highly problematic student or is there serious doubt that student is actually pregnant) I find your phrasing in the question highly unfortunate at best, worrisome at worst. A pregnancy while (hopefully) a happy circumstance can also be a source of serious difficulties (both medical and psychological). Replace "pregnancy" with any other serious, major medical condition and re-read your question, and consider what message you seem to be sending.

I do wonder if this question would be worded differently if it were a male getting a cancer diagnosis...

I’m curious to know what kind of infraction is being committed here in your opinion. Usually these kinds of accommodation policies are in place to deter students from gaming the system. It takes a truly desperate student to get pregnant just to pass your class…

And people are still so confused as to why we are having record low birth rates. Things like this are why.

I’ll stand with the dean and provost. Giving the person the accommodation won’t disadvantage the other students assuming you have a reasonable grading system.
There’s no reason to be tough when it can negatively affect their life.
I think the policy was designed for other situations than this.
Early pregnancy can be very difficult and there is little likelihood that she was gaming the system.

Plus one. Pregnancy is an extremely challenging experience in any situation, but especially as a student. The "responsible" thing to do is to immediately inform your professors so they can accommodate as appropriate, but there can be any number of emotional barriers that make even that difficult. Being a little more understanding than is strictly required will harm nobody, and may make a world of difference for her.

Especially so if the pregnancy is unplanned and/or accompanied by health and/or relationship complications, details which the student might not be eager to disclose. It's not hard to imagine that kind of situation overwhelming somebody for a couple of weeks.

I guess the regulation forbidding retroactive accommodation is intended as a countermeasure againtst students using this to trick the system, and therefore should be applied with flexibility

Another bit of useful information is whether this was a difficult pregnancy episode that resulted in hardship or even hospitalization of the student.  Submitting medical excuse documents was likely way down the list of priorities.

Is it an instance of accommodation abuse?

No. People get pregnant for many reasons, but abusing accommodations of a university lecture is never one of them.

+1 would upvote twice if I could.

If your institution is in the United States, Title IX may legally require the university to allow a student who misses time due to pregnancy to make up missed work.
See https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-know-rights-201306-title-ix.html

Excused Absences and Medical Leave – your school MUST:
Excuse absences due to pregnancy or childbirth for as long as your doctor says it is necessary.
Allow you to return to the same academic and extracurricular status as before your medical leave began, which should include giving you the opportunity to make up any work missed while you were out.
Ensure that teachers understand the Title IX requirements related to excused absences/medical leave. Your teacher may not refuse to allow you to submit work after a deadline you missed because of pregnancy or childbirth. If your teacher’s grading is based in part on class participation or attendance and you missed class because of pregnancy or childbirth, you should be allowed to make up the participation or attendance credits you didn’t have the chance to earn.

Other countries may have similar laws but I am not familiar with them.
It's quite possible for someone to first discover they are pregnant due to the very symptoms that are causing them to miss class. Someone who knows they are pregnant cannot predict that they may have symptoms in the future that prevent them from attending class. This isn't the sort of thing that can be planned ahead for, it's an acute medical condition. Without knowing all the details, it could very well be a life-threatening acute medical condition.
I think you're reading the wrong policies that are meant to apply to a different circumstance. You've gotten clear instructions from the dean and provost. It's not your job to make your own determination of whether this is legitimate or not.

This is not a policy you want to go against. Any title IX or ADA non-compliance issues (or even complaints thereof) will tie you and your department up in investigations for months. This is not a hill you want to die on, especially not when your leadership has rightfully steered you in the right direction. On another note, just from the perspective of being a decent human, no two pregnancies are the same, and the symptoms can be really tough to deal with for some people.

This. Our university's policies make clear that allowances for pregnancy aren't a normal accommodation; they're a separate policy that takes higher precedence.

Even from a European perspective, there is usually a distinction between plain absences and those with legitimate reasons (medical issues, death in the immediate family, force majeure,...), which are legally protected.

Just be a bit careful with interpretation of legal instruments like this.  When a substantive legal obligation is imposed on an institution, courts usually accept that the institution may impose a reasonable administrative process to facilitate this, and that the administrative process might include some requirements and deadlines.  In other words, a substantive legal obligation to "provide X" does not necessarily entail that you provide the opportunity for this forever, or provide it retroactively, with no requirements or deadlines.

