text:
Conference Organization and Academic Journal - Not known
I recently had a paper accepted at an international conference, which means that if I attend and participate, my paper will be included in the conference proceedings. Additionally, if the paper performs well, I may be invited to submit an extended version for publication in a journal affiliated with the conference. The journal appears in the list called OAJI.net (Open Academic Journals Index).
However, when I consulted with a professor at my university, he reviewed the conference and noted that it wasn’t listed among the well-known conferences and journals he recommended. He suggested that it might be an unranked or less reputable venue and advised considering withdrawing my paper and submitting it to a higher-tier Q1 journal instead.
As I am new to my PhD program, I'm seeking advice on how to identify reputable journals and conferences. Should I consider withdrawing my paper and preparing it for a Q1 journal?

Can you be a bit more specific, regarding your field for isntance, the conference you are applying in and so on?

Yes, it is a conference on the internet and the web, and the journal appears in https://oaji.net/journals-list.html?letter=I. But apparently the list does not really provide ranking of the journal. And the conference also not highly considered by few professors whose opinion I asked for. On the other hand, I am new in PhD and do not know yet what to make of this or that conference etc.

You still did not write exact name of the conference and the name of the journal where the top paper from the proceedings would go.

The second on the list. If you can share about its academic ranking/merits - please do.

Well apparently most the journals listed in the link are new to me and tried to check the credibility of different forums, and it turned out they either sham or mediocre ones.

This link (https://journalseeker.researchbib.com/view/issn/1645-7641) suggests that it does not even have an impact factor(IF), which is a strong indicator that it is not a good one.

If you were you, I would search good conferences from IEEE conferences database (https://conferences.ieee.org/conferences_events/conferences/search?q=web&virtualflag=B&virtualConfReadOnly=N)

Okay, thanks a lot. How do I withdraw accepted paper? I simply write them I want to withdraw it?

Yes, or if you submitted through any online submission portal (that is normally the case), there should be an option to withdraw your submission.

@NaveedAhmed, forgot before to link the conference: here it is, http://www.wikicfp.com/cfp/servlet/event.showcfp?eventid=180226&copyownerid=118738 Can you please share if the conference too is unknown? Also, do you have any recommendation for conferences dealing with multidisciplinary issues involving communication (from social perspective), internet, and information?

Yes, even the conference is not publishing the proceedings on some decent platforms. I read this statement "The conference proceedings will be submitted (pending approval) to the following indexing services (among others):". But again this is a big question mark as you never know when would they get approval. Don't lose hope, there are so many other conferences (I shared the link above) where you can send your paper. Good Luck!

Thank you so very much! You have been very helpful.

"when I consulted with a professor at my university, he reviewed the conference and noted that it wasn’t listed among the well-known conferences and journals he recommended" - You should always consult with your advisor before submitting something. If they've provided you a list of conferences and journals to submit to, I would never assume that you should set that list aside and submit someplace else.


text:
Need help about seeking a master’s degree thesis in Japan
I am a Computer Engineering Student in AI and Cybersecurity. I would like to do my thesis in Japan, with the goal of staying there to pursue a PhD or work afterward. I am having serious trouble finding a professor in Japan who can supervise my thesis. I have sent many emails to different places but have never received a response, and I don't know why. I am using my university email, and in the email, I briefly explain my intentions and include my CV, but I don't even receive a 'no, thank you.' Is this normal in Japan? I asked my professors if they knew any professors there, but unfortunately, they don’t. Would someone explain to me what I’m doing wrong?
Update: i got an not official offer by one of 3 top uni in japan.

Related, albeit for PhD rather than master's, which may be quite different: How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in Country X?

Why do you want to do a degree in Japan?  Do you have some connection there?  Are you writing emails in Japanese?

As @Kimball commented, at least in mathematics, in Japan, the style is to do things in Japanese. (Fair enough, after all! Seriously!) But/and, then, if people there do not see you as fitting into that culture, ...

@Buffy's answer is correct, so let me just add the following: I get emails about someone from abroad wanting to work with me/do a MSc or PhD with me about 3-4 times a week. It is not possible for me to meaningfully engage with every one of these people, and that is partly due to the fact that most of them want to work on things that are at best marginally related to what I do. There is also little I can do about these emails because if you want to be a graduate student in my department, you have to apply to the department, not to individual professors -- in other words, all I can do is send back an email say "please apply to my department; instructions are online". I actually do write essentially these words back to everyone who asks, but I can't blame my colleagues who given the frequency of these emails just hit the "Delete" button every time.

Thank you for your response, I appreciate your honesty. In the emails I sent, I mentioned the possibility of pursuing a PhD with them, but my primary goal was to complete a master's thesis. I first reviewed their publications to ensure they aligned with my areas of interest, and then I asked, in a general sense, if they had any topics they could suggest. Do you think asking about a thesis in this manner was inappropriate at this stage, or do you generally disregard this type of request as well?

@Andrea This is pretty much exactly how half of the emails I get look like. (The other half is generic and the person asking did not take a look at the specifics of my work.) I don't think your emails were inappropriate, I just think that this approach is ineffective. Cold-emailing in general seems in effective to me. The only thing that I imagine works is via personal contacts.

I don't know specifically about Japan, but it sounds like the typical practice of ignoring most cold emails. People are busy. Especially if you try to flood them with information in a first contact it is all to easy to trash a message.
If you are trying to specify a particular thesis topic and will accept no substitutes, then that is also working against you. Most such things require some negotiation and fining a mutually suitable topic.
Make sure you understand the rules about masters admission. Is it necessary to have a designated advisor to apply, as it generally is for doctoral admission? If not, you can just enroll in a program that seems suitable and seek an advisor thereafter. If that is the case, examine the faculty interests at a few places and choose a place that has more than one potential advisor whose interests overlap with yours.
One way to reach out to professors is to do it indirectly. If you have a trusted professor or advisor they can introduce you to others within their circle of contacts. An introductory letter from a colleague, with a short recommendation, is harder to dismiss than a cold email from an unknown person. Since you indicate that your professors don't have such a circle, this is less possible, but not impossible. A letter that introduces themself to someone, saying how they are professionally connected (common interests) along with an introduction of yourself, is still better than a cold mail from you. The better known the letter writer, the better, of course.

Thank you for your reply. If my professors can’t introduce me to anyone within that circle, what would you suggest as the best way to proceed? Would a short, direct approach like "Hello Professor...., I’m interested in your research on [...]. Would you be open to discussing a potential collaboration for my thesis?" be more effective for increasing my chances of getting a response from Japanese professors?

My guess is that a short introduction like that is better than a long one. But my guess is also that they are easy to ignore. But you can only do wha you can do.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Informal "chats" with potential grad school advisors
I am an international student who will apply for the Fall 2025 graduate school intake in the US (high energy theory). I have been looking at interesting papers and schools and, somewhat surprisingly, managed to schedule a few online calls with potential advisors I was considering at somewhat strong departments (I say surprising because in the US, advisors are chosen at least a year after admissions - as far as I know).
Regardless, I met these faculty online and had (what seemed to me) very fruitful and nice discussions on their future research directions, my interests and some other relevant questions (mostly pertaining to funding situations). All of the faculty seemed to encourage me to apply, were very positive about working with me (and at least a couple explicitly said that they would recommend my admission if I get shortlisted by the central committee).
This brings me to my question - how much importance should I attach to these informal meetings and encouragements?
The programs I am talking about are probably within the top 20 - 30 or so in the US and I know that faculty everywhere are too busy to just spend time on a chat with a random unknown student they haven't ever seen in their lives. But, I know that admissions are extremely competitive and, going through some of the profiles on sites like gradcafe that got rejected, I can't see how I have any shot at these places.
(The reason I ask this is because my budget is limited - so, I want to strategize accordingly and apply to places where I do have a good chance)

With some exceptions, the people you have spoken to are not the ones who will decide your admission. And they might not be the ones directly responsible for your funding. And, finding a supervisor prior to admission is rare here, unlike, say, Germany.
Doctoral admissions in the US is normally handled by committees of faculty, largely to assure fair treatment of applicants. A faculty member not on the committee may have no say at all, though there are exceptions.
So, while what you have heard is encouraging, it is no guarantee. A committee will look at your record, grades, CV, etc. and will pay special attention to letters of recommendation.
You also indicate that you have only spoken to people at a narrow range of high rated institutions. If you apply only to those, you lessen your chance of admission. Competition is high and similar institutions are likely to rate you in similar ways. Cast a broader net.
See the following canonical question for more on doctoral admissions in the US and elsewhere: How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in Country X?

