text:
Why is there such variation in PhD length internationally?
I'm an undergrad in Australia, and at this stage I want to go on to do further study in maths (or maybe physics/CS, still have a few years till then).
Should I do so, I imagine that I will want to complete a PhD overseas. Possibly at a university in the US or maybe Oxbridge in the UK.
In Australia, PhDs typically take 3 or 4 years, and I would be eligible to go straight into a PhD upon completion of my undergraduate degree (it is research focused and includes an honours year, see here).
But, much of what I have found for overseas institutions has been in the range of 5-7 years, or maybe a 3-4 year PhD with a few years doing a master's degree beforehand.
Does this indicate that the level of rigour and amount of work produced is significantly different for various PhD programs, or is it the case that some programs are more relaxed and simply spread the same amount of work over a longer period of time?

In the US, in math and science, you should be able to go straight into a PhD program after completing your udergrad. The length varies by school, program, discipline, adviser, and student. 3-4 years is possible in some disciplines with the right combination of student, adviser, supportive program, and success in your research.

In the European system, students typically enter PhD programs having already obtained a Master's degree or the equivalent. In the US this is often not the case, so students have to do the equivalent of a Master's (or actually complete one) en route to a PhD. Also, your disclaimer at the beginning comes across as combative.

The fact that employers often see a PhD as just another academic project is not really helpful too. The x years required to obtain a PhD should (and, IMO, must) be considered as work experience.

The US educational system is more focused on general education - students don't start studying highly specialized content until the second or third year of undergraduate studies. In the UK, specialization begins in secondary school. Comparisons of "time to doctorate" become meaningless as a result.

To be fair, many US academic wonder the same thing in reverse. “How can any student possibly accomplish enough in only 3 years to justify a PhD?  Those UK PhDs can't be worth very much.” Of course, the correct answer is that the numbers of years is utterly irrelevant; all that matters is what the PhD holder has accomplished.

In addition to @aeismail's points, in the U.S. the undergrad degree (B.S. or B.A.) in math is typically rather thin, due to "breadth" requirements, so a year or two of a PhD program is spent catching up, in comparison to most other educational systems in which specialization occurs earlier (and perhaps high school math education is more intense).
Some decades ago, it was the style in elite places in the U.S. to have people finish a PhD degree as quickly as possible, often in three years, as proof of ... something. This was plausible under the hypothesis that students at such places had an unusually good background.
In fact, given the way professional mathematics has evolved, spending more time learning things and maturing before hitting the job market may be wise. In any case, no one is creating artificial obstacles to any student's quick graduation! In my current institution, there really are no "required courses", in the sense that there are some modest proficiency exams in standard material that need to be passed, and courses help prepare for those, or can substitute for proficiency exams to some extent. Thus, a well-prepared student can "test out" of requirements.
One underlying problem seems to be that people take as much time as is allowed, so if it is understood that one may take six years "if necessary", then most people plan to use up that time. Not that they're "forced to" or "kept from graduating earlier". And then there's the reasonable fear of facing the job market that leads to "avoidance".
I would claim that "having to teach" is not a serious impediment to quick graduation. However, its relatively immediate gratification can seduce people away from the far-less-immediate gratification of research and study.

In the UK system (or similar systems, like Australia) students enter their Ph.D. program with a stronger background due to earlier specialization, and they typically leave their Ph.D. program at a less advanced level than a Ph.D. from a comparable American school.  The difference is not in how fast people learn, but rather differences in what a bachelor's degree means and what a Ph.D. degree means.
Note that on specialization for undergraduates the US is the outlier, but in terms of Ph.D. outcome it's the UK that is unusual.  For example, Chris Parks writes, "Across Europe the view prevails that the three-year UK doctorate is too short and thus of inadequate quality compared with the more common four-year doctorate."

Could you provide some sort of reference for European PhD programs ending at a less advanced level than the American ones?

@TobiasKildetoft: I didn't say European, I said UK and Australian.

Noah: That's an amazingly crisp and relevant link.  Maybe you should put it in your answer.

@TobiasKildetoft That view (expressed in the quote) prevails as well across me and most people in the British system I've discussed it with. There was a lot misguided about the original question, but the assumption that a fast Ph.D. is a good thing is totally wrong.  Intellectually, it's obviously much better to have more time to explore the field before the responsibilities of being post-doc or TT kick in; it's just that the practicalities get in the way, and do so at different times in different countries.

Part of the thing with 3 vs 4 years is that if you count a year reading in and a year writing up you end up with 1 vs 2 years of work.

The length of the PhD program depends on how the bachelor's and Master's programs are structured, and what additional demands are placed on students in terms of teaching and other assignments.
For instance, in the US, you can gain admission to a PhD directly after a bachelor's degree, but you will also be expected to take courses for one to two years. In mathematics especially, you will likely have significant teaching duties as well. in Europe, PhD programs in math will still likely require significant teaching, but no coursework, since it is presumed you took the requisite courses as a Master's student.

Another aspect that's worth mentioning is that there's PhD and there's PhD. Even though the name of the title is essentially the same when translated to common English, the "content" of the dissertation and diploma could differ significantly. If you have more time to do your research you're more likely to produce more publications (although this is not a given). I would even argue that the potential increase in your publications is not linear to the number of years in grad school, considering the rather steep learning curve.
Similarly the expectations during post-grad applications could also vary based on the degree. You might, and probably will, be expected to do more years of post-doc research before getting a faculty position, in comparison to if you had a longer PhD period (for instance 5 years instead of 3).
Yet another aspect is the funding; most PhD programs are limited in years, because the funding is usually limited in years. In other words, if you have means of sustaining yourself without grant money, or if your supervisor/group leader has the possibility to fix some other source of funding, I am pretty sure actual dissertation time would not be a huge issue (again it depends on the supervisor).
Lastly, none of this is written in stone, and there will always be exceptions to the rule. I would advocate that there is really no shortcuts to success, and instead of worrying about number of years to a particular title, one should focus on getting "really good/competent" at the field of research.

The funding issue is important. In the UK system, funding (in the form of a PhD scholarship) is often limited to three years, which provides a strong incentive to graduate quickly. In the US system, this is not the case, so there is less pressure for students to finish quickly.

@Thomas re last sentence: probably because a PhD student staying in the lab longer is cheap labor ;-)

There is also the fact that you need to graduate in time for the university to be allowed to count it as completion.

Having moved from the US to Europe (Denmark specifically), I was surprised that doctoral degrees here are standardized. Whereas in the US degree times vary considerably for all the reasons stated in the other answers, in Europe the length of PhD degrees is increasingly zeroing in on three years. Indeed, in Denmark no one is permitted to take longer than three years.
This is due to an international European standard known as the Bologna process, which aims to standardize academic qualifications across Europe. In order to enter a PhD in Bologna process countries, students must have a sufficient number of ECTS points (equal to a master-level degree), thus reducing the variance in times (common in the United States) due to differences in additional courses (minimal), teaching obligations (minimal), etc. between students, departments, and universities.

Well just to add my personal experiences: I'm really surprised (actually a little bit shocked) that outside the EU even the PhD is not a guarantee for a certain level, and that people can "just" get a PhD without even a Master degree. From my experience PhD are only assigned to the top level students. Some friends of me just started with their PhD before this summer, both have been given "3 years". After that a review happens and a possible extension for 2 more years is possible. More than that won't be paid by the paying company though. So that puts a limit on things.

For those interested in why the U.S. is an outlier compared to Europe in terms of PhD length, it's important to keep in mind that European countries used to have not only widely varying standards for doctorates but also widely varying degrees (i.e., many countries had degrees that did not even map onto the BA-MA-PhD system). European countries are now increasingly standardized around a 3-4 year doctorate because all degree programs in (most) European countries are expected to follow the standards set by the Bologna Process, which fix the ECTS credit hours for particular degree programs. As a result 47 European countries (as of 2014) now have relatively standardized and transferable degree requirements, which differ quite dramatically from those in the U.S. higher education system.

Ph.D. times are also wildly divergent across different fields.  At UVA (where I work and thus know the statistics), mathematics and statistics students usually take 5 or 6 years, but in most humanities fields 7 or 8 is more common, and in anthropology the median time to degree has been 10 years in some recent classes.

@BenWebster how does someone live for 10 years without a job?

@Ian Being in grad school doesn't mean you don't have a job.  Grad students in math typically can support themselves from department funding (though of course, they have to do some teaching for that).  In many humanities and social sciences fields, there's less funding, but you can sometimes find other things to do in the university (my wife worked in the tutoring center as a grad student, for example), adjunct teaching at another school, or just a job doing something else.


text:
PhD online interview
I am invited to an online interview for a PhD position.
Actually, it is my first time.
What are the contents of the interview?
What issues are usually discussed in these interviews?
Am I supposed to represent a proposal in the context of research, at that time?
Which parameters can increase the acceptance chance?

By online interview, do you mean something like a Skype interview?

@PatW, Yes, exactly.

in which field? do you know who's going to interview you?