@Ben In OP's case, their boss and boss's boss are both telling them to let the student make up the work. Is this worth going to court over, on OP's behalf, without the support of their institution?

I'm not suggesting going to court.  I'm merely suggesting that when one makes assertions about what is "legally required" then law/courts become relevant to that assertion.

Dread to think what the news media and internet would make of doing this to a young pregnant student in my country (Ireland, in the EU).  The OP should thank the dean and provost for stopping him walking into this mess blindfold.

It seems completely reasonable, to me, to allow make-up work.
To me, it's not even quite an issue of what, exactly, The Rules say, but of what is reasonable. Rules are only an attempt to formalize reasonableness, after all.
(Yes, as always, some people will attempt to "game the system", but I've come to think that that fact is not sufficient to make The Rules crazily prescriptive/restrictive.)

Just going from what you wrote in the question (emphasis added)

The university’s policy stipulates that accommodations are not retroactive, and instructors are not obligated to revise penalties for absences if the accommodation letter is provided later in the term.

Assuming this is an accurate description, the rules do not say you shouldn't revise the penalties in this case. They only say you don't have to. This means it's down to your discretion, and it's your duty to make the decision on the basis of what is reasonable.

Surprisingly, the dean and provost insist that I allow her to complete all missed work.

The dean and provost, your superiors in this matter, feel strongly that in this case, revising the penalties would be reasonable and refusing to do so would not.

Just to add: people are normally not in a habit of disclosing a pregnancy before entering the second trimester, that is after 3 months of being pregnant have already passed. This is advised by many, including medical professionals, as before the three month mark, natural termination is still highly likely. Nevertheless, many pregnant people experience severe symptoms especially early in the pregnancy. Looking at 8 missed classes and around 12 weeks of early pregnancy, it is completely valid that the student might have missed all these classes due to pregnancy reasons, and equally valid that they didn't disclose said pregnancy only AFTER the missed classes/assignments occurred.

Even if the rules clearly state that you can't give retroactive excuses, this is a case where you should break the rules. But the rules don't say that. They say you are not obligated to give them. Further, your bosses are both telling you do make an excuse.
Why the **** would you not?
Not covered so far (at least that I saw) is that sticking to your guns on this one is likely to damage your reputation in the department, not just with other professors, but with administrative personnel and students.  Do you really want the department secretary (or whatever title is used) to tell other students "That's the professor who wouldn't excuse a pregnant woman?" Do you want this posted on RateMyProfessor or similar sites?

Absolutely this. IMHO strong wording is needed to convey the message to OP: Arbitrarily enforcing hard rules (esp. it not mandated) on a pregnant woman is a major AH move. No two ways about it. Try to be a decent human being.

In my experience the "no retroactive accommodations" policy is for the instructors' benefit. It's to encourage students who already have a diagnosis to not bomb instructors with these requests during the last week of class. What happens is that every semester a student with, say, ADHD knows to get an accommodation letter for each class, and is told to give them to instructors the first week because of the "you don't get any accommodations until they get the letter" policy. Denying such a student retroactive make-up tests and extra time (often past when grades are due, on months old assignments) seems fair since they definitely knew about the policy; and it may help out future instructors.
Obviously, with a pregnancy none of that is true. They wouldn't even necessarily know accommodations exist, or how to get them. There's no aspect of "you knew the rules and didn't follow them" to enforce.

Something kind of ironic about picking out ADHD - a condition that specifically inhibits ones ability to comply with this kind of policy - as your example, don't you think?

@JackAidley I put that there because the vast majority of forms I got were for ADHD (well, ADD -- it was before the name change) and I assumed Student Health tells Fresh-people "now that you've checked-in with me, here's a form, put it with your class stuff, you have to give it to your instructor first thing". I wouldn't say it inhibits remembering to hand over a form. Maybe makes it 5% more likely than a typical college student in the crush of al that newness and independence.

@OwenReynolds Speaking as someone with ADHD who also has a lot of experience supporting other ADHD folks: this sort of instruction ("don't forget to do X first thing") is exactly the kind of thing that ADHD folks almost invariably have trouble with, and are often unable to complete - whether it is due to executive dysfunction, simply forgetting, or a number of other factors. This policy punishes disability. "Knowing the rules" is irrelevant if you literally cannot follow them.