Thanks for the pointer! I know that the faculty who talked to me will not be on the committee (in fact, I think if they were on the committee, they would probably not be talking to me in the spirit of fairness). I am familiar with the US system - its part of the reason I am kind of surprised I got to talk to people at all since individual faculty don't intervene in the process. I am definitely trying to cast a broader net but its hard to assess the strength of a specific department from the outside - my supervisors, who are the most familiar with me, are pushing me towards the higher end...

... And I am not exactly sure about it. I want to remain in academia (at least, for now) and most faculty I see are from the absolute top programs. But at the same time, I am quite sure that I will not get past the initial screening at the very top places. Its somewhat confusing for me and I am afraid of exactly what you're saying - that my net might be too narrow.

You don't need to avoid the "high end" and it might be a mistake to do so, but don't restrict your applications to just that. The higher you go the stiffer the competition and the more qualified they are.

This is completely not how it works in all of the 4 US schools I've attended and worked at. In fact, one adjacent very highly ranked department discretely tells students that if they don't have a potential advisor at interviews, then they should plan on going elsewhere. I think it's bad advice when an advisor relationship is important to getting in to many US schools.

@user71659, what is your field. As I said, there are some exceptions, but "field" may be the dominant thing here. I also wonder what sort of places you are referring to. Are they R1 institutions? Some R2s are different, I'd suspect, but they focus on certain fields.

@Buffy Engineering. Smaller departments with a single path.

@Buffy All R1. My current institution guarantees funding at the department level for 4 years. As a result, the majority of students have direct faculty financial sponsorship, a smaller amount have faculty sponsorship via department TA positions, and very few slots are available for those without any sponsorship.

This is highly dependent on the field and the particular department. In computer science, admissions at some places are run mainly by the committee, and a potential advisor saying they like an applicant is a moderate plus; at some places (R1, highly ranked), the situation is much more that if a potential advisor says yes then they get in, as long as they're not glaringly unqualified. I think it's hard for an outsider (or even a student in the department who hasn't been involved in admissions) to know which kind of place a given department is.

It sounds like a good sign that potential advisors were willing to meet with you and that the conversations went well. In my experience, it's always good to make contact before submitting your application so that the professor knows who you are and to expect your application.
But when it comes to assessing your application, they may not be the (only) ones to do it and things such as the quality of your CV, your grades, and motivation will be much more important. This depends on the field you're in and the universities you're applying to. In my case (my field is quantitative psychology), the potential advisor had (or at least appeared to have) complete control over whether I was accepted into the program following an initial interview. I was invited for follow-up interviews, introduced to other faculty whose work I might find interesting, and invited to conversations with current graduate students. This might just be my experience and may not generalise very well.
In general, I'd recommend choosing schools to apply to based on the quality of their program and whether you find the work the potential advisor(s) does interesting. Perhaps it's also useful to talk to current students, that's something that really helped me. It's also a good idea to apply to both safety schools and reach schools so that you're not left without any options in case your preferences or opportunities change.
The most important thing for graduate school admissions is your motivation and the quality of your CV. Show that you're truly interested in the field you want to study and give examples of how you've been working on your knowledge and skills. Make sure you prepare well for interviews, and you should be just fine :) Best of luck!

Was this in the US or elsewhere?

This was in the US and Canada

I'm only a sample of one, but all the advisors I spoke to wanted to get grad students to do research with them. They'd take as many as their institution would give them, and were motivated to encourage students to apply. They would talk to random unknown students. And they always were interested in the research they could do with grad students. (Not at all like their reaction to unknown undergraduate level students, who they avoided to the point of rudeness).
No importance at all to selection and admittance.

It is harder to tell from a single conversation. Ultimately, it matters if they invite you back for more discussion or with their students/postdoc and how much of an influence they have on admission committee.

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


text:
How are thesis-only Masters considered in Canada, Europe and UK for PhD applications?
I have found that my institution offers two types of Masters

Coursework + Project/Thesis (2 Years)

This consists of 3 semesters (1.5 years) of coursework content with an additional semester (6 months) dedicated to a research project (usually a thesis).
Usually self-funded, scholarships available.

Thesis-only (2 Years)

This consists of 4 semesters (2 years) on a single research project (essentially a Mini-PhD).
Generally funded internally by the institution or externally by the government or third-party.

(Full-time is assumed for both of these cases)
I have been told that European (and possibly Canadian) institutions often require a Masters when applying for a PhD, however I am not sure which of these is more appropriate. My question is the following:

Do European, Canadian and UK institutions care what kind of Masters a PhD applicant has? If so which is preferred?

According to this post the Thesis-only Masters is not a common thing around the world, thus I presume this type is less preferable for PhD applicants, despite it's similarity to a PhD. I was unable to verify whether the Bologna Process had any say on this.

Are these actually different types of Masters or just different types of getting a Masters?

@MisterMiyagi These are both "Masters" degrees, however they go by slightly different names. The thesis-only masters often goes by the name of "Masters of Philosophy" or "Master of Research", whereas the coursework + thesis/project Masters may often go by the "Master of Science" or "Master of Advanced Studies". This situation varies by institutions.

I can only answer for Canadian institutions.
A "thesis Masters" has the following advantages over a "Coursework + Project/Thesis" if you want to pursue a PhD:

You are able to publish the results obtained in your Masters research and present them at conferences. This will strengthen your research profile and greatly improve your chance of getting a PhD scholarship.

If you are doing well, your advisor can ask you to transfer directly to a PhD without finishing your Masters. This is good if you like the lab and want to stay in the same field for a PhD. It also means the total length of graduate studies will be shorter.

In the natural sciences at least, a thesis-only Masters is the natural choice if you want to pursue a PhD. In general, Masters in basic science (Master of chemistry, biology, physiscs...) are thesis Masters.
As another example, I found the following on the University of Toronto engineering graduate school website:

MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE - In this full-time, two-year program, you’ll complete a thesis supervised by a professor in one of seven academic units. A stepping stone to a doctoral degree, the MASc is ideal if you aspire to a rewarding career in research, whether in academia or industry. With supervisor approval and support, exceptional students can fast track from the MASc to the PhD program in their second year.

They also offer MEng (Master of Engineering) that are "Coursework + Project" degrees designed for student who want to go on the job market right after their Masters.

The Masters at UofT seem have two options both being "Coursework + Thesis/Project", except the coursework can be adjusted from 4 to 6 half courses (~0.75 Year to 1 Year) with a thesis/project done in parallel. This is a bit different from "thesis-only masters", which has zero coursework. It does indeed seem like this is an advantage for those going into PhDs.