If it is Skype, you may expect as close format to the "live" interview as the current technology permits them to achieve. So, the word "online" here is not very important in terms of what to expect. However, it gives you one extra headache: make sure that your computer and your internet connection work well! If it all hangs up for an hour in the middle, there won't be much fun for either side...

I am not sure if either of these are duplicates: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1137/advice-guidance-when-interviewing-for-a-faculty-or-postdoc-job-via-skype-or-phon and http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5983/tips-for-making-online-presentation-over-skype

I work in a program for computational science, and we do online interviews with all of the qualified candidates for both our dual-degree (master's-PhD) and doctoral programs.
Because we are a rather broad program, we tend not to favor "quizzes" that test knowledge. Instead, we are looking for things like:

Ability to communicate in English
Enthusiasm for computational science (many people think we're a computer science program, instead of a computational science program!)
Match for the research interests of one or more of our institute members (particularly for dual-degree candidates)
Previous experience in computational science
Evidence of teamwork and ability to fit our program

There's no real way to "game" the system, at least in my interview, unless you want to invent an entirely new personality for yourself. That's because most of my questions are free-form after the first few, and will try to explore the answers you've given in greater depth. For instance, if a candidate expresses an interest in fluid mechanics, I'll ask what they've done, what makes it interesting, what they'd like to do in the future. If someone happens to express interest in my area (computational materials), things will go in yet another direction altogether.
The best advice is be yourself. If you try to come off as someone you're not, that will likely show up during the interview.

In my case (machine learning), background knowledge of the field and previous publications are the most important parts. My supervisor enumerated the names of the sub-fields and asked whether I know about them. I need to give different level of introductions or explanations according to my familiarity. As for the publications, I have little publications so I had to explain my thesis at great detail. Actually my supervisor was not satisfied and I had to write several pages of "abstract" later. At last, my supervisor asked me to the read the xxx page of his paper and derive the differential of a complex function right away. I made some minor errors but finally got myself through.
UPDATE: In my case I don't think my supervisor was "quizzing" me, but try to obtain a rough impression of my background. For me, the point was to articulate what I have known and not to boast on what I don't know. And I was also asked about the ability of English communication and teamwork.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Where to include contact details in math paper
I recently submitted a paper to a math journal with standard latex formatting, but they sent an email back saying that the contact details for the corresponding author should be in the document itself. Where exactly does this mean? On the title page next to my name?
Right now it looks like this:
Title
First name Last name
April 14, 2014
Abstract
The rest of the paper then follows
...
References
[1] reference...
Where exactly should I include my email address?
I am the only author of this paper.

Did the journal provide a template?

Look at other papers printed by the same journal.

What does the journal's guide to authors say?

I doubt it matters where you put the contact information in the submitted version (the journal will reformat it if accepted).  Sometimes it's a footnote on the first page, sometimes it's arranged next to the author's name, and sometimes it's at the end of the paper.  The easiest thing is probably to use the amsart document class, which is common in mathematics and will handle this automatically (it puts it at the end).

In many templates, ams among them, it is \author{John Smith} \email{john.smith@mathematics.edu}

If they just said "in the document itself" and didn't say where in the document, then I think it's up to you and your software to decide where to put this information. I use amsart which, as Anonymous Mathematician and Davidmh said, gives you easy macros for entering this information and then prints it at the end of the paper.

This depends entirely on the journal's style. They should provide a LaTeX class or template that explicitly identifies how to include the corresponding author's contact info, or if not that, a web page with instructions on how to include contact information. Without knowing which journal you're talking about, I don't think I can say anything more than that.

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


text:
Should the fullstop go inside or outside the brackets for Harvard in-line citations?
I was always taught to put the fullstop inside the brackets, but a couple of Harvard in-line citations I'm seeing put the fullstop outside, e.g.

(Hyvönen, 2007; Joshi, 2001; Kaplan, 1984).

Is this correct, or should it be:

(Hyvönen, 2007; Joshi, 2001; Kaplan, 1984.)

Full stops and periods should always go outside parenthetical references. The only time a stop should be "inside" a citation is when you are using superscript references, in which case the numbers normally appear after punctuation marks (at least in US based journals).
The reason is that the punctuation mark is not part of the citation itself. Therefore it should not be buried "inside" the citation.


text:
Are there laws preventing someone from collecting data not connected to a sanctioned research project?
I would be interested in conducting a survey of Japanese learners of English to find out what they find difficult about learning English. I'm a university graduate, so no longer part of the university in effect, and am not connected to any research institution, nor any business. I would be an individual acting out of my personal academic interest.
My question is, are there rules or laws that prevent me from doing this? I would have no access to journals or similar, so the most I could do is publish anonymised data on a blog or Reddit or similar. I could collect consent from each participant, but if the survey hadn't been approved by any particular ethics committee would this act be essentially meaningless?
I'd appreciate any advice or input on this matter.

Even if you can legally talk to these people and collect data (a big if), it may still be that you cannot publish your findings.

There exist independent review committees that review research for a fee. If you were really interested in it, you could have them do it.

Since you ask for legal advice, only a lawyer in the country in which you intend to do the research can really answer your question with authority.
However, the usual reason that it is useful to be part of a University or Firm when doing research, is that they normally employ lawyers that can answer these questions. Affiliation isn't essential, but good advice is. A university may (will in the US) have an office that will help assure that you don't overstep legal or ethical boundaries.
I would try to visit a local research institution and see if they can give you guidance on your proposal. There are some things you aren't allowed to ask human subjects and some restrictions on data use, etc., but these differ by country. Perhaps a local university publishes its guidelines and they may be available to you even when unaffiliated.
Different countries also are likely to have a bureau whose purpose is to publish legal and ethical advice to researchers. A local search may turn up the information you need.
But proceed cautiously in any research that involves human subjects in any way.

I like your answer and you cover what I would write in mine. The only thing I would add is that Universities have IRBs and without IRB approval most human subject research cannot be published.

I think consent is a good idea even if the survey hasn't passed through an ethics committee. A lot of the review around human subjects is straight-forward: are you asking people to do anything different than they would encounter in their normal lives? Would any of it be potentially uncomfortable, distressing, or dangerous to them? Will they be identifiable personally in the data, for example with their name, address, zip code, IP address, etc.? For any of those, tell them up front what the procedure and risks of participation are, and whether they want to continue. That is essentially the consent process, and is ethically appropriate whether or not you publish, etc.
All that said, people fill out surveys all the time. Keep the participation reasonable and emotionally neutral, and I anticipate no problems with your survey. It will not be publishable in a peer-reviewed journal. Have a plan for de-anonymizing the data. Notice there are strict rules about holding identifiable data, such as the new GDPR privacy law in Europe: https://www.insight.mrc.ac.uk/2018/04/16/gdpr-research-changes/

I don't understand why you think it wouldn't be publishable.

@Buffy - I imagine because all published research must go through ethical vetting processes, otherwise it's not research, it's a random guy with a clipboard. I'm fine with not publishing it, I'm just wondering what are the problems with being a random guy with a clipboard.

@Lou, you say "all published research must go through ethical vetting processes" and I'm not sure why, though it may be the law in some places. I doubt that it is a universal. The reviewers of any submitted manuscript may have something to say about the ethics of any methodology, of course, as I would expect. Social Science research isn't my field, of course, but I've not heard such a rule mentioned anywhere before. Also, editors might be skeptical of a manuscript if you aren't from a recognized place, but I doubt that it would be an absolute block. Am I wrong?

@Buffy All the reputable social science and public health journal I have submitted to have required a statement about ethics approval as part of the submission for any article involving human participants. Failure to go through ethics approval is grounds for desk rejection (though I guess someone could lie as it's not checked). For example, https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/submission-guidelines/preparing-your-manuscript/research-article and https://www.biomedcentral.com/getpublished/editorial-policies#ethics+and+consent.

@JenB, and is there no way for someone not associated with a university or research firm to obtain such approval? I would hope that there would be.

@Buffy Yes, there are recognised ethics committees that can be accessed by independent researchers and getting approval from one of those is necessary to make the research publishable.

@JenB, Thanks. It would be good if you could provide an answer to the question bringing all of this comment stream together.

I would be interested in conducting a survey of Japanese learners of English to find out what they find difficult about learning English...My question is, are there rules or laws that prevent me from doing this?

There are rules, but they are country dependent. For instance, if you survey Japanese people resident in the EU, then you are governed by GDPR.

It also seems possible that a publisher is also bound by legal constraints in their own country, even if that is different from the country of the researcher and/or the subjects.

The OP stated their objective as publishing "on a blog or Reddit or similar," so publishers don't seem relevant. Disregarding that momentarily: Although I agree that publishers are bound by the legal constraints in countries they operate in, I don't think this precludes publication of research that could not have been legally conducted in such countries (at least, in many cases). Nonetheless, other barriers might be introduced, e.g., objections from reviewers.