@SvenSlootweg I've only had maybe a dozen of those forms given to me for ADD. Maybe Student Health consults psychologists for advice, or maybe it's that I'm only dealing with independent college students ("high functioning"?) Whatever it is, they seemed to do just fine as far as not forgetting. I have no further insight into why.

"No retroactive accommodations" is also often an administrative necessity. In my department accommodations often take the form of adjusted examination rules, and I had cases of people coming to me at the start of the exam requesting to take the exam orally instead, or in a different extra-silent room. Unsurprisingly these requests are all much, much easier handled if you know about them two weeks ahead.

@JackAidley Unfortunately these things are the norm all across the western world. In Sweden there is a saying "you need to be very healthy to have the energy to be sick" (since dealing with health insurance to get sickness benefits is often just as draining as doing your job).

While I agree that "no retroactive accommodations" probably is an administrative necessity, I would like to point out you're only getting the forms from students who didn't forget to hand them in. "I got some forms" doesn't prove anything about ADHD students who did forget to hand them in...

Once the Dean and Provost looked into the situation, the one thing you can usually safely assume is that they know stuff you may not be entitled to know.  Do what they say, keep them apprised of any developments, and move on.

I'd suggest to treat this like other medical conditions that can have acute aspects. I.e., do give accommodation according to what the medical certificate says once you have it. Or do what administration tells you to do once they have it.
Since dean and provost have told you to give accomodation, go with that.

I suspect that the university cannot sensibly have any other policy than saying certificates handed in after the fact may or may not be accommodated.

Some accommodations are impossible to implement retroactively.
E.g., it is impossible to undo chemical wet lab work involving teratogenic substances which was done before a pregnancy was known, nor can long working hours be undone, etc. (These are legally prohibited during pregnancy where I am. The requirements start the moment the employer or university has knowledge of the pregnancy.)

For some medical attestations, it is impossible to hand them in beforehand.
This applies to pretty much all acute medical issues that render someone unable to work: you are unable to work -then-> go to doctor -then-> hand in certificate. While it may be possible to hand in the certificate same day, particularly for serious medical issues this can be considerably later. E.g., where I am, hospitals issue the certificate only the day when the patient is leaving.

Particular unable-to-work medical certificates (as opposed to the generally required accommodation for pregnancy) are generally not issued retroactively since the MD certifies that the patient is unable to work now, date and that they judge this to last for the next x days. My guess is that this applies also to pregnancy-related issues, even though it's easier to know that the patient was already pregnant last week than it is that they already had as bad an infection last week.
But that's the MD's business, not yours.

I may add that where I am, you cannot conclude too much if you meet a student at university (or hear from colleagues that they take an exam) who has handed in to you an unable-to-work certificate.
Unable-to-work* is a black-and-white decision by the MD over here. A student's medical certificate will thus always show 100 % inability to work. Nevertheless, the student is allowed to work/study voluntarily. I.e., a student with a leg injury may be certified unable to work because they cannot do the standing work in the lab, but they may decide to do their homework/learn at home, and show up in some lectures or exams.
While the same is true for employees, the incentive to do the studies that are actually possible is obviously higher for a student.
* there are in addition "cannot perform work of type x" or "needs accommodation x to perform work of type y" certificates, which  may be issued for pregnancies or chronic diseases/disabilities but are otherwise AFAIK unusual.

Last but not least, some universities over here require far more medical details from students (particularly if missed exams are involved) than an employer can legally request. (Comes up as a legal issue in the media every once in a while. Personally, I don't think universities should be allowed to get any more details than employers get. If they have a grounded suspicion that medical certificates are falsified, they can involve a medical officer who will issue a certificate about [in]ability but not reveal medical details.)
If your university has similarly intrusive habits, I'd recommend to tell your students to show their certificates only to the disability or exam office, whoever is  allowed to see such things - and yourself to give accommodation as administration tells you but stay clear of student medical data.
For the given case, the dean and provost saying to accomodate may be a sign that medical certification has arrived either higher up in the department, or in the university administration.