Canadian Universities typically require a masters degree for PhD admissions. However, assuming it's going well you can sometimes transfer from a research-based masters degree into a PhD. How this works varies between institutions. If your goal is a PhD in Canada I would suggest contacting potential supervisors and explaining your goal to do a PhD and seeking their advice on the best route.
I completed the U of T MASc degree referenced in another answer and ultimately secured a funded PhD position at Cambridge in the UK. I'm now an academic at a research-focused (Russell Group) University in the UK.
I currently supervise PhD students, and have sat on prioritisation panels for competitive PhD studentships. Having a Masters degree has not been a requirement and does not make a lot of difference, in and of itself, from my experience. However, being 'research ready' counts for a lot. Usually this means having some publications or equivalent experience.
So I wouldn't worry too much about the name of the masters degree. More about how the experience sets you up for the next stage in your career, such as PhD research.

Actually, US does not, in fact, typically require anything beyond a bachelors for PdD admission. And most students apply with only a bachelors.

@Buffy I didn't realise that. I always assumed they did as the people I know who did PhDs in the US had Masters degrees. I have modified my answer.

Are you even sure about Canada? Citation required.

"For doctoral programs: an appropriate master’s degree, or its equivalent, with an average of at least B+ or demonstrated comparable research competence. Some departments admit directly to the doctoral program from a bachelor’s degree for highly qualified candidates (minimum average A- required)"

One example. But see: https://www.concordia.ca/gradstudies/future-students/programs/accelerate-your-studies/direct-entry-bachelors-to-phd.html

And even at UToronto: https://www.sgs.utoronto.ca/policies-guidelines/five-year-phd-direct-entry-programs/

And another example requiring a masters.  I would note that UofT and UBC (the two I have cited) are two of the top universities in the country (and the world). Concordia, which you have linked is not in the same league. But yes. I suppose you can technically get a PhD somewhere in Canada with just a Masters...

@Buffy, sure. But the typical route, as my answer mentions is with a Masters degree (or transfer from Masters to PhD). Also the route you mention requires a bachelors and 'demonstration that the applicant is capable of independent research at an advanced level in the subject matter of the relevant program' - which I would argue is unlikely for a typical bachelors graduate.

I teach at a university in Montréal and I have never heard of anyone admitted to a PhD directly from a bachelor in my field (physics and chemistry). The traditions may be different in others fields. Direct transfer from Master to Phd is quite common.

Agreed. The standard track is to get a master's before entry into a PhD program, though I know of some rare exceptions.

Right, so it seems that for PhD applicants (in Canada) the "research readiness" is valued over coursework done or the name of the degree, etc.

@solatia. I think research readiness is going to be important regardless of the location. It's very important in the UK as well.

This is an answer for the UK.
Thesis-only masters exist in the UK; in fact all Masters in the UK are generally only 1 (full calendar) year long, so both of your options look like they would offer more content than their equivalents in the UK.
Also note that in the UK, a Master diploma is not required to apply for a PhD at all - however the competition for the few fully funded international (as opposed to UK-only) PhD position often the holder of a Master degree an advantage. For applying to PhD positions, publications might offer the greatest profile advantage, so from that perspective, a research masters might result in a better profile for a PhD applicant.
Anecdotally, one of my current PhD students has first done a MSc by research with the same supervisory team.

In this case is the "MSc by Research" a 1 year thesis-only Masters?

@solatia yes, it is.


text:
PhD program but no funding?
Just started my second year in my PhD program, STEM degree. Before I entered the program the professor I had found had told me that there is some funding (albeit not a lot) he could give me on the project we had agreed I would be working on.
During registration the university said that I had to complete two courses for the ECTS and it was 1000€ with registration which I paid from my own pocket.
When I started my first year the supervisor told me that I could work on something else but similar (another candidate he had for that project never made it to register) and that he would give me a paid contract in some time. I reluctantly agreed, I had already paid 1000€.
Never heard anything about that until I asked him a few weeks ago where he said that he doesn’t have extra funds for me now. Also, he didn’t give me any goal either, ie “I’ll pay you when we publish our first paper” or something to that extent. And I had to pay another 400€ to register for this year from my pocket. Because is rent is so expensive I had to leave the city and go back to my parents for a while and continue online. To that fact, my supervisor just said that he understands and he's fine with remote.
Mostly my research depends on external institutions for data, which they either don’t have yet or are very sparse to get something substantial.
I feel kind of scammed and really losing motivation. Is this kind of normal or am I exaggerating feeling weird about my situation? This is in Spain.
EDIT: I searched and found the details of the approved funding info for the project I was assigned to work on. I started September of 2023 and the funding started June 2024 and lasts for two years. In total it's 160k (which doesn't seem a lot tbh for such as big medical project) and it's not even managed by the PI but from the institution we are working with. So from what I understand, my supervisor drew me in with funding promises when he knew very well there was no funding for months and months and in the end he doesn't even have a saying to how to allocate the funds. Does that sound correct?

I don't know the norms in Spain, but this does seem very odd. Effectively it looks as though you are self-funding a PhD, with a chance that there may be some contribution from your professor at some point down the line. It seems that you need to work out whether you can afford that / want to do that. Beware the sunk cost fallacy (and also, maybe find out whether the credit for those ETCS courses could carry over to a different project and/or a different institution)

@Flyto Thanks. You mean that I shouldn't care about what I have paid so far to make my future decisions. I'm pretty sure his other students are getting something, but I need to find more information that could be quite personal for each one.

What does your offer of admission say?  The institution is bound to give you no less than what they promised in this letter.

@ZeroTheHero I found my admission's letter. It just says that I have to complete 10 ECTS nothing about a fund..

then you are not guaranteed any funding, and should not expect to receive any.  Promises by prospective supervisors are not binding; offers of admissions are (at least in all places I know).

So I was scammed by my supervisor? By the institution?

@user159941 No, the term "scammed" isn't the right one, because the supervisor has no benefit from the current situation. Actually, communicating with you takes (working) time, too, so actually, the current benefit is negative for the supervisor as well. Note that this doesn't mean that this situation is acceptable...

@DCTLib Couldn't he be trying to get me to do work for him by not needing to deal with finance at the same time? Finance is additional extra work and expenses that he would have to deal with and allocate.

I guess I have a different opinion: scammed might be a strong word, but I don't think it's too far off. Not a scam in that the institution and degree doesn't exist, but a scam in that the funding doesn't, and OP has been drawn to working with this supervisor under promise of funding that's not coming. OP keeps being promised some future funding for doing work today; that's a scam.

I don't know about Spain but in some countries (e.g. Germany) the supervisor could be breaking the law by breaking such a promise, and they could get into a lot of trouble. I would say that at the very least it's worth seeing if your university has any kind of student advice service that you can approach, to see if they can help.

Is this allowed? I did my PhD in Spain (Barcelona) and when I started, in 2003 or so, I was told I had to have funding. I was lucky enough to have a family who could have supported me financially, but the university told me that isn't an option and in order to enroll in the PhD program, I needed some sort of funding (beca). Which, frankly, is absolutely correct!  Otherwise, only those with personal money would be able to study. I don't know if this has changes or if it was only in my university, but have you spoken to the university authorities about this?

Run, run, run.
I would consider an unfunded PhD to be equivalent to not being admitted to a PhD. This professor is willing to drag you along as you pay costs out of pocket. They know you don't know how the system is supposed to work and are abusing that lack of understanding. They will keep finding excuses why the money isn't there, because it never existed.

Thanks @Bryan Krause, that's what I needed to hear but didn't want to..

I concur. At least in the U.S., in math, an admission to a PhD with no guaranteed stipend (whether teaching assistantship or research assistanship, or some sort of fellowship), and no guaranteed tuition in addition to the stipend, is a negative indicator. True, PhD programs have limited capacity... limited finances ... but/and you don't want to find yourself outside the circle of being taken good care of by the program.

Agree with the post, but it's possible (I will not say likely) that the professor and/or institute are getting funding, but not using it for it's intended purpose.