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


text:
Using relative numbering for tables and figures
I'm producing documentation for an A-Level Computing project. Throughout my project I've been numbering my tables and figures relative to the chapter and section they're contained in. So for example, instead of doing:

2. Design
...
    2.3. Object analysis
Figure 4 - diagram of objects

I've done:

2. Design
...
    2.3. Object analysis
Figure 2.3.1. - diagram of objects

I'd like to know if the latter style of numbering is considered bad practice. Should my figures instead always be absolutely numbered? Or should I use absolute numbering and restart the number for each section? I'm not required to conform to an academic style, so this is more for myself.

If your school does not have a specific scheme in place for such reports, then you are free to use whatever scheme you feel most logically identifies things. Personally, I prefer the longer style of numbering, because it helps me to orient myself through a large document. It's certainly not bad practice, although it's somewhat unusual to "drill down" all the way to the subsection level.

Depends on how many figures are in each subsection. If all subsections are very figure-dense...

authors: ajt.ru отзывы


text:
Bulk Download PDFs from Google Scholar
I would like to download ~100 scholarly articles from Google Scholar. I have institutional access, so Google Scholar presents the available PDF. Is there a way to automate the downloading of the PDF files?

why would one need an institutional access to GS? it's just open

@Ilya I guess the OP meant he has access to the articles that are behind pay walls. To the OP: please confirm this.

Exactly. I can download the PDFs directly from a link on the Google Scholar page, without paying

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it has to do with the mechanics of downloading articles, and not with academia.

You might want to check your university's policies. Some forbid automated downloading/crawling and may result in a permanent ban from using the institutional access.

@BobBrown - If you feel it's off topic, which StackExchange community would you suggest I post to?

Additionally, check Google Scholar's ToS. They may also prohibit automated access or scraping.

I know one relatively simple way.
Zotero + a Google Scholar Zotero plugin for you browser (typically, Firefox or Chrome).
Bibliographic manager. The program helps you to download bibliographic meta-data together with the PDFs (if they are open).
So, you may "save" all the needed papers to "My library" in GS (if you have several collections, you may assign a special "label" to each collection). Then, when you have all the papers in one list, just export them all to Zotero. Whenever possible, Zotero will download a PDF.


text:
Specific Weakness in GRE Quantitative Section - Looking for Advice
I took the GRE about a year ago (for an MA program). I did very well on Verbal, but only so-so on Quantitative. I'd like to retake the GRE for applying to PhD programs.
My issue with the Quantitative section was simply time management. I understood all of the questions, but I guess I just didn't have an effective strategy for how to tackle them.
Does anyone have any specific recommendations for time management strategies on the Quantitative section? I'd be interested in books, online tutorials, and even tutors in the New York City area.

Although your question is not really off-topic for this site, nevertheless I think you could go elsewhere for better answers and more help.  Here's one tip: the quantitative section on the GRE is very close to the corresponding section on the SAT.  Since help with the SATs (in any number of ways) is truly ubiquitous these days, this gives you a lot of resources.

I struggled with the GRE Quantitative section several years ago; my first attempt was over 100 points less than the required score for my graduate program. I found the GRE test-prep books (Kaplan, Princeton Review, Barrons, GRE for Dummies) to be very helpful. I picked up a handful at second-hand bookstores, and then spent a few weeks drilling math problems, which helped me answer questions more quickly. Even though I knew how to do the problems before, they became more automatic with practice, which did make things easier and faster the second time around. Those books also offered time management strategies for taking the test, though you may need to purchase (or rent from the library) newer books which will describe the revised test (books prior to 2012 won't have guides for the new GRE). It was very boring working math problems 1-2 hours a night for a few weeks, but on my second attempt I achieved the score I needed. Best of luck!


text:
How to gracefully walk away from coauthored paper
I am working on a coauthored paper which I would like to step away from. How can I do so very tactfully and gracefully?
I want to step away because I don't quite agree with the direction the paper is taking in terms of analysis; the publication prospects are not terrific; and, frankly, I am not sure if I fully believe the results (our setting is not very "clean," meaning that there are several alternative explanations). I don't necessarily want to say all of these things to them.
Another detail is that the coauthors are two people at my current institution. I am going to be transitioning to another institution (in another state) in the next few months. Note this is not one of my main reasons to walk away, but being away will make it somewhat harder to collaborate. It will also be nice to get this off my plate so I can focus more on other projects.

be honest, be prompt, be polite, leave the door open to future collaboration

This is more a warning of the consequences than a real answer. There may not, in fact, be a way to do this gracefully.
You need to decide what the paper will become without you. Technically, they can't publish it without your permission. If you aren't a co-author, will you want acknowledgement? Will you want your name listed at all?
If you don't want your name listed and you have contributed to it, then publishing it could open the others to a plagiarism charge.
So, the situation is a bit sticky. If the paper can't be published without you, then there could be hard feelings and sometimes such things are a bit "sticky".
I suggest that you need to work out the details with them, to just withdraw. You may have some leverage to improve the paper and stay on the list of authors. But you might need to take some responsibility for the project to accomplish this.

Excellent response with good spotlight on the difficulties. This is a very ticklish situation. One more thing to consider: co-authors may be offended that you do not deem the paper worth being a co-author of. They shouldn't be, but this is quite a possibility.

Depending on how much work you put have put into the paper, you could suggest you haven't done enough to be a co-author. I've had co-authors ask to be removed because they felt they didn't do enough work to justify being an author, without it leaving bad feelings between people. But in this case they hadn't contributed much to the paper.

As Buffy mentioned, there may be no way to do this without ruffling feathers. Any "normal" excuse (I'm moving institutions, etc.) indicate that you don't have enough time to devote to polishing the paper, therefore your authorship should be adjusted down (i.e. from second to third author, or something), rather than removed entirely. Asking to be removed from a paper will always be interpreted as you saying very clearly that the paper doesn't meet your standards.
Thus, if your goal is to ruffle the fewest feathers, rather than trying to extricate yourself from the paper, determine what would elevate the paper to meet your minimum bar for co-authorship. Then, try and (respectfully, but straightforwardly) bring these points up with the coauthors.
Because think about what "leaving" the paper says: I don't have confidence in this work, and, furthermore, I don't believe you are careful/conscientious/ethical enough to listen to or address my concerns. If you respected these people enough to get involved with them in this project in the first place, respect them enough to at least air your concerns with them first. Then, their response can dictate your next steps. Then you will be on firmer footing if later you decide you really have to get off the article. You can say something like:
"Sorry that I really feel that the alternative explanations need to be explored prior to publication, but I can understand that you feel the additional experiments required don't match our current funding/timeline/whatever. In that case, especially because I'm moving and can't contribute to the future work, I'd ask you to remove me from the author list, but wish you the best in publishing and hope we can work together again in the future."

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


text:
Had the idea vs. did the work: Who should be the lead author?
Dr. A came to Dr. B asking for research ideas. Dr. B gave him a thesis, explained its value, why it's plausible, and how to test it.  Dr. A liked this, got Student C to do the work, and managed the work.
Now, it's time to publish their results.  How should they determine the lead authorship?

Alphabetical order, of course. (Ha ha only serious!) See also this related question.

And if you do follow JeffE's link, you'll learn that no answer to this question is possible without first specifying (at least) the field of the research.

In Computational Chemistry, the student is listed first, his professor (Dr. A) second, and Dr. B last. At least, that's how we've handled this in our lab.

The information is severely insufficient. Can be either way as written.

Dr B and Student C should have asked about this at the outset. Dr A should have stayed on top of things.

The lead author should be the person who carries out the bulk of the research work—including the planning, execution, and writing.
If the student C is the one responsible for carrying out the experiments and writing the paper, then C should be considered the primary agent of the paper.
Who should be the "final" author is a different matter. I would suspect that this really should be professor B, who had the original idea. The role of doctor A is only as research manager, so his role is nominally weaker than that of either B or C in this process. So, ultimately, barring other negotiations and arrangements to the contrary, it should be:

Student C, Doctor A, Professor B.

If there is some other distribution of roles beyond what is laid out above, it would need to be negotiated between everybody involved.
Note: In fields where lexicographic order is not used, the final author position also carries weight. It usually is the head of the research group or team that originated the project.

Can you elaborate on what being the "final" author signifies?

There is no easy answer. Providing an idea is certainly a good part of research but performing experiments, interpreting results and writing up the paper (discussion) are equally important (by equal I do not mean they are worth exactly the same, just important). There are several ways in which one can discuss the order based on evaluating the value of each component of the research process and then evaluate each persons contribution on each of these components. There have been a few posts (not necessarily in their entirety relevant to your question) here that discusses contributorship which I will not reiterate here. Please check the following (particularly links in the answers):
Paper contributions and first authorship
How should a student defend his 1st authorship in front of his advisor politely and effectively?
Authorship for paper based on my thesis
The point here is that none of the different aspects are alone enough for first authorship so one must weigh all components involved in the research process. It is of course harder to accomplish this "after the fact" but if all involved agree to try I am sure you can come up with a good author order.