The top line question is whether this situation is "fair". In short: You should give the make-up work unless it significantly exceeds your typical workload and complain later if there's anything to complain about. I think it's healthier to position yourself as mentally on the student's side, while also knowing that you're not required to provide excessive free labor to fulfill the university's obligations.
The university has promised the student an opportunity to access instruction and be examined in return for payment. Since disruptions can occur that neither the student nor university can control, the university has a policy to determine that happened and how they'll make a student whole.
As the instructor, part of your job is to fulfill a teaching obligation on behalf of the university. Customarily, you have certain obligations and freedoms:

You have freedom to choose your instructional methods and examination methods within the context of your discipline.
You have an obligation to dutifully cover material for the class's subject and to conduct examinations in a fair and reasonable way.
You are customarily expected to decide and execute, amongst other things, alternative arrangements to fulfill the university's obligation in the case of minor instances of disruption under the university's policies.

Your anecdote
The university's excuse policy and determination under it
It's impossible for random people on the internet to determine (1) If your university's policy is reasonable, and (2) Whether your university's policy was followed. It sounds within-scope for places I've worked, but we don't have the details. If the policy was followed but you disagree with it, you can bring up your disapproval through shared governance channels later. If the policy was not followed, you could bring that up with your chair, union, or university ombud as appropriate.
You should probably provide make-up material that's within scope of your obligations even if you think policy isn't being followed. That's because you could screw the student in a hard to fix way if you're wrong.
Your interests as instructor
As the instructor, your rights and obligations can come into play here:

You certainly have a right and probably obligation to recommend an appropriate course of action that you think best fulfills the university's obligation to offer make-ups and examinations under their policy. Part of your consideration should almost certainly be fairness, i.e., in what way you can examine the student such that their examination is commensurate with the one you gave the other students.
It may be that the only viable remedial plans would require you to conduct additional work that exceeds your contracted instructional obligations. If you think you're in that situation, document and communicate your reasoning carefully to your chair and be prepared to negotiate in a reasonable way. Make estimates of the labor required to execute the plan. They had best far exceed your typical workload. If you have a union, think about keeping them informed.

I'm a little surprised by the direction these answers have gone. Yes, people with health conditions like pregnancy deserve (legally and otherwise) certain accommodations. But even so, there is a certain process that has to be followed. This student has missed many classes, missed a midterm, has requested a retroactive accommodation, but still has not presented the required documentation. So, I understand your concern about "accommodation abuse."
As others have mentioned, I would start by checking that your policy is clear and does not violate any university-wide policies (nor any statutes like Title IX). I would also strongly suggest that your policy requires all medical determinations to be made by your university's disability office. You do not want to be in the awkward position of judging the severity of health issues.
If your policy is valid and reasonable, then it is best to follow your policy whenever possible. If you make lots of exceptions, there is little point in having a policy. So again, I understand your unwillingness to "knuckle under." On the other hand, the reality is that unless you are very senior, going against both your provost and dean might not be a good idea. (They are likely concerned about being accused of a Title IX violation, as mentioned in Bryan's answer.)
So in summary: it's certainly possible that your policy is reasonable and the student is trying to use their pregnancy to avoid the consequences for having been irresponsible. But are you absolutely sure that is what's happening here? Can you prove that your policy is OK and your student failed to follow it? Even if you are sure and have proof, you do not have your bosses' support...so is this a hill you're willing to die on? If not, you may have to let this slide...in which case, I would update your policy to reflect the reality of what you are allowed to do in your institution's climate.

Given your surprise, I would explain that the situation the OP describes is either nonsensical or reprehensible. Either they've misunderstood the policy, or the policy is ridiculous because it would not be possible to obtain anything but retroactive accommodation for an unexpected medical event. The lack of particular documentation is accompanied by specific direction from superiors who would ordinarily be the people making decisions about exceptions to policies if it were necessary to make such exceptions; OP has their instruction as documentation.

I would have expected the disability office to review the situation and determine the necessary accommodation (which might include retroactively excusing work). It sounds like this might have happened, but OP has still not received this decision (passing it along it apparently the student's job). If OP eventually receives this decision, then they should follow the instructions and the whole issue is moot. But the many downvoters seem to feel that pregnant students should be excused from anything and everything even without this process; this does not seem reasonable to me.