-1: It may be the case that the supervisor is stringing the student here, but this is a US-centric answer to a question about Spain. In many places admission to a Ph.D. and funding are entirely separate things.

I know several cases where the PhD was done on the PhD money. They wanted to do it and it gave them a lot of freedom.

@MartinArgerami Even if they're separate, OP was lured to their situation with a promise of funding that didn't happen. Now they have a new promise for some future funding after they do some unpaid work in the meantime.

@WoJ I would say that whatever freedom OP had was taken from them when they were attracted to this particular program and supervisor with a promise of funding that then didn't materialize. If they knew the funding wasn't going to arrive then they indeed would have had the freedom to choose some other program.

@BryanKrause: I agree. But you wrote "I would consider an unfunded PhD to be equivalent to not being admitted to a PhD". In many places, admissions to Ph.D. programs are entirely separate from funding; not every academic system is similar to that of the US.

Just a bit more than a comment about the situation in Spain.
I'm not knowledgeable about the system because I only know some parts that affect me, but it's a bit different that the view from the USA or other countries that can be seen in other answers.
The main difference is that in the USA a PhD program is a job, and therefore a PhD with no funding is as unheard as a job without a salary.
In Spain it's a bit different. In Spain the PhD program is more similar to any other studies. In principle, you could go to a university, get accepted and pay an annual fee for tuition - not differently as if you wanted to pursue a master or any undergraduate studies.
The funding part comes quite independently from the study part. You can get a grant to finance the PhD, but that is harder than being accepted. As far as I know there are public grants - somehow similar to grants for other studies - and there are PhD offers that come with funding from some program. For the first kind you can start by googling "becas de doctorado". The second kind may be more similar to what I see in this forum about the USA - a job for the duration of the PhD program - or be something more patchy, like some jobs more or less related to your thesis topic, that may last a lot less than the program. Those jobs can come nicely one after another without gaps, or can just disappear for years.
I wouldn't say your situation is a scam. Maybe your advisor expected to be able to offer you a job at some point, or maybe he didn't but if he didn't promise it, it isn't a scam.
In summary, I think you need to learn how the system works in Spain and in the particular context of your field and your university. I would suggest to start by googling about predoctoral grants in Spain but also meeting and asking other grad students in your university. Starting to search for a funded PhD program may also be a good idea, but don't expect to easily find what the American participants in this forum would see as normal.
Additionally, you may search for teaching opportunities, although the part time lecturers positions that you can get without a PhD in Spain (or even with a PhD) are temporary and very low paying - and recent legislative changes have made them even worse.
And an end advice: You didn't say which is your field, but please beware that getting a PhD may not be a wise financial decision in Spain, even if it's a funded PhD. There are a lot of good reasons to pursue a PhD, but when deciding whether to continue, please don't factor in the expectation of recovering your investment with a good PhD job unless you know very well the job situation for PhD holders in your field.

Thanks for your input @Pere. The reason I went with this program was exactly because the supervisor said that there would be funding. I turned down others in similar programs that explicitly told me that there weren't able to fund me but I could look into grants by myself. I want to be open minded and consider that the professor actually thought there would be funds, but at some point months ago he said that he had to pay his freshly graduated doctorate student and give them a post-doc position, and there was no more money after that. My field is AI focusing in medicine.

About the situation in the U.S.A., it is generally not true that Ph.D. students automatically have a job and must be funded. In my department (mathematics), most of our Ph.D. students also have jobs (and are paid) as teaching assistants or research assistants, and they are usually offered these jobs at the same time that they are offered admission to the Ph.D. program. But it is entirely possible to offer admission without offering a job (and so without funding). This has been done when the student already has other funding (e..g., from a scholarship or an oil-rich home country).

"In Spain the PhD program is more similar to any other studies.": Are you sure about that? When I did my PhD in Spain, my university (Pompeu Fabra) wouldn't allow me to enroll in the PhD program unless I obtained some sort of funding. I specifically asked if I could support myself and was told that no, I needed external funding. This was 20 years ago now, and things may very well be different, or it might have been specific to my university (but all of my friends were in the same situation, even those from other institutes).

@terdon - Yes, I'm sure about that. In Universitat de Barcelona funding is not a condition for enrolling in a PhD. In Universitat Ramon Llull (which is a private university) it's even more extreme and they explicitly state that PhD aren't jobs but studies and students are required to pay a non-negligible amount for tuition.

You have to pay tuition at a regular university in Spain? (asking because we don't in France and I thought it was a rule (my experience is limited to France, Germany and Poland))

@WoJ - Yes, although the tuition for undergrads course in a public university can be about 10% or 20% of what it would be at a private one, and a lot of people can get some grants from the State to cover tuition fees.

@terdon Maybe it depends from institution to institution, nobody had ever mentioned funding or grants through my enrollment. Besides my supervisor when I was looking for PhD programs and he told me that he could give me a contract, again he didn't mention anything about grants. This is in Madrid.

I asked around to see how his other students are funded. One has a contract that the supervisor gave him after a few months of starting, and the other two have becas (grants).

I found the bigger project in an EU website about public funding. It's around 160k EUR, status of "Forthcoming" and says it starts the 01 June 2024, 9 months after I joined...

We don’t have the entire story but from your account, I would avoid the word “scam”: you were in fact not promised anything, so suggesting intent to scam you is a bit of a stretch. We can’t say if supervisor was or was not aware of the realistic probabilities of funding, but what you can say is that neither the institution nor the supervisor were very transparent as to the likely costs to you.
In addition, it’s difficult to believe your supervisor and their institution  have placed your academic interest at the forefront.  There may have been pressure on your supervisor from the institution to accept unfunded students, but I would argue a good supervisor would clearly communicate to a prospective student, especially an unfunded student, what the expectations are in terms of funding either already in place or forthcoming.
This is why you need to check official documents carefully.  Regrettably, some students will get starry-eyed by an offer of admission, make all kinds of assumptions, and sign an offer without understanding the contents or the consequences (especially financial).
However you look at this, there seems to be limited reasons for you to stay in this program.  Physical onsite presence is a major benefit to students because they can interact with others and faculty, attend seminars and participate in the ensuing discussions, use more easily the available resources and generally be immersed in the research environment.  I fail to see how the current set up realizes any of this for you.

I understand that scam is quite heavy and hyperbolic, it just matches the feeling I get when thinking about it all. As I said above, in my admission's letter it just states that I have to complete 10 ECTS, nothing about a fund. I didn't have to sign anything, just when I registered I had to pay for the courses and I was automatically enrolled. But true I didn't know anything about how financing works, I just believed my supervisor. @ZeroTheHero thanks for your answer

based on what I know, I wouldn't use the word "scam".  It may indeed be a scam, but it's not clear there was an intent to mislead you.  I think you fell into a common trap of assuming a lot of stuff.  I'm sorry to say you're not the first to fall into this trap, and you won't be the last. I do not like it when faculty or universities are not transparent about funding, and I think not proactively disclosing this information is not right, but I work at a place where the information is provided to the students yet they don't read it and feel "scammed".

... not saying it's your case... but the difference in expectations and information between the student (particularly international students) and the institution is such that clarity and transparence are especially important to avoid bad experiences.  Of course some people just don't care but long term this cannot be good for the supervisor or the institution.

don't get me wrong: the institution and/or the supervisor are at fault for placing you in this situation without being clear ahead of time of this possible outcome.

I would expect that the rules within different EU countries are similar. You should receive a draft of your work contract or some other formal confirmation of the institution's commitment to pay you the salary or scolarship before you actully come there. What you described totally looks like scam, and I would also recommend to run away from there and find a reasonable PhD position in another institution.