Dr. A was a wise man, a negotiated such things when asking for the research ideas? :-)
Well, if B is more senior than A, then in most fields the order would be C, A, B. First authorship goes to the student, who did the most work. Last authorship goes to the most senior researcher. Then, the only position left for A is the second authorship. (Assuming for example that C is a grad student, A is a post-doc or something, and B is a professor).

Why does first authorship go to the least senior researcher? Because they have the most to gain (career-wise) or because we assume the least senior research did most of the 'heavy lifting?'

In addition, there is the possibility of having a paragraph "Contributions". Some journals actually ask for such a statement.
If the discussion about the order of authors becomes difficult, this can calm down the discussion, also because writing down who did what often points out the order the authors should have.

The description is quite vague.
If I read the paper and I have questions about it, who should I ask?
That should be the first author and in most cases this will fit with the description of C.
The ideas of B are indeed important, but in most cases this is overlooked and underestimated. If B didn't publish his ideas or did anything about them, then A could claim he had the same ideas, and B only stated the evident (I have seen this many times). More often than not, the role of B is to appear in the acknowledgements of the paper, or not to appear at all, because the conversation between A and B may be considered either:

as a personal favor
an informal or non-profesional conversation
some mentoring or help that is to be thanked but not part of the paper
a combination of several of the above or other gray areas of not-real involvement in the paper and the "real work".

Basically B gave his advice as a gift to A, and now A has to decide whether this gift is to be returned or not. If it is returned then probably B will be the second author, if it is not returned, then B will not be an author. This basically depends on how A sees B, he may be an ally, an asset, a friend, a superior, a rival, an enemy, an annoyance...
I have discarded the option of B being the third author because I'm assuming A is more senior than B, if B is more senior than A then B should be the third and not the second author, this would also mean that B has more chances to appear as a coauthor. The reason is that the order from first to last author means the involvement in the work and the paper, but also on low-level work, while the last author is in the highest-level work, most abstract, theoretical, general, long-term-visioned, etc. Therefore the most senior is set to the last (even if someone else was less involved but involved enough to appear) to avoid suspicion on a less senior researcher (aka lesser being) giving high-level advice to a more senior researcher.
Most of the time the focus, the stress and the effort is not on how things are, but how do they look like. At least this is what I have seen up until now.
BTW: When I put examples I like to speak about Alex, Bernie, Cory, etc. I think this is easier to follow and I do also think that @order made a mistake between A and B. By your description, A seems to be more senior than B, the kind of senior researcher that manages human resources, that can pay C and that can tell C what to do. If that is the case, I doubt as well about the involvement of A in the paper and the work, while B and A can

If I read the paper and I have questions about it, who should I ask? — Any of the authors.

@JeffE with all due respect, that's a very naïve answer. Are you suggesting C should be the only author? In an ideal world any of the authors should be able to answer. In the real world, A and B usually know the high-level details that you can easily understand from the paper, while the knowledge that C  has is more detailed (we know that C did the work), C knows the specifics and low-level details that cannot be written and detailed in the paper due to space constraints, that info may only be in C's head. I agree, the real world should be closer to the ideal, but pretending is harmful.

No, I'm suggesting that putting your name on a paper requires that you accept responsibility for its content.  If you don't understand the paper, you should not be an author.  (Before you question my naïvité again, look at my profile.)

@JeffE I agree, the real world should be closer to the ideal, things should be very different to how they are, but pretending we live in the ideal world is harmful, at many different levels. About your profile, congratulations, but I don't see the point. I don't have a nice profile, but I can tell you I'll put the name of my supervisor on my papers until I get the PhD, because I've seen friends with the thesis written but not defended stuck for years (still there). I tend to postpone battles until I can win them (if that ever happens).

I'm sorry your advisor is a jerk.

@JeffE in this case, as in many others, the problem is in the system. IMHO.


text:
How to think about journal-hosted preprints, or "Just-IN" manuscripts?
The NRC Research Press (or Canadian Science Publishing) offers a, at least to me, peculiar option they call "Just-IN" manuscripts. This seems to be an extreme version of an online-first article. Note: I understand an online-first article to be a basically finished version that's just waiting for some cosmetic stuff, like volume and page numbers, but gets hosted on the journal website early, and assigned a DOI. (As noted in the answer to a related question, in some journals the online-first article isn't quite the final version, but it still sounds as if it should be substantially similar to the final one.)
The "Just-IN" approach, however, means that the author's version is made available on the journal website. This happens right after it's undergone peer review and been accepted, but before it's been copy edited or been corrected by the authors. NRC notes

Readers should note, however, that changes (sometimes substantial) are made during the publication process, so the content of the official version of record could be different from that of the Just-IN manuscript.

In other words, this seems to be something that is between a preprint and an official journal version that's just waiting for publication. Indeed, I have had my eye on a specific paper that's been sitting in this status for over half a year, and where, based on a cursory check, the contents appears to be the same as in the arXiv version (which was posted before the journal received the manuscript).
I wonder:

How different can the final published "copy of record" version be from the "just-IN" version?
To cite the "just-IN" version I would use the DOI. Given that this DOI will later point to the final version, am I potentially misleading readers if the two versions turn out to be significantly different from each other? (If I instead were to cite the arXiv version, should it exist, at least the previous versions would be available to future readers.)

This is not so uncommon. The American Chemical Society, which is a pretty large scientific publisher, has "just accepted" manuscripts that are also formatted by the authors. I think it's useful for the community, especially in those cases where the journal publishing agreement is incompatible with preprint servers (which is common for the ACS in particular).

@Miguel Interesting! Some of ACS's journals are relevant to me, but I never noticed they had that practice. You make a good point about preprint policies, though it seems to me that changing the policy would be a more direct solution.

Absolutely, from the point of view of the author it makes sense to allow preprint posting, but not all journals agree with this policy basically because they want to make sure that universities have a reason to keep their subscriptions. Depending on the journal, "just accepted" manuscripts may mean making papers available to the public one week to one month before actual publication.

How different can the final published "copy of record" version be from the "just-IN" version?

By as much as how just-accepted articles can differ from actual published articles (this is in all likelihood what the two types of articles are in this case). Copyediting is done, figures are moved, author corrections are implemented. This last part can be quite substantial, e.g. if the reviewer recommends acceptance but has a few extra (optional) comments that the authors agree with. The central arguments presented by the paper are not likely to change, but the presentation might.

To cite the "just-IN" version I would use the DOI. Given that this DOI will later point to the final version, am I potentially misleading readers if the two versions turn out to be significantly different from each other? (If I instead were to cite the arXiv version, should it exist, at least the previous versions would be available to future readers.)

Because the central arguments presented by the paper are not likely to change, you can safely use the DOI of the just-IN version. In rare cases, this might not work, e.g. if you say something like "See Jane Doe et al [ref] figure 3" (since figure numbering might change), or if you're citing Jane Doe et al for something that isn't their central claim, e.g. "It is well known that dark matter exists [ref]" where Jane Doe et al isn't a paper about dark matter's existence, but rather its properties. But these exceptions are quite rare, and you should be able to safely cite as-is.

I recently (last year) published an article that appeared 'Just-in' first. In answer to your questions:

The 'Just-in' version was after revision were made and the manuscript was accepted. It's almost identical to the published version, at the exception of the format.
No, I do not think you would be misleading, as if there is differences, they are probably minimal.


text:
What is the function or role of a propaedeutic diploma (in e.g. The Netherlands)?
I recently came across the term "propaedeutic diploma" in the CV of a Dutch academic. According to Wikipedia, it's a diploma given for successfully completing the first year of university study, and used by many (how widespread is the practice?) institutions.
Does it also have a formal function, or is it just a tradition at this point?
For example, would progressing to second year courses be tied to earning this diploma? If it is, why is a diploma used rather than a simple cutoff in terms of credits earned?

Note: Yes, this is ostensibly a question specific to undergraduate education, but it's not about admissions or "undergraduate life". Rather, it's an attempt to understand a specific academic system, which I hope should be considered on-topic.

Sounds like cv padding - some of our profs only took us seriously as students once we got to the third, and final, year... However, might be useful for transfer possibilities or for an incomplete award ie never finished...

@SolarMike Could be. Yet, the particular CV that inspired this question only lists propaedutic diplomas (one in an unrelated field), a MSc degree (at the same university), and the PhD. I.e. no separate bachelors degree. That seems fair enough to me, assuming it actually counts as a degree in the Netherlands - especially for a comprehensive academic CV. After all, it's not too different from my own, which lists bachelors, masters and PhD...

Knowing nothing about the Netherlands education system, is this maybe because they were admitted directly to what would be a bachelor's+master's program? At the end the whole point is the masters, but some sort of preliminary degree is given on the way?

The propaedeutic diploma is awarded after completing all the requirements for the first year of studies. Not all universities in the Netherlands award it, and its importance seems to be less since Bologna has introduced the bachelor/master system in the Netherlands. Before it was the only diploma/certificate until completing the full four or five years for a university study. Obtaining it in reasonable time could be seen as a sign that normally one should be able to complete the full studies, and hence nowadays it is also used as a selective tool, as is mentioned in @cag51's answer.
It does not carry much value and is not seen as a terminal degree. The only exception is for students studying in professional education ("hoger beroepsonderwijs", in English these institutions normally call themselves "Universities of Applied Sciences"). In that case, the diploma can be used to be admitted to a university. To understand this, one should know that in the Netherlands, from 12 years old secondary education is split into four different levels, and only the highest level gives access to universities.