I'm not a downvoter, but I am in the disagreement column, but not because I feel pregnant students should be excused from anything or everything.   It's pretty obvious, though, that the Dean and Provost have been approached.  Presumably, they've heard enough of the student's story to have justified an instruction for the professor to accommodate the student.  The prof has no basis to assume he knows more than those people.  There may be protected health information that the student chose not to share with the professor that they shared with higher-ups.

The higher ups are also in a position to see the student's complete record of every interaction with the school.  The professor is not.  The Chief Academic Officer of the University gave the prof instructions on how to proceed here, and there's no reason to assume those officers don't know what they're talking about.

The whole situation seems a bit strange (likely we don't have the full story). It sounds like the normal process is that an "accommodation certificate" is brought to the instructor. Why was that not done in this case? Why did the student instead approach the provost? Why doesn't the provost just tell the student to deliver the certificate? If the university doesn't follow its policies, why have policies? IF the story as told is accurate, then I understand OP's frustration...though in any case, following the bosses' instructions is probably the right move.

Such accommodations are normally retroactive. When someone is unable to continue schoolwork due to medical matters, they are often also unable to chase down every instructor and get excused from courses. Once they deal with the medical matter, they simply inform the instructor where they've been, so that the appropriate make-up exams etc. can be offered to them.
If I take your brief description at face value, you university has an illogical policy in forbidding this. I wonder if you misinterpreted it somehow. Regardless, even if your understanding is correct, clearly the dean and provost recognize the policy as poor, and want to overrule it. Do as they say. Even if you run afoul of some procedural quirk, the responsibility for it rests on the dean and provost now - you're not risking anything.
Procedure aside, there is nothing unfair or unethical about granting this accommodation. Pregnancy is difficult and it is almost universally accepted that things like exams have lower priority than giving birth. It is considered preferable to inform people of your pregnancy ahead of time, but by no means required. Some women do not became aware they are pregnant until the very end, and sometimes they are compelled to hide it for their own safety or other similarly serious reasons.
University being the cradle of free thinking that it is, you may find some people who think pregnancy is "no excuse" and it was the student's responsibility to avoid it - mostly students, although might be staff as well. However, this is not an opinion accepted by the mainstream and IMO safe to ignore (unless you yourself hold it, I suppose).
Also, bear in mind that depending on your country and local laws, it may be illegal to refuse this accommodation regardless of what your institutional policy says.


text:
Professor nominated for award asks for a recommendation from a Dean, who is also on the Award Committee. Ok or No?
Is it conflict of interest when a faculty member who is a nominee for a university award competition, asks for a letter of recommendation from a Dean, who is also on the review committee that decides who gets the award?

Conflict for who, exactly?

I don't see a problem with asking for the letter.  The dean may end up having to recuse themself from considering that particular nomination with the committee, though.

This needs clarity. I've voted to close as I see no conflict issues at all, given what is written here. Can you clarify? I can neither answer nor evaluate any other answer as it is stated.

In particular, I don't think the faculty member has any conflict at all. That opinion might change with a more complete explanation of the context.

It is certainly a situation where a conflict may arise, so disclosure is a really good idea.

@JonCuster, who's conflict. Disclose it to who, exactly? Is a dean writing a LoR a fundamental conflict? Is serving on an awards committee? The relationships between the people are clear and public in both the committee and the letter. This seems to bind everyone from every proper action. The only time I can see a conflict is if the LoR is actually for the dean's job. Please, clarify.

@JonCuster, among other things, I don't see who here has conflicting interests; the student, the dean, the committee, other candidates for the award.

@Buffy The conflict is, nominally, between the interest in awarding the most deserving nominee and the interest in supporting a colleague.

@BryanKrause, but isn't every committee member likely to be a colleague of at least one of those nominated? This suggests an impossible situation unless it is something like double blind review, which wouldn't work anyway since everybody's CV is different, unlike review of a single paper. People will have opinions about the relative merits of different things even not knowing the candidates. And most candidates would be obvious from their CVs in any case. You seem to imply that all awards committees are fundamentally conflicted.