Thanks @Vosoni. So you are saying that I should have received a contract of funding or stipend with my admission? And that is the norm in the EU.

@user159941 Yes, there should be some contract agreement in writing that specifies you are a PhD student. Even if you are an unpaid PhD student, there would still be a contract that explicitely says so.

The UK has the concept of unfunded PhDs. They aren't common (at least not in STEM), but perfect legal and valid. These students are formally enrolled as PhD students with the university and will have to pay the student fees. Beyond that there's no contract.

@Marianne013 - So you are basically saying that this scam is spread UK-wide. I still think it is not OK not to inform the student about this trap right after he or she applies to this program.

@Vosoni it's not a scam.  A significant proportion of PhDs in the humanities aren't funded because there aren't any grants to support students, so there's nothing illegal or scammy about this.  What we don't know if how "unique" is the situation of the OP, and how much did the institution and/or supervisor not proactively disclose. It may be that international students will not understand the funding rules whereas UK students more likely than not will, so one would think those in charge should have a fiducial obligation to be clear with non-UK applicants.  This is different from a scam.

Part of the issue is international students initially view education abroad through the lens of their own education experience.  Students habitually underestimate  the cost of rent, books, food etc because books are cheap where they live, or they think cheap food is easy to find etc.   The ethically grey area of how much information does the institution provide to make a realistic decision, especially as the Uni functions on the false premise that students will understand that no promises mean exactly that, knowing that students often assume they will be funded once accepted.

What we have with the OP is the oft-repeated situation where one party (the university) holds all the correct information whereas the other party (the student) does not, and in fact often has illusions about the information.

The scam part would be the promise of funds and then not intending to actually deliver them. An unfunded PhD may be a questionable financial move but if everyone is clear and understanding that the student is funding their own way, I would not call it a scam. Once it comes with a promise, whether it's funding in the short term or an empty promise of a guaranteed job at graduation, scam comes back into play.

@BryanKrause absolutely.   (some) universities are desperate for funding and will be economical with the consequences to a student of accepting an offer.

The expectation in the first sentence is misguided. Education is a national competence, not a European one. (Sometimes it's not even national, e.g. in Germany it's not a federal matter). Therefore there's no reason to assume equal rules across the EU. There are common concepts, e.g. the entire notion of universities, professors and PhD, but even those are not specific to the EU.

You are certainly right about the education, but we are talking here about the employment and salary. Whether or not you are employed and are getting a salary (which is typical for PhD students in Germany) or some sort of stipend should be based on written contracts. The situation when someone moves to another country or city to do a PhD but not knowing if they are paid or not, under what conditions, and from what date sounds to me like a violation of the employment regulations. For foreigners, they have consequences, in particular, for getting a Schengen visa, so should be common in Europe.

@MSalters - I am by no means a lawyer, and I have little to no experience with PhD programmes outside Germany. Nevertheless, working on a project without any official status or contract (even if it means no payment) would be considered illegal in most European countries. Doing PhD research without any kind of agreement with the lab (which is not the same as enrolling as a PhD student at the university) risks not having insurance in case of lab accidents, and whenever a scientific result is published, it is not clear why the PhD student should list that lab as his/her affiliation.

@BryanKrause - Not being clear about whether a PhD program is paid or not is already a scam, in my opinion. If it is not paid, there should be a corresponding contract that states (ideally with big red letters on the first page) that the student is expected to do research work for the faculty and publish papers for them without getting paid.

@Vosoni: That first statement is pretty much untrue in the entire EU. Working on a volunteer project is universally allowed. You might be thinking about employment, but in the EU PhD positions are considered to be a part of education (national competence) instead of the internal labor market (EU competence). Reading papers in perparation for a pHD would be entirely legal without a contract; lab access is a specific other matter. Affiliation is an academic convenience, not a legal matter.

@MSalters - In Germany, the doctorate and employment are essentially separate. Of course, you can write a thesis and submit it to the university without ever visiting the institution. However, in order to obtain results for your thesis, you would normally need to do research (at least in physics), which has to be done in a laboratory. It is common practice for this work to be done for the university and paid for, but you are then allowed to use the results in your thesis.

I know that the situation in the humanities is very different, but a short Google search is enough to see that in physics the situation in Spain is very similar. For example, here is an ad for an open PhD position in Barcelona that has very similar conditions to what I am used to: https://scholarshipdb.net/scholarships-in-Spain/Ph-D-In-Soft-Condensed-Matter-Systems-Fundaci-Bosch-I-Gimpera=rqJpP6Lh7hGUYwAlkGUTnw.html

This answer would benefit from restricting the message to specific fields. Yes, STEM positions usually involve some payment because we compete with industry.  No, this is not universally true and in many domains it is normal to have little to no funding.

I obtained my PhD in STEM (Biology) in 2006 in Spain. Many of us went for several periods without funding while on it. My account is about 1.5 years with no funding out of 6 years. At the time, PhD fellowships did not contribute to pension. It is then possible that your supervisor and many others that lived that system are just perpetuating the problem.
The feeling was that you were lucky you can do a PhD (even paid from your own pocket), and lucky that you are given the chance to help in the practical demonstrations, and lucky to help training more junior students. You were considered a student, not a worker.
I agree with previous advice: look for predoctoral fellowships and explore your local council and country fellowships. Ask in forums of pre- and postdoctoral students. Consider moving country (Marie Curie fellowships, etc.). Most of all, consider what's your goal after the PhD, and what options a PhD opens that you would really be interested in. In Spain, generally, a PhD opens the academic route, as your need one to become a lecturer at university. For industry jobs a PhD can open some positions, but starting with a degree you can still get to those roles. Also, as a PhD you would expect a higher salary, so in some cases it could be even harder for you to get a job because some companies rather have cheaper workers.
So, I'd say dig in and investigate, weigh pros and cons. There is no really bad decision or regret as long as you are convinced to go ahead with it, and the fact you are asking shows you are already thinking on it. The fact you are in an English-speaking forum shows you are looking beyond.

Hi @Rubbaa thanks for the input. What do you mean "convinced to go ahead with it"? What are you referring to? Thanks


text:
Is there a notion of one year placement / pre-PhD programs in top universities?
I'm a fresh master degree graduate from central Europe. I would like to apply to selected top graduate schools in US and Europe, and hopefully pursue a PhD degree (in applied math field). I searched though PhD programs in selected universities in US and Europe and I have a clear understanding what the program looks like.
However I'm not still sure about the topic, and if my experience is competitive enough to get accepted. I think that I would like to spend another year expanding my knowledge and have that effort recorded.

I wonder if there's a notion of "one-year-placements"/assistantships for people with Masters diploma but who aren't enrolled in PhD program yet. How I imagine such "placement":

I would like to be able to complete selected courses,
I would like to cover all expenses (!) by e.g. being a teaching assistant,
I would like to be part of a research group/doing research so to gain additional research experience and publications contributions.

So I guess it's exactly an initial stage of a grad school PhD program but without starting actual PhD (I see that in US, grad schools often have this first year filled with courses and after that a selection of PhD topic is made, rather than finding topic on entry).

After such year, if successful, I would like to actually apply for grad school PhD program, with completed "placement" year that would make me more competitive, i.e. I could complete such placement in middle-tier university and after that try to get to top-tier one for PhD.
(Would applying for another Master and asking for getting hired as TA fulfill this scenario?)
Please share your thoughts if my considerations make sense, and if such academic engagements are actually formalized.
Thanks for any guidance!

This seems unlikely in the US. See the following for information on doctoral admissions in various places: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/176908/75368

They do exist. An example is the pre-PhD program at International Centre for Theoretical Physics (Italy).