Thanks for the great answer. One more thing - would it be common to include these in a CV, or (as per Solar Mike's comment) could that be seen as padding?

@Anyon: It depends, perhaps early in the career it is more common. Or sometimes  it is included if one has an additional propeduese in a field outside of the major. But it doesn't carry much weight I would say, so I suppose that it normally only is included when one is asked specifically for all higher education diplomas.

I heard this term in the context of a year of non-degree courses required to reach sufficient preparation to enter an advanced degree in a cognate field.
For instance, if you have an undergraduate degree in - say - journalism but you like to get a graduate degree in sociology, the program chair may require you to do such a year "to beef up your background in sociology" -kinda thing.
I knew a priest with several PhDs, all in cognate fields: philosophy, theology and political sciences.  After his theology degree he was asked to do a propaedeutic year before entry in the PhD. in philosophy program, and another to gain entry in political sciences.
I've never heard of a "propaedeutic diploma".  I don't recall this guy's propaedeutic years counting towards his ultimate degrees, and I don't think he got a separate degree or diploma for the courses completed during those years, although possibly by cleverly combining credits he might have been able to do so.

I'll upvote for the interesting information. The usage you describe is similar in spirit to wikipedia's description "knowledge necessary before, or for the learning a discipline, but not which is not sufficient for proficiency". However, it is a little different from this diploma system. E.g. the diploma seems to be used for first year undergraduate studies, and - at least sometimes - for someone proceeding to study in the same field.

This is not how it is used in the Netherlands, although I suppose since the name comes from Greek, they have similar origins.

This Wordpress Blog gives a good explanation. From this, I'll take a stab at your questions (Note, I'm not personally familiar with the Dutch system, just going from the blog post).

Does it also have a formal function, or is it just a tradition at this point? For example, would progressing to second year courses be tied to earning this diploma?

Yes, it's required for second-year courses. The author of the blog post describes that 60 credits are required for the propodeuse at their institution. There are some circumstances in which one may attempt to earn the propodeuse during the second year; in other cases, they are disqualified. At this institution, 50% of students are disqualified.

If it is, why is a diploma used rather than a simple cutoff in terms of credits earned?

It is tied to the number of credits earned. However, it is a big enough accomplishment (both numerically - quite a few don't make it - and culturally) that there is also a certificate.
I don't know what good the certificate is by itself (i.e., if the student doesn't subsequently attain a bachelor's degree); I suspect it's similar to an Associate's Degree in the US (i.e., little value, but perhaps better than nothing).

It should be noted that the credit requirements are fairly recent, maybe since the last two decades or so, with increasingly strong requirements. The propaedeutic diploma dates back much longer.

A propedeuse being required for second-year courses would depend on the institution, but it's not something I've ever heard of, it's also not the case in that blog you linked. At my university getting your propedeuse in the first year used to be a requirement for some excellence programs, but awarding propedeuses at my university been phased out entirely in recent years though as it has grown less and less important.


text:
Paid position at a US lab
Can one get paid while conducting research at a US university lab, without being a staff, student, visiting student, or a postdoctoral fellow? What are possible titles that are acceptable by grants? Assuming the grant sources are NSF and IARPA.
According to wikipedia, visiting scholar is a high level recognition. Is there an alternative for a paid researcher who does not hold a PhD and is not initially affiliated, but whose research is valuable to the lab?

What's the aversion to a staff position? Almost all universities have an hourly title that they can pay someone to do almost anything under. What's the relation to grant funding? Is the grant already awarded or are you trying to look your best in a grant application?

I believe the lab will have to use their grants in order to pay someone, so I was wondering if there are restriction as to the title, affiliation, or tasks of the person who will get paid from such grants.

Given that most universities have different titles for different functionally similar positions, I wouldn't sweat it too much. The only places where things are different in my experience with NSF are for faculty and post docs. I know NSF has a rule about the total amount of time that a person can be funded (without explicit exception from the Program Officer) on an award (2 months), but these rules are generally only applied to faculty since they are expected to get 9 months of support from their institution. NSF also requires a Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan for any proposal that will fund post docs. This is there to ensure that post docs have their careers promoted appropriately and that they learn appropriate collaboration methods.
That being said, you don't even have to work at a university to be paid under an NSF award. There are frequent subcontracting relationships created to send funding to other institutions including private companies and contractors.


text:
Offer for a great (but too long) postdoc and a girlfriend in another country
I am in the shortlist for a postdoc at a great place and I highly admire my future mentor. He will try to argue for my application in front of the hiring committee in a few days.
The only concern I have is that this postdoc position is for 3 years. I have a girlfriend in another country and she cannot come with me where the postdoc will be. My long term plan was to spend 1 or 2 years as a postdoc, then some years in industry near my girlfriend and then the two of us to go back in my country, where I can easily find a permanent tenure-track position. I want to be honest with my future mentor and communicate the situation with him without losing the opportunity (the other potential offers I could have are way worse). In any case, I want to keep my good relation with the mentor. I see two main options:

Communicating the situation with the mentor right now. The risk is that it may look that I am not motivated enough and this could lead to me not getting an offer at all.

Share this with the mentor after an offer and 1 or 2 years spent at the postdoc place. Then, I will first have higher chances to get the position and second - if the mentor understands me, I will keep the good relation with him and he can even recommend me for another academic position where my girlfriend is (that could be even better, but I don't know whether it's possible given that I will still have 1 year of my current postdoc contract).

Which option would you choose at my place?
[Remark: Having a family is a priority for me. I am already 33 years old and I am afraid that if I lose my girlfriend, I will end up being single forever, as many people choosing the academia career track.]

Not what you are asking about, but a comment on; "I am afraid that if I lose my girlfriend, I will end up being single forever". While I'm all for making career sacrifices for the sake of relationships, this is not a healthy perspective, or particularly fair to your girlfriend. Being scared of being single is, ironically enough, a potential relationship killer.

My personal opinion is that you should prioritize your long term personal relationships over your career.   The vast majority of academics have only been single briefly.

I would suggest that you don't say anything prior to the interview. It might prejudice your case. Depending on what you hear in an interview (how enthusiastic they are about you) you might consider saying that it is hard to commit in advance for the third year for personal reasons. Or continue to keep that private.
If you get an actual offer, then you can attempt to amend it in advance for, say, two years with an optional third. Their rules may permit such flexibility or not.
Also, it is likely that you can resign a position early either by local law or by mutual consent. Long term employment contracts are likely to have exit clauses. Be aware of them. Universities in the US generally are able to set their own policies and the national rules/laws that do exist tend to favor individuals.
My main advice is to keep your options open until you can't. A lot can happen both personally and professionally in a couple of years.

Three years is the standard postdoc "term" in the USA. But you in fact can defer the appointment by, say, a year. And you can leave the position a year before it formally ends. Both are very common and happen in my department all the time. Just do not leave in the middle of academic year.

You state all of this as standard for the US. I seriously doubt that is true. There are no national standards for such things. Every university "system" has its own rules. A system might be a single university or a number of state sponsored places.

Mine is a well known private University. I know that the same policy exists in Stanford and in the University of Illinois. What I described happened to several people I personally know.

I don't question that such rules exist, only that they are observed nationally. It is hard to make general statements about university policy in the US since there are so many "systems",  and most are small - even single universities.

I talked only about the situation in the USA. I do not know about other countries.

In my field in the US the standard postdoc term is 1 year. It may be renewable if everyone is on board, but the standard is 1 year, not 3. It's also uncommon to "defer" a postdoc since these are usually funded by grants with a limited term; they're hiring someone because they have money to spend now.

@BryanKrause: The OP was talking about a 3 year term, and that is his problem. My answer is about math. I think that in other fields (in the US) a 3 year term does not contradict leaving after 2 years. If you get a permanent position somewhere after 2 years, you may leave.

In most places, they can't make you stay 3 years - slavery is a thing of the past.

"Just do not leave in the middle of academic year."  This might apply in math, but not in the vast majority of postdocs that don't have teaching duties.