@Buffy Yes, I think it would be very possible that everyone on the committee recuses themselves for one or more nominees. Each will be judged by the other, non-recused committee members. That's not the only way to do it of course but as you point out these conflicts are going to be very common so the committee almost certainly already has a policy they follow to handle them.

@BryanKrause, so, if more of the committee members know one of the candidates than is the case for others, that person gets fewer votes due to recusal. Is that what you propose? This is an impossible situation. Ethics isn't a zero-sum game, I hope. Hidden conflicts are a problem, I admit, but nothing is hidden here. Everyone knows everyone else's relationship to everyone. People also, I assume, discuss things, not just vote. I don't, once again, see any conflict.

@Buffy Voting can be by other means than tallying; for example you might score each nominee on a range of factors and average the scores across raters.

I'd ask why the professor wants a letter from the Dean in the first place.  While there are certainly situations where the Dean may be a good choice, in most situations probably someone in the professor's own department can write a better informed letter (e.g., department head).

It's probably the dean's position as someone who could plausibly write a letter for a nominee that makes them conflicted, rather than writing the letter itself or being asked to.
Normally committees like this have some way of managing these conflicts because they are common. That might include the dean abstaining from a vote or scoring system. It's also possible the committee expects nearly everyone nominated to involve some conflict on the committee and, particularly if the committee is large enough, their conflict may be considered too dilute to worry about as long as the relationship is professional (e.g., a dean or chair of a department has a professional relationship with any professors in their school/department) rather than personal (a spouse, sibling, etc).

Sorry, but I don't see any conflict at all. The dean has some informed opinion about the candidate and can express that consistently in both contexts. What conflict?

@Buffy Depending on the scope of the award, I think it's a conflict even if the relationship is just "they work for me"; they're not going to be evaluated impartially the way that nominees from other schools/colleges/departments are if it's someone they know personally who have to be evaluated purely on the submitted nomination materials. It's probably not appropriate to give the award to people who know the committee members best.

So, it has nothing to do with a LoR, but only with the fact that a dean is on an awards committee. Is that the issue? The asker/candidate is not a party to any conflict issues in any case. They didn't choose the awards committee and it is perfectly reasonable to ask a dean for a LoR.

Yes I started my answer by saying it's the relationship and not the letter that creates the conflict. It's not that the dean is on the awards committee but that someone on the awards committee capable of writing a recommendation letter for a nominee is not an impartial judge of that nomination. Like most other COI situations none of this means anyone did anything wrong it just means the conflict should be managed in some way.

It is even possible that the "committee" is composed entirely of deans and such.

@Buffy Sure, one possible way to handle that would be to have each nominee rated by the deans in other schools only. Or, alternatively, if everyone's dean is on the committee maybe it's considered that no one has an unfair advantage and each dean can speak on behalf of nominees in their school/department. That doesn't mean there's no conflict of interest, though, these are just different ways of viewing and managing that conflict.

@BryanKrause Conflict for "they work for me" isn't the last line of possible conflict.  What about "we are both in the same school", "we are both in the same university", "we come from the same city", "we come from the same state".... once you decide that a person is willing to act with a conflict of interest, there's not limit as to how petty the conflict of interest can be.

@BryanKrause Also, we have no idea what the process looks like in evaluating candidates.  It might involve having the recommendation be stripped of who provided it to simulate a "blind" evaluation of the candidates, it might include having the submissions edited to remove school names.  Without some insight into the process, it can't be decided if it can be abused, even with the Dean's recommendation.

@EdwinBuck I think a lot depends on the scope of the award. If it's "teacher of the year at the School of X at University Y", being in the same school is probably not disqualifying. If it's the highest award in a field, maybe being at the same university should be.