I'm aware of this sort of thing for masters and professional programs (for example, MD or nursing programs) in the US. Simplifying a bit, the programs are generally designed to steer students to choose a particular university as an undergraduate with a promise that if they achieve some goals (such as a threshold GPA) they will receive automatic acceptance into the next stage. The benefit to the university is that they attract a high value and tuition-paying undergraduate student; the benefit to the student is that they get to skip a stressful application process.
I have never heard of a PhD program that offers similar guarantees.
Your "offer" to be a TA is not a compelling offer: TA slots are limited, and often the number of students fully admitted to a PhD program is related to the number of courses available to fund students as a TA.
Successful completion of PhD coursework is the bare minimum threshold for continuing a PhD program; completing those courses does not itself demonstrate your potential for successful research, which is the primary criterion evaluated in PhD admissions. For top programs in particular, it is not sufficient to be merely qualified: these programs receive too many qualified applications for the number of positions that they have available, so they need to reject a number of very good applicants in order to admit only the number they have space for.
Though there is no guarantee possible, yes you can improve the research potential that your resume demonstrates by doing research in an academic lab. Depending on your field, a masters program may be an avenue for accessing those opportunities, or there may be paid positions for recent graduates. Applied math is on a bit of a tricky boundary from my perspective, because while there are likely to be available positions for applying math, these may not be very closely related to doing research in applied math.

This might not exist (yet) in all fields (in particular your field of interest), but what you describe sounds like the so-called "predoc" position, which is increasing common in economics and maybe some other fields.
In economics and economic-adjacent fields, some departments now hire predoctoral fellows (or similar titles), sometimes as part of a structured programme. The position is aimed at those who are interested in pursuing a PhD. The role of a predoc is essentially that of an research assistant, but the position is one or two years long and is (roughly) full-time. A predoc is paid a stipend (or salary) and may have the opportunities to follow some courses as well.
The selling points of a predoc position are usually (1) a stronger PhD application due to research experience and recommendation letters, and (2) an opportunity to learn more whether one actually likes and wants to pursue a research career.


text:
Multiple job letter uploads for multiple UC schools?
My question is about applying to jobs at multiple different UC schools.
(To fix ideas, I'm in math and applying for jobs at the tenure-track level.) It appears that even though the UC schools all use the same online application system (it's called something like AP Recruit or Recruit), when you apply for several UC schools, you have to create separate accounts, fill in all the same biographical and contact information again and again -- and, most painfully, ask your letter writers to upload the same letter multiple times!
(In comparison for schools using Interfolio or MathJobs, a single upload each suffices.)
Is this really true? If so, how horrible! If not, what am I missing?
(Oh, and yes, I do know that I can pay Interfolio to manage the uploads for me. Perhaps I should have done that. I don't know. Right now I just want to make sure the horror I am seeing is real.)

I've heard that some high-level administrator in the UC system is (or was) preventing the use of MathJobs. Unfortunately, I don't remember the source of this information.

Some math job openings in California use mathjobs: https://www.mathjobs.org/jobs/Berkeley

That's how it works in the real world; and by real world, I mean anywhere that does not use mathjobs.org.

@AndreasBlass see here.

@EthanBolker No -- these positions are merely cross-posted at MathJobs. To apply you have to use the UC Recruit system.

@DanRomik Thanks! Very interesting. (And kinda depressing.)

But why was my question downvoted? Is it not a reasonable question? Not clearly posed? @AnonymousPhysicist

@user1931 you’re welcome. On the plus side, your letter writers are probably aware of this situation and understand that they’ll have to accept the minor hassle of uploading their letters to multiple sites. No one will think any of this is your fault, so don’t let this nonsense stand in your way. Good luck with the job search!

@DanRomik I basically agree that the American writers don't expect anything better than this. But I'm worried about the European letter writer -- I'm not sure he will understand. (Nor should he; it's cruel and incomprehensible.)

@user1931 send him a link to that article…

@user1931: European universities use a wide range of different application procedures and there certainly is nothing equivalent to mathjobs.org, so your letter writer is likely used to sending letters to different places.

@user1931 I did not vote, but there's a good argument this "question" contains the answer and shouldn't be here.  Complaints are not questions.

@AnonymousPhysicist :) Oh, I really don't think that's fair! When I initially posted I could not believe what I was seeing and I thought I was making a mistake. I agree that it's become more of a complaint as it becomes clearer that there was no mistake.

@PieterNaaijkens Actually in my (admittedly somewhat limited) experience, while European job applications do look varied and different, the letters all get mailed to an admin email address. Obviously emailing a letter to a human being is vastly preferable to the dreaded upload.


text:
Applying to Math PhD programs from Weak Undergraduate
First, some information about me. I’m a senior at a small liberal arts school at the US (I will be graduating in 3 years because I took a bunch of college courses in high school), and my heart is set on a PhD in mathematics. My ultimate goal would be to work as a professor of mathematics and do research.
I am becoming extremely concerned that my application is too weak to have any hope of being accepted to a sufficiently strong graduate school to have any chance whatsoever of actually entering academia. My primary concerns are twofold:
First, the mathematics courses offered at my university are (so it seems to me) woefully inadequate. Upon graduation I will have taken literally every single math course offered (excluding stuff like business calculus). So far I’ve taken numerical analysis, mathematical statistics, graph theory, modern geometry, and linear algebra and I am currently taking abstract algebra and intro to proofs. I took Calc 1-3 and differential equations in high school. Next semester (my last before I graduate) I will be taking complex analysis, and two independent studies in real analysis and number theory. My greatest concern here is that the level of the courses I am taking is far below what might be expected of a prospective PhD student. I say this because all of the math courses I’ve taken (with the exception of mathematical statistics) have been extremely easy for me. As in, I hardly needed to pay attention in class and almost never had to study (I received A’s in all but geometry and mathematical stat). My abstract algebra class (infuriatingly) de-emphasizes proof writing in favor of “computations and concepts”
Second, and also the impetus for writing this post, is my subject GRE (more precisely, my lack thereof). I was registered to take it today, but I lost my ID and they wouldn’t let me sit the test. The next one is not until April, i.e., after my grad school applications are finished. All of the schools I am applying to list the GRE as optional, but I was counting on a good GRE score to show admissions committees that I do actually have some competence in undergraduate mathematics, but that is now out the window. I know that this point is squarely my own fault, and I accept that, but it still bothers me tremendously and is a great source of concern.
So as not to make this post a complete downer, I’ll conclude by discussing what I see as my biggest asset, my research experience. Since the summer of 2021 I’ve been working continuously on a research project in graph theory under the advisement of one of my professors. I’ve generated a paper with (I think) some very nice results, and I’ve done this essentially by myself with my advisor providing some occasional feedback. I presented a poster on this project at MathFest earlier this year, and I will be giving two more talks on it at conferences next month and in January.
So, in light of all the above information, I’d really appreciate some brutally honest assessments of my chances, as well as any advice you may offer about what can be done to improve those chances. I accept that there is a very real possibility that I will be rejected from all the schools I apply to, but I am not willing to let that be the end of it.
If that does end up happening, I will take another year to try to shore up my application as much as possible (via research and/or auditing graduate classes). If, god forbid, I am rejected everywhere two years in a row I suppose that will be a sign to call it quits.
Edit: it’s also worth mentioning I have a great deal of experience tutoring anything Calc 2 and below. This experience is both private and through my university.

I’m sorry. I was a little concerned this question may be beyond the scope of this site but, frankly, I am feeling quite discouraged by todays events and I would have felt bad voicing such concerns to people within my university.

Frankly, I think you are underestimating yourself and your chances. I'd guess you'll be fine if you have good letters of recommendation and a decent GPA. The courses you list are typical for a math program, especially at a liberal arts college. That was my path, actually. It had some advantages over a bigger place in better opportunities to interact with faculty.
Any research will be a plus, but not absolutely essential for math. An extra year is probably a waste of time. The first years of doctoral study are course heavy in any case.
But don't restrict your applications to only the top few universities. Cast a broad net.
See the answer for the US to this question: How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in Country X?
I'll warn you, however, that one problem you may wind up with is that all too suddenly the courses seem hard and you have to work to get good grades. This often happens to math students who seemed to coast through early courses. If you learn how to learn when it is hard,  you'll do better. That takes a lot of practice.

I have 12 schools on my list to apply to, ranging from absolute top tier to roughly 60-70 ranked. I’ve read quite a bit about graduate admissions and chances of getting an academic position (maybe to my detriment), so I am wary of going to schools which are too low ranked. With regards to your final point, I am actually not really concerned about that. I have challenged myself plenty through self study. I essentially taught myself proof writing and I love working through hard exercises in textbooks. Currently I’m going through Linear Algebra Done Right and Dummit and Foote Abstract Algebra.

+1 for the (cautious) optimism. Success will depend a lot on the strength of the recommendation letters from professors who know the OP's strengths.


text:
Building a Course Around One Written Assignment
Soon, I'll likely teach a stats methods course at the masters level as part of my policy PHD program. If it were up to me, the class would only have one or two assignments determining your grade (putting attendance and other mandatory things that I can't change aside). This class would have lectures/readings, but 0 homework, no quizzes, no discussion posts, no nonsense.
The only assignments that determine your grade in this case are the final paper, and the first draft of that same paper. The paper would be a real paper, where students must collect, clean, and analyze a dataset, applying one of the methods we'd discuss that semester. I view there being several advantages to this.
The first advantage is pedagogical: to me, the only way for me to REALLY know if you understand something is by you writing it out to me and proving to me that you do. People can be nervous test takers. In-class tests have arbitrary times as determined by your class. The professor can sometimes choose questions that're worded unclearly or unfairly. A written paper? That you have many months to prepare about a topic that you choose? No, there's less of an excuse here. Why?
Well, you'll have books and freeware to explain the statistical material. You'll also have me for this purpose. You can also call me, come to office hours, email me for feedback on topics, data sources, whatever. You also have no quizzes or homework to worry about, so the burden my class has can't be used as an excuse for why the draft and final aren't done. In other words, you'll have all the time in the world and all the resources you could ever dream of to ensure the assignment goes well.
I believe it also prepares masters/PHD students for their careers one day where, if they go into academia, they'll be evaluated by their publications. A class that demands a quality paper they conceptualize and write is more representative of what they'll actually be doing in the real world as researchers, generally speaking. I'm not a professor yet, but I've always figured that this would be a good model for instruction (at least for stats methods in the social sciences). I was wondering if this model made sense or not from a pedagogical perspective.
EDIT: I should've specified more the first time, but yes, the degree to which I'd pursue this specific model will depend a lot on if it's a PHD class and if it's elective. If it's elective and PHD, naturally I'll presume everyone has certain working background knowledge (the masters level stats courses including causal inference) and wants to dive further. Now that I think about it more, this model would only be tenable for PHD students interested in methods. For a masters course, the way I've outlined it would be much too cruel of an expectation.
If I did anything like this at the masters level, I would likely only ask them to design a study, likely using synthetic data (that's what we did in my masters course), and implementation would be completely optional. I would also likely have additional assignments since I would presume most people have little to no exposure to the material and would need that to learn better

I think this is way too open ended for a class. Further, what sort of data are you anticipating them collecting? Remember, anything including human subjects has to go through your IRB.

Administrative data. I would want to teach the causal methods/advanced econometrics courses. So, it would be about Difference-in-Differences, Interrupted Time Series, Instrumental Variables, Synthetic Controls, Matching, Regression Discontinuity, and other common causal designs we see in policy/economics. I would also want to teach a class just on synthetic controls, but I'd still desire the same basic setup with modifications where needed. This does usually exclude situations where you'd need an IRB, naturally.

A great idea in principle, but hard to do right. You will have to provide a lot of scaffolding and hands-on assistance toward the final term paper.

if they go into academia -- what if they don't?

Well, it really depends on the level. If it's the PHD elective methods course, I'll presume you want to go into research. If it's masters/phd required, I won't teach it as if everyone  "wants" to take the course/has requisite background knowledge

This looks and feels to me like a typical capstone project with students who have had a chance to digest the material already.
As your students would work as individuals, you would really work them either very hard or the results will be disappointing.
Even if it involves group work, it assumes that your students can pick up on how to do statistics very quickly and on their own. A certain part of your class will not know how to start or even whether their project is feasible. You would need to get involved in their thinking process continually and for long periods of time. Another part of your class will feel that they pay you (or rather the university) to explain them statistics to you. Expect to have a conversation with the dean or your chair. It is hard to come up with a project that gives just weights to the complete process of statistical analysis as you envision it. Your colleagues might complain that your students will never have seen X or Y when they come out of class. If something goes wrong without the fault of a or the students, you have no fallback. You are running the risk of getting the worst teaching evaluations in your department ever and students will then hate you and your guts.
Now, here is what I can advise you to do based on my 30+ years of teaching. Do not take this as an absolute, others had different experiences and the personality of the instructor is very important in what works and what does not work.

First, I agree with you that an ideal setting of project based learning would show better results than what we typically end up doing. In fact, your proposal shares many elements with a flipped classroom.

Second, in Business Administration master programs, case based learning is prominent. You might pick up some ideas by looking at what they do. You will find that colleagues across campus are surprisingly accommodating if you say that you want to learn from them.

Third, since this is your first try and you do not yet know all the things that can go wrong, look into smaller projects, at least two per quarter or three per semester. This way, if without fault of the student something goes wrong, you can adjust to the failure.

Fourth, even Master students need motivation. If you flip the class-room, then each class-room session should start with a quiz on the material to be learned for this class. The quizzes allow students to learn time management, something that your proposal presumes.

Fifth, you need to specify what material to learn and how to learn it. Just because you find the material now easy does not mean that others do.

Sixth, students are in your class not just to learn statistics, but also to learn the skills to pull off a longer project. If they work with other students, they need to learn some team management methodology. They will probably need more guidance.

TLTR: Learning by doing is ideal, but you should see your vision of this class as a goal to achieved over many iterations of this class. Organizing project based learning is difficult and you might need to learn by trial and error.  Limit the size of the errors so that they are not career ending. Include the experience of others, there is no need to reinvent a catastrophe. Remember that you are also tasked with teaching your students time management, planning, project management and so much more that I cannot think of at this moment.
Immediate advice: Doing something unusual only pays off if it is a success for all. You might not remember, but there was indeed a time when nobody ever was fired for buying the system from IBM.

You're quite right, this was quite helpful. I never considered the MBA programs which rely a lot on case studies, I'll look into those. I should also say that the way I would teach any course will depend a lot on if it's required and if it's a phd course. If it's an elective phd course I'll presume everyone has certain basic background knowledge. If it's masters, well then that assumption would be very unreasonable, and I'll tailor the class to reflect that. I likely wouldn't do this model for masters students, unless the candidates show unusual aptitude.

On paper this sounds like an amazing class, one that I would have liked to take in graduate school. But I could easily see this going sideways very quickly. I can only speak from a practical perspective, not necessarily a theoretical, but there may be problems.
Whether or not this is well received is heavily dependant on what type of masters-level students you are teaching. Are they interested in a PhD or research work using these techniques? Or are they just caught up in this class as a requirement of their program? This could affect how willing they are to produce what you consider a "real" paper.
Another consideration is the level these students will be on day one of the class. A paper of the scale and quality that you imply almost demands that they already have enough experience with these methods to pick a topic and start developing it early in the course. But if this is a more introductory course how could they?
Following this train of thought, what happens if a student picks a topic and data that doesn't work out -just like real life research sometimes hits a dead end? Will they be penalized for this? How will you ensure students pick an appropriate topic with a usable data set and answerable question?
Finally, and maybe most importantly, does this format achieve the goal of the class, to teach statistics methodology?
Overall, these questions are just meant to help you think of this class from the students perspective. I don't mean to trash this idea, I love it. But I think to put it into practice you need adjust your expectations somewhat. I would suggest, at a minimum, more than just a single draft of the final paper. You may consider including a graded assignment at every step of the development process i.e. a proposal, a short lit review, a methods section (which is important given that this is a stats methods class), a first draft, perhaps another draft, and the final paper. Although following this format you risk turning this into a writing class.
Alternatively, perhaps you could require students submit a hypothetical methods section for each topic you cover, with the goal of picking one and turning it into their final project. This would ensure that they have mastered the content at each step of the way, while still working towards your end goal of a quality, "real" paper.

Much of what you describe is how I was taught methods (one paper, but say 6 grades, the proposal, literature, data, etc). I've edited my original question to discuss the level/experience of the course, since that'll matter a lot to me, and the students. I think one paper with multiple grades would be a good model to begin with.

I think you need more structure, here.  I think you are also designing a class which rewards only learning material in depth, but does not reward any learning in breadth.
To the first comment:  It's all well and good to prepare students for the day when they will be judged solely on the quality of their publications.  It is not all well and good to do that by just judging them solely on the quality of their publications, full stop.  As others have said, this is a project-class, and without exception, every successful project-class I have ever taken breaks the projects down into smaller steps and assigns grades to those steps, often with presentations in class.
This has a lot of benefits:

It shows, it instructs, the students in the art of managing larger projects, where in this case the project is a statistical analysis and written document.  This is a skill that can be instructed, and mastered.  It doesn't just happen.

It ensures (not 'encourages', 'ensures') that you have up to date knowledge on the status of the various projects through the term, and it tries to ensure that the students are not drifting 35 degrees off the direction you want them to go.  No one wants to work hard for three months, then find out there was no meeting of the minds with their professor, and now they get a C+ and their advisor wants to know what the heck just happened.

In-class presentations (for all of the various project stages) although many students hate them, can be incredibly useful.  There is great virtue in one student seeing another student use a given technique in ways they would not have thought of.  And although it's not pleasant, there's also great use in seeing mistakes caught and pruned early.  Student A might not be making that mistake today, but seeing Student B make it and be corrected may prevent later errors.

But this of course all needs to be shaped, structured, managed by you, and communicated to the students.  It may result in some loss of the total freedom they would have in their own future publications, but that is the price of learning.
To the second comment:  If the only thing you truly intend to teach is how to apply already known techniques toward a larger project then these comments probably don't apply.  But if you're also teach a toolkit or a spectrum of techniques, what you're doing here is telling the students very clearly that the only techniques they need to learn are the ones that apply to their projects.  Students being students, some will take that to heart and ignore everything out of the scope of their project.


text:
Fail grade in transcript vs "not allotted" in transcript
I am an international student in my final year of Electrical Engineering. I enrolled in an RnD course last semester and tagged it as an honor course. This is a semester-long research project where you work closely with one of the professors in your department. The work I did in the semester was satisfactory. However, it wasn't AA-worthy, so I decided to work on the project during the summer (the professor agreed). The professor I worked with is known for allotting the grades for his other courses even past the grade submission deadline. (In one of the courses, the grades were assigned two days before the course registration for the next semester began). Hence I assumed that I could work through the summer and have my grade evaluated before the start of the next semester. However, I could not get hold of him, so the grade column shows "not allotted" for this course.
So I talked about this with the professor guide at the start of this semester, had my evaluation done, and my grade submitted to the academic office within a month. However, the Dean did not approve of this, and I am looking at a potential Fail grade in this course. My current transcript still shows "not allotted".
I am applying for MS to top US grad schools. So my question is - Should I submit the current transcript with justification (in the SoP) or the updated transcript(which has the fail grade) with proper justification? The updated transcript has a slightly higher converted GPA (3.92 vs 3.9). On one hand, since I did not actually fail the course, a proper justification should suffice. On the other hand, since it's an RnD Course, it could negatively affect my chances (not sure how much, could someone shed light on this) and so "not allotted" looks better than the alternative. Also, if I do decide to submit my current transcript and get accepted, will I have problems later since the grad schools require official transcripts to be submitted after completion of undergraduate studies, and that would have the fail grade?

"However, I could not get hold of him," and the Dean couldn't help??

I didn't get a reply from my professor in time i.e before the start of the next semester. Before the grades are allotted, they need to be approved by the Dean. He did not approve stating that the grading should have been done last semester.

I know it's a flippant comment now, but you should have fixed that months ago instead of waiting until application deadlines.

I'm not familiar with the term "not allotted." Is this equivalent to "incomplete"?

What is "AA-worthy"? I obtained my BSEE many years ago and don't remember this term.

@shoover AA probably refers to the top grade.

On one hand, since I did not actually fail the course

Actually, it seems you did actually fail the course. It doesn't seem like you had any official arrangement or explicit agreement to receive a different grade by completing the work past the semester, and as of right now your institution (i.e., the Dean) is not in agreement with your assertion that you should get late credit for it, and your professor has not taken any action to support your position and get it changed.

Also, if I do decide to submit my current transcript and get accepted, will I have problems later since the grad schools require official transcripts to be submitted after completion of undergraduate studies, and that would have the fail grade?

Yes, this failed grade will eventually come through. Whether or not that will affect anything is entirely up to the institution admitting you as a graduate student.
If you think you should be credited for the course, you really need to work that through your current institution, not just expect to explain it away in your application materials. That means working with the professor and/or dean to get your grade adjusted if appropriate. It's your current institution that decides what your grades are.
Yes, you can attempt to explain your grade in your graduate applications, but consider that there are good reasons and bad reasons to have a poor grade, and "I thought I could get special treatment but didn't" is not necessarily a "good reason".

Should I submit the current transcript with justification (in the SoP) or the updated transcript(which has the fail grade) with proper justification? The updated transcript has a slightly higher converted GPA (3.92 vs 3.9).

I guess the question boils down to whether the upside of the extra +0.02 in your GPA is worth the downside of having to explain the fail grade. This is a clear NO: 0.02 is in the noise and is unlikely to have any affect at all, whereas even if they buy your explanation that "my failing grade should actually be an A+", it still introduces confusion. Further, giving explanations or excuses in your SOP, while sometimes necessary, is very difficult to do successfully.

will I have problems later since the grad schools require official transcripts...and that would have the fail grade

Could be. It would be very good to resolve this with your institution so your transcript does not have a failing grade. It sounds like your professor should be dealing with the dean directly, since he allowed / encouraged you to do what you did. Failing that, I would recommend explaining the situation to your preferred graduate school after you are accepted but before you accept their offer.


text:
Should I mention my PhD in a PhD scholarship application?
I did not like my Msc. specialization (one of Chemistry streams). I won a PhD scholarship overseas. Though the area (protein engineering) was my favorite area, I graduated without having enough knowledge and skills due to the following reasons:

the supervisor did not allow me to work on my chosen advanced topic and made me work on a title that is unfit for a PhD level,
met with an accident, my recovery took my research time, and
unbearable racism challenge in the lab.

Since I am more interested in the field I want to learn it by applying again for a PhD scholarship abroad, it could be in a different department: Chemistry, Bioengineering, Biotechnology, Biomedical Engineering,.. research that encompasses protein engineering.
If I disclose my