@AnonymousPhysicist: If teaching is involved, leaving in the middle of an academic year is not an option. If teaching is not involved, it is an option. But one has to consider the problem whether the  department can find a replacement.


text:
Developing a work ethic, or learning/doing things you aren't interested in (prelim topics)
Short version: Graduate prelims include lots of topics which are only distantly related to your particular research area. How does one motivate oneself to learn and do this stuff?
Long version with personal background: I'm a 3rd year undergrad who's planning on applying to graduate schools in the US next year (in mathematics). I'm taking a graduate course (Galois theory) which, in the graduate programs I'm looking at, typically amounts to less than 1/3 of the material on the algebra prelim, which is one of the usually 3 topical prelims. For me, the concrete consequences for failing this class are academic probation with possible loss of funding/scholarships; if I were in the graduate school here, this would be possibly ejection from the program.
Unfortunately, I find this topic to be horribly uninteresting. I did very well in the first half of the class because it was essentially a very fast-paced redux of group and field theory, but I can't find a single drop of inspiration or interest in my mind for these classic Galois theory results that we're developing. I've done some undergraduate research in algebra (factorization theory) and, if I were to go into that as a professional, I feel confident that I will never touch Galois theory ever again. So for me, Galois theory being mandated to be learned by me for only this one purpose, a prelim exam. Therefore, I'm having trouble finding motivation to learn it.
The lectures are in the usual "lemma: proof, theorem: proof, corollary: proof" style (occasionally throwing in a sentence or two of motivation, why we study this topic), with weekly homeworks which heavily supplement the lectures (only a small percentage of grade), and 2 tests (midterm and fnial). These homeworks are pretty in-depth and are expected to take upwards of 5 hours to properly complete. (Usually 1-2 pages of proofs for each problem, and 3-5 problems per week.) Nobody is holding my hand any more and walking me through the class like in undergrad classes. (E.g., the homework problems aren't even close to self-explanatory and often cover topics not even mentioned in lecture.) Even though I'm showing up to lecture and taking detailed notes, I haven't even started the last 3 homeworks. The final is still 3 weeks away so it's not impossible for me to catch up, but it's going to take a lot of hours to get this material learned so that I don't fail the class.
As far as I can tell, this class structure is more or less standard in graduate mathematics, so if I'm serious about wanting to continue in academia I'm going to need to find out how to manage this problem (lack of interest). How do others handle this? Where does the motivation come from? (other than Adderall.)

In this case, the best way to motivate yourself to study this uninteresting material is to try to become interested in it. It's important not to specialize too early, and as a third-year undergrad, you should only now be in the process of deciding a broad subfield of mathematics to specialize in (usually Algebra, Analysis, Geometry/Topology, Applied Math, or some combination of the above). Given that you're interested in becoming an algebraist, it's simply too early in the game to be crossing specific sub-fields of algebra off your list. Especially not Galois Theory, the basics of which you will very likely be expected to know if you take graduate courses in algebraic geometry, number theory, or the like. And even if you don't directly use this material in the future, it's a chance to develop mathematical maturity and intuition. (I'm glad to have been exposed to Galois Theory as an undergraduate, and I'm an analyst!)
As for this particular class, it sounds like it's simply going too fast for you. Which there's no shame in; I certainly had the same experience when taking graduate classes as an undergrad. If you revisit this material in a few years, you may be surprised to find yourself enjoying it. In which case you'll be thankful for anything you learned the first time around, even if it didn't fully sink in.
Basically, you should motivate yourself by keeping in mind that the effort you put into this class will benefit you in ways that aren't apparent right now.

Where does the motivation come from?

Ideally, the professor teaching the class should do a good job of motivating the material, but it sounds like they somehow aren't connecting with you.  For a topic like Galois theory, which is a standard part of the core mathematics curriculum throughout the world, you can be sure many mathematicians find it fascinating and important.  If your class isn't successfully conveying the fascination and importance, look elsewhere for it (this class shouldn't define or limit your explorations).  Talk about Galois theory with your friends and classmates.  If it's clicking for them, they can help you appreciate it; if it isn't, you can investigate further together.  Ask the professor questions.  Talk with other mentors.  Look for other books that you might find more engaging.  Search and ask questions online.  All this is much more work than just going to lectures and working on problem sets, but it's the only way to get a deeper understanding.  (And five hours of homework a week is not much for a graduate course.  This leaves you some time to study the material on your own.)

I've done some undergraduate research in algebra (factorization theory) and, if I were to go into that as a professional, I feel confident that I will never touch Galois theory ever again.

You may be right that you won't ever need it in your research.  However, if you become an algebraist, there's a good chance you'll have to teach Galois theory someday.  More generally, as a professional mathematician you'll be responsible for having a much broader knowledge of mathematics than just your own research interests.

Even though I'm showing up to lecture and taking detailed notes, I haven't even started the last 3 homeworks.

It sounds like a vicious cycle: your dislike of the material keeps you from working on it, but that limits your understanding and makes you dislike it all the more.  The good news is that I'd bet you don't have an intrinsic dislike of Galois theory, but the bad news is that you'll have to break the cycle somehow.  This is largely a matter of psychology.  When I've been in situations like this, I've gotten out through indignation, along the lines of "I'm not going to let some crummy lecturer keep me from understanding and appreciating one of the highlights of mathematics."  But what works best for you will depend on your personality.

Good scientists need to have a fairly broad background in their area, the requirements of a department generally reflect what that department has decided needs to be part of that background in order for its graduates to be considered well educated in their area.
Learning a broader base of material is important for a couple of reasons.  First of all, it gives you more intellectual "tools" for approaching problems in your area.  Even if a particular subject (e.g., Galois theory) turns out not to be very useful for the problems you are working on right this very moment, it is likely to be useful and important for a lot of things in the discipline, and if you have some understanding of it, you will be able to recognize when you are dealing with an unexpected case where it is the right tool for the job.  Much time and energy is wasted when people who are missing a piece of background try to re-invent the wheel.  Likewise, you should understand it well enough to recognize when it is the wrong tool for the job.
Second, in most graduate classes there are two simultaneous lessons being taught: the material itself, and the structure of the science supporting the material.  Galois theory is partly so hard because it is an example of a mathematically deep concept, and understanding how Galois theory works may also better enable you to recognize and develop another new deep concept.
Finally, science will always be throwing new ideas and concepts at you, and is also increasingly interconnected and interdisciplinary.  You need to develop the skills to be able to learn and cope with new material, even if it is not a type that you prefer, or else you will quickly become locked into an ever-shrinking subfield and likely obsolete.

Lots of good advice here.  But I'm going to take a different approach.
You are not really interested in this material at this stage of your life.  You might be later, but for now, you really aren't.  It is unfortunate that your program doesn't allow you more freedom of choice.
So now it's time for Operation Get By.  There are several things that can help you accomplish this:

Find a human being to help you.  It might be the professor, it might be the TA, it might be a professional tutor, it might be a friend, it might be a really nice grad student.
Find a study group (it might be a bit too late in the semester for this -- but there's no harm in trying).
Try some internet research, to see if there are some solved problems out there that are close enough to your homework problems, that you can use them as starting points.

I was forced to take Assembly Language once, and I HATED it.  I have never used what I "learned" in that class.  I cussed and whined my way through all the projects.  I hated the teacher.  You don't have to love everything in math, or have a good fit with every teacher.  But you do have to pass your required courses.  Sigh.
What I am proposing you do is akin to faking it in music.  Once I had to learn Tchaikovsky's Fourth in one week.  There were masses of fast passages with lots of accidentals.  The first couple of days, I did my best to plow through as much of the material as I could each day, trying to find sensible fingerings, practicing in a thorough way, to get the hand shapes comfortable.  But by the middle of the week it had become clear that the conductor was NOT going to help.  He was going to take the fast passages so fast they were UNPLAYABLE.  He was not going to rehearse the most difficult fast passages carefully, to give us a chance to work up gradually to a fast tempo.  So I gave up.  I resigned myself to faking huge swaths of black notes.  I have never done this before or since.  But really, there was no other way out.  I could have given myself lots of soreness in various body parts, practicing those passages like crazy, but the end result would have been no different -- so I cut my losses.

if I'm serious about wanting to continue in academia I'm going to need to find out how to manage this problem (lack of interest). How do others handle this?

Don't worry about this.  In graduate school, you get to follow your own interests more.  You'll have a wonderful advisor, who will make sure your own interests are not leading you down a blind alley.
Also, you will be a little older, more knowledgeable and more mature than you are now.  Just take things one step at a time.


text:
Tips on preparing a good slideshow talk
I am preparing a talk for an advanced graduate course in mathematics, where I am supposed to use slides (the Beamer type, not handwritten).
Since it's the first time I'm giving a presentation talk as opposed to a blackboard talk, I was wondering whether any of you have some advice on preparing a good presentation, and presenting it (in particular, if you come from a scientific background).
Thanks!

See this question for tips on preparing slides, this question for tips on presenting them. I believe we've already covered general presentation tips here, but if you have a specific question that isn't addressed in those other posts, please [edit] your question to highlight it and it may be reopened.


text:
Is it OK to have one of my letters of recommendation written by a Postdoc?
I am a Master's student in Mathematics who is planning to apply to a PhD program.
During my research I have been closely working with a Postdoc of my advisor, who is now leaving for another Postdoc position in Europe, and it is not likely he will have a permanent position by the time I need to send the recommendation letters.
Would having him write one of 3 letters of recommendation put me at a significant disadvantage comparing to a case where the author of said letter is a tenured professor who is however less familiar with my research abilities (e.g someone I have taken a course with, or someone who has read my thesis/papers but haven't had significant interaction with me in person)?

Who write the other two?


text:
Rationale behind lack of transparency regarding thesis defence committee
At my department, a thesis defence committee consists of 3-4 professors (including the advisor(s)), one of whom does not belong to the department (so could be pretty much anyone related to the field).
It is common for a grad student to know who his thesis defence committee members are going to be quite ahead of the defence date (usually the student will know before copies of his thesis are sent to the members for review).
In rare cases, the student can even assemble his committee together with his advisor -- this makes sense for example in the case where the student wishes to pursue a certain research direction after graduating, and he would like a potential advisor or reference who is an expert in the subfield to take a part in his evaluation.
However, the general policy of the university (and of some faculty members) is that a student is not supposed to have the information on who is included in the committee until the defence.
While I understand some potential reasons for it, such as avoiding bribery in any form, those precautions seem quite far fetched at a small department where everybody would probably know if any foul play was going on. Also, if it really were an issue, there should have been anonymity in other examination-related situation during one's studies. From a different perspective, I personally would rather not discover that Euler is on my thesis defence committee when I walk into the examination room (and not because of the startling discovery of the existence of zombies).
What reasons, from your experience, lead to such no-transparency policies?
(I am not facing such a situation, the question arises from a case involving a colleague.)

Is the defense just about the thesis or is general knowledge about the field tested as well?

Wow... that is bizarre to me.  In every situation I have known, the student is involved in selecting the defense committee and interacts with them significantly before the defense.  Otherwise, how would the committee know the student is ready to defend?

@Wrzlprmft As far as I know, in practice the defence is just about the thesis, although it is within the rights of the examiners to ask more general questions to test knowledge about the field.

@jakebeal Perhaps our system is different from the one I heard is common in other countries; here it is the advisor's responsibility to determine when the student is ready to defend, and the committee is selected about a month or two before the defence, which is when they read the thesis and approve or reject it. It is very uncommon that the advisor thinks his student is ready but the committee rejects the thesis.

@jakebeal: In every situation I have known, the student is involved in selecting the defense committee and interacts with them significantly before the defense. – Really? In all cases I know, the interaction with the committee (except the supervisor, of course) consisted of a short conversation to find out that the person was topic-wise capable and willing to do the job. — Otherwise, how would the committee know the student is ready to defend? – By reading the thesis?

Why would you rather not have Euler on your committee?  Was he known to be a particularly harsh examiner?

@gerrit I would be happy to have him on my committee, I'd just rather be psychologically prepared in advance to having such an expert ask me research questions :) (In case you're familiar with "Surely you're joking, Mr Feynman", recall how he describes the first seminar he gave as a young graduate student, which happened to be attended by all the top physicists.)

@Wrzlprmft By reading the thesis? Yes, and then sending feedback,  requesting changes, etc., i.e., interacting with the student.  The idea of a student walking into their defense not knowing who will be on their committee is very strange to me.  Chalk it up to Academia varies more than you think it does, I guess, and I've learned something new this morning.

In some cases, there is an external bureaucratic entity within the university that imposes such rules on departments, along the way insinuating that an "outside examiner" (even if there is none qualified) is necessary to "maintain standards", because (supposedly) otherwise departments might grant crappy PhD's... But, at my university, such secrecy is not required, in fact, nor is prior communication of student with committee prohibited. After all, wouldn't such communication help everything?
Similarly, some faculty suspect or even explicitly accuse other faculty of having low standards, etc.
Oddly, my university gives PhD students exactly one attempt at a "final oral exam" (=thesis defense): if they "fail", they are terminated. That is, there cannot be any "message" to go back and do more work... which seems to me bizarre.
In my opinion, the scenario in which a student presents a thesis as a fait accommpli with a short time-table to do trivial revisions (as opposed to altering the scope, or, heaven forbid, really learning more things to do a better thing...) is a bad thing. That is, interacting with the committee only at the end of a multi-year project strikes me as bizarre and not useful. All the worse if the committee's composition itself is a last-minute surprise, so that nothing positive could have been done.
But, yes, some of my colleagues apparently believe that there are universal absolutes, so that the notion of discussion and negotiation is what is incomprehensible or corrupt. Indeed, as with some coursework, it seems that a large part of the "test" is to figure out what the "test" might be about. I suppose there is a watershed of opinion about whether such a meta-test isn't at a seriously more-expert level than the literal material. Certainly at the PhD level, the meta-questions can easily become so serious that experts don't agree, so it seems unreasonable to me to require novices figure this out on their own.

This differs from university to university; and from a research group to another research group within the same university; moreover from a supervisor to another within  the same research group. On top of all these, a student might be able to change a circumstance a little bit. For example, in my case, one of my advisors was a super random passive human being, where putting him in a room might end up him throwing random comments that would hurt other academics; so, I kindly asked the research group leader to not allow him come to my defence.
Rationale Behind Secrecy and Openness: Both points are valid. The openness minded community believe, Ph.D. was a ride, that would be celebrated at the end of the Ph.D. student's work. So they are all gather the people they want, appreciate the student work (if applicable) and might end up discuss the research topics and their future directions.  In other other hand, the secrecy community believe people cheat and and/or abusing the system. So they keep things hush hush, as much as possible before the defence.
When Secrecy is a Strategy: In some extreme cases, where the student created bunch of trouble, by arguing with an academic and/or not doing his/her work for example; some academics use secrecy as an strategy to deal with this issue in most professional manner before things get out of hand (e.g., physical, law suit, etc.). This is to show the student, nothing is personal here, and you need to go back and do more work before getting your Ph.D.


text:
Should one mention the prestige of the target university/advisor as motivation in a statement of purpose?
When one writes their statement of purpose, is it advisable to mention the prestige of the target university?
How about expressing interest in working with a certain professor due to him being world renowned in the student's field of interest?
On the one hand, it seems quite common, but on the other hand I'd think the committee would get the impression that the student is applying randomly to top universities (and/or to work with famous researchers), instead of choosing based on specific research interests.
Thanks!

Personally, I wouldn't do this. It would make it as if you're just in it for the "prestige."

When applying for a graduate degree, the prestige or other characteristics of the university as a whole are generally irrelevant, compared with the specific department or graduate program.  I would strongly recommend against mentioning the university's prestige at all.  (You definitely don't want to give the impression that you see being able to list Harvard on your CV as comparable in importance to intellectual issues.)
It's common to discuss characteristics of the department or potential advisor, but you shouldn't focus on fame or prestige.  Instead, you should highlight the more fundamental aspects that matter to you.  There's no point in saying something vague like "I hope to attend your graduate program because everyone agrees it's great."  (Assuming this is not just empty flattery, the admissions committee already knows they have a great reputation, and it's irrelevant for your admissions decision.)  Instead, you could say something like "I hope to attend your graduate program because of the opportunity to work with leading experts in X and Y."  This might be highly distinctive if few departments have strength in both X and Y, and even if this is common it's still more substantive than just talking about prestige.

Talking about prestige is like talking about the price rather the make of the car you are buying.

I agree with this answer.  And try to make X and Y as specific as you can.


text:
How is a MSc thesis evaluated in an application to a PhD program?
I am planning to apply to a PhD program in applied mathematics next year, and by that time my MSc thesis (which is in pure mathematics) should be finished.
In case my research results are not significant enough to be published in a journal, how will my thesis be evaluated for the sake of the admission process? Will someone from the committee actually read parts of it (note that a potential advisor will probably not be very familiar with my MSc field)? Will my research potential be judged solely based on my references' recommendation letters referring to my thesis/research? (In which case, is it even worth putting effort in how the thesis is written, assuming my grad school is happy enough with it to award me a degree?)

I am a pure mathematician in the UK.  If people apply to do a PhD with me then I will always ask to see a final year undergraduate project or a masters thesis or similar piece of work, if possible.  One can often learn a lot by reading a small section of such work.  In some cases I might read the whole thing, if it seemed sufficiently interesting.  Of course I will also pay close attention to grades and references.

Given the fact that is extremely rare to have a decent publication out of a Master thesis in pure maths, the content and quality of your thesis will be reflected on the recommendation letters.
This, together with your grades and other activities you may have would be the ticket to your admission.
Note that nobody will read your thesis. For the admission committee should be enough if it is apparent from the letters that you did a decent work in your thesis. Your application should show that you have potential of doing research but nobody has the time (or the will) to go through a thesis document.

Although it is hard for me to talk about a phd program in applied math. In my field, for phd in immunology, proffessors like you to have a paper but it is not absolute. If you do have one you have a better chance to find a good option. Your grades will also count. Because, it might help you to get a scholarship. When it comes to your thesis, a closer subject to Phd supervisors field will be a better choice. But nobody will ever read any part of your thesis.

I doubt that a MSc in pure math is able to produce any paper. In that case I think the grades + reference letters would be the ticket.


text:
Is it common to ask for reference letters from members of the MSc thesis committee when applying for PhD/Scholarships?
In case it varies between countries, by thesis committee I mean 2-4 professors who examine you on your MSc research after you submit your thesis, so except for your advisor, they are usually not familiar with your work prior to submission. Some of them might belong to other universities/departments and not be familiar with the student at all.
I am wondering whether such letters would be valuable. On the one hand, I feel they should be the next best thing after letters from people you've done research with, but on the other hand such letters can only refer to the quality of the outcome of your research and not your character.
What about letters from professors who have read your papers/thesis but haven't met you in person and thus haven't held a conversation regarding your research with you?

In the UK at least, when applying for research jobs soon after completing a PhD it's quite common for one of the referees to include the external examiner of your thesis (a member of the committee that is external to the institution which awards the PhD). The idea there being that as they're experts in an area in which you've worked and they've assessed a sizeable product of your research (i.e. the thesis), as well as having engaged with you during its defence, they should be in a position to speak authoritatively about your abilities as a researcher.
The professor who has only read your work is in a significantly different position. While they may have the expertise in the subject area, and the familiarity with your work, of the examiner, they've not assessed you in a formal role, nor really engaged with you as an individual.
Of course, your question is about an MSc thesis committee, rather than a PhD one. Without more specifics, you will have to judge whether the involvement of committee members is similar to the involvement of a PhD thesis committee member.

You are free to ask whomever you want for a LoR, but you should be careful as only persons who have had the opportunity to get to know you, are in a position to write strong letters.
So, if the professors in your committee are not familiar with your work, they could at best write very generic (read weak) letters for you. In my experience it is far more likely that such faculty will decline writing a letter for you, as they don't want to cause damage to your application with a weak LoR.
My advice is to approach people with whom you had a good and lasting working relationship for a LoR. These can be faculty that wrote papers with you, supervised your work on a project, the supervisors of the lab you worked in, even is some cases faculty whose class you took (take the last one with reserve though). Ask them whether they are comfortable writing a strong letter for your application.
Finally, never expect professors to spin a tale to make you look better on your LoR.


text:
Is it considered rude to enroll at a funded conference and then retract your enrollment?
For background, I am a mathematics graduate student.
Now, it happens once in a while that I find an interesting conference/workshop which I would be happy to attend, but which I'm not sure about (for reasons which might appear later on, such as not enough funding, finding a better conference etc.).
Suppose that in case of acceptance, the organizers offer some travel/accommodation funding, and that enrollment closes a relatively long while before the conference takes place. Also, suppose that I am not offering to give a talk.
Is it inappropriate to enroll with the knowledge that there is a relatively big chance I won't be able to participate, and retract my enrollment after being accepted if I realize that I indeed can't go?
Does the answer change if I enroll at several conferences "just in case" and then go to one of them if I'm offered enough funding to cover my expenses?
Is there a point after which cancelling my participation is considered rude? What is the polite way to do it? Is it common, in your experience, that (student) participants cancel their participation after having been accepted?
Thanks!

Could you clarify why you would need to register for several conferences just in case? Are you hoping to get funding to go to all of them?

@JeromyAnglim There might be several relevant conferences which I would like to attend (in the same summer, let's say), but due to limited time and resources I'd have to pick one. Funding plays a big role in whether I go to a certain conference, and the application period is often pretty much the same for most conferences, which means I can't wait for an answer from one conference before applying to another.

The negative effect is that it may be difficult for the organizers to re-allocate the partial funding they'd allocated to you, so someone else missed the chance for funding to attend.
On the other hand, "the system" is not really actively worrying about your larger welfare, nor about the welfare of whoever missed funding due to your change-of-heart, and "the system" will not be "harmed" by your withdrawal. The organizers will scarcely notice whether you were there or not, funded or not. It's small potatoes.
Between those two extremes, granting that you yourself do have to reasonably play the odds for funded attendance at conferences, you should aim to be "a good sport", not inducing commitment of far more resources than you'd possibly use, thus, freezing them and denying use to others. But don't be exaggeratedly altruistic toward "the system", since the relationship is very unsymmetrical, not in your favor.

If you submit a paper, it gets accepted for presentation, and then you decide not to go, that is a negative sign about you. The organizers will have to change the program. This is regardless of funding.
If you are just going to listen to talks, then without funding, it may be a small negative signal or neutral. Depends on how the number of participants affects the organizing decisions. For a big conference, one person more or less does not matter. For a small workshop, the room size, catering etc may be affected.
With funding, the organizers have to reallocate funding if you decide not to go. Again a negative signal.
General point: how much extra hassle are you causing others = size of negative signal about you.

I realize that causing a hassle is not appreciated by people in general, the question is more about how common this sort of situation is, and whether organizers are used and ready for such problems, or whether attendees are expected not to do that except in extreme cases.

In large conferences, it seems 1-5% cancel, just from my vague memory of the alterations to conference programs I have seen. The organizers probably have seen it before, but that does not mean they like it.


text:
What to mention in your introduction to your research methodology chapter
My supervisor told me that I should write paragraph in which I introduce the problem that will be addressed by this chapter (research methodology).
What are some of the key aspects I should focus on? I understand that it cannot be a too detailed description, as my supervisor recommends only a single paragraph but I also do not want to write too little.

Shouldn't you ask your supervisor this question?

I have, but I am also interested in the communities' opinion on this.

Introduce the methodology problem and then give the reader a roadmap/outline.

How would you describe your problem to a colleague in your field if you met them in an elevator?  Write that.

I don't know if it's possible to describe in any detail which aspects you should focus on without knowing something about what you're writing in the chapter, since as Sverre said, it's ultimately just the answer to one question.
An introduction is ultimately just a concise summary of the contents of a piece of writing, specifically a chapter; in this case, the points to focus on would be the basic components of a description of research methodology:

Reminder: We are researching...
The usual methodologies used in this field are...
X, Y and Z were considered for use.
X, while [pros], [cons], whereas Y [pros], but [cons], and Z [pros], but [cons].
Due to the importance of... ...in this study, we chose to use Y.

Then you can explain your full reasoning in the remainder of the chapter.

Answer this question in less than one minute, assuming that I have the basic knowledge of your area:
What is your research about?
Than add these in less than two minutes:
Why did you do your research in that specific topic? What is your innovation?
Lastly,
How did you do it?
Now, write your answers on a paper. And that would be the intro.
Edit: Commentors are right. Only the last part would be an intro for methodology.

As I understood the OP, (s)he's wondering what the first paragraph in the chapter on research methodology should say. I don't think the suggestion here fits very well with that.

That's what I worte about. It won't take more than one paragraph

@cagirici I have upvoted your answer as it is still usefull, but Sverre is correct, the introduction should cover my methodology only and not the total research topic. So basically, it should be an introduction to the 'How' section you mentioned.


text:
Referencing pages of articles and books
I have some articles and conference papers that I am citing in my text, in my text cite I am using the page number that is related with the rest of the proceedings or the journal, even I have downloaded it or using the online version which is separate from the rest of the proceedings. I think this (Me, 2015, p.340) is confusing when the link of the document I attach will provide just the paper which probably is 4-5 pages.
So what is the appropriate page number to include in-text citing, even if the paper has the page number printed on it?
K.

Why reference a page? Sections, theorems, anything is better.

The right page number to use is the formal page number in the larger volume, even if the actual PDF that anybody will ever download is only a few pages long.  That is because a citation is intended to give the "coordinates" of a document in an absolute and access-independent reference system.
Thus, if you are referencing an article that was published as page 374-382, then its 2nd page is page 375.  You can also refer to page ordinally in prose, however, in which case you make the reference point explicit and can start wherever you want, e.g., "the third page of the article", "the second page of Section III".

Thanks, that saves me some time, as I have already used the page numbers corresponding to the original numbering, and not the ones corresponding to the dowloaded file. This seemed most logical, but I had to ask since this is about a PhD thesis, so errors like that won't bear any excuse. K.

Also, the PDF will usually have the absolute page number printed on it somewhere.

@BillBarth I wish that were so... for most articles yes, but for a surprising number of articles it isn't.

@jakebeal, thus "usually", but maybe that indicated too high a frequency in your experience. Nevertheless, preprints probably won't have a correct absolute page either.


text:
PhD student funding from another professor?
I'm a PhD student in the (probably) final third of my work, and I'm in the comfortable position that I have two options to continue my doctoral efforts for the next two years.
The problem is: the job offered by my supervisor is probably related to project work that has nothing to do with my dissertation. The other position is in another department of the university with another professor but fits very well thematically to my doctoral thesis.
What option could I choose here so that
  my supervisor is not embarrassed if I refuse his offer and
  my doctoral thesis is finished successfully and in time?

This might be highly dependent on your personal situation and there might be more implications. Please note that the other professor might have additional requirements or wants to see additional topics in your thesis.
I would try to address this issue openly and talk to your supervisor. Express clearly that you have the goal of finishing your dissertation in the next two years and discuss whether this is possible with his offer. Ask him whether this project is really not related to your dissertation and how much effort and time it will take. If you realize that this is not a viable option for you and if there is no other acceptable solution, explain in a friendly manner that you consider alternatives.
Trying to hide everything from your supervisor and suddenly vanishing is definitely not the way to go as this might burn bridges.