Your question mixes up two separate issues. The first one is that deans are almost always going to want faculty working under them to win awards, because such an event is considered an achievement for the dean, not just for the faculty winning the award. So if a dean is involved in a decision of whether to give an award to faculty X from one of the departments that dean oversees, or to faculty Y from some other department, they have an incentive to prefer "their" person X regardless of their "honest"/objective opinion about the relative merits of X and Y's candidacy. This is a conflict of interest, and normally the conflict is avoided by having the dean recuse themselves from voting on the candidate working under them. The only situation where this rule won't apply is if it's an internal award the dean gives out which necessarily goes to one of the faculty members under their administrative purview. In that case there is no conflict, the dean will clearly just select the person they regard as the best candidate, and the fact that they gave an award to one of their faculty is not something the dean can brag about as an achievement.
The second issue is about the letter of recommendation. Here I would say that as long as the dean does not participate in the decision-making related to whether the faculty member who asks them for a letter gets the award — for example if they are recusing themselves from weighing in on your candidacy as discussed above — it is fine for them to write a letter of recommendation, and there is no conflict. The letter from them might come across as less credible however, since the other award committee members know the dean has a personal stake in whether the faculty member they are recommending wins the award.
In other words, asking your dean for a letter of recommendation is a bit like asking your mom for a letter of recommendation: your mom does not have a conflict of interest in recommending you, but people will likely treat what she says about you with some skepticism...

Hmmm, then why don't people have some skepticism when an advisor writes a LoR? I think the reasoning here is entirely flawed and doesn't take the "real world" into account. I know situations where a dean would absolutely NOT want a certain faculty member under them to win an award, though I doubt they'd have been nominated anyway. And if a dean doesn't vote "for" their candidate, they shouldn't vote at all, nor be part of any such committee as it disadvantages that person explicitly, giving more weight to other votes.

@Buffy As I think you pointed out somewhere else, it's possible the committee would be all deans. It's unlikely that the group of people qualified to judge such an award would have no potential conflicts with any nominee. It doesn't disadvantage anyone for them to recuse as long as others in the same situation also recuse.

@Buffy of course people do have considerable skepticism about advisor’s LORs for this exact reason. Such letters have some value since they provide useful context about a candidate that no other letter can give, but I’d say typically they are also pretty heavily discounted compared to other letters.

@Buffy good point that “always want” isn’t literally true, edited to take your comment into account.

@Buffy sorry but I don’t understand the rest of your criticism. Someone has to be on the committee, and that someone may have a conflict so they shouldn’t vote when that happens. It’s pretty straightforward and standard in many types of decisions across academia (grant proposals, editorial review, awards etc). The “giving more weight to other votes” is a non-issue - you recuse yourself in case of a conflict precisely to give more weight to other votes who do not have a conflict, so I don’t see why you think that’s a problem.

asking your dean for a letter of recommendation is a bit like asking your mom for a letter of recommendation - But asking your chair is a pretty standard thing, and they have similar incentives, no?

@Kimball it depends what the letter is for. If you ask your chair for a LOR for a job application, they have no incentive to exaggerate how good you are (potentially they have the opposite incentive, though that's usually not a concern). If you ask your chair for an LOR for an award, you're correct that they have a personal stake in the outcome since the nature of their job is such that your success to some extent counts as their success, similarly to the situation with the dean. For that reason, award nominations are more credible if they come from someone who is not your chair or dean.

@Kimball ... That being said, if the letter does a good job of explaining why you deserve an award, it will still count for something (even if it's written by your mom!). So it's still better to be nominated for an award by your chair than to not be nominated by anyone.

In our department, I think all our internal award nominations go through our chair and have a letter from our chair, though other people in the department prepare a lot of the materials.  But maybe this is not typical?

@Kimball when I was chair I wrote many letters nominating our faculty for awards, and a good number of those had positive outcomes. This is quite common of course. But I don’t see it as contradicting anything I’ve written here.

Let me answer the question as stated and leave aside other considerations, which are important but don't actually affect the answer.
The faculty member has no conflict of interest in asking the dean for a LoR provided they are qualified to write it.
There is a separate issue, however, not asked, whether they are the best person to write such a letter. Letters should be from people who know you well and can confidently and honestly predict your success in whatever the position is that the letter addresses. This might be a dean or not.
It might even be foolish to ask the dean (or anyone else) for a letter thinking it would boost your chances for the award. I would recommend against that whether it is a conflict or not because it would probably be a transparent ploy that would likely backfire in both the letter and the award. I will neither characterize it or not as a conflict of interest, however. But dumb.
And asking someone to write only because they are prominent, but don't really know you and your work, is sub-optimal. You have better choices, I'd expect.

Whether others have conflicts isn't part of the question asked, though it has driven the comment stream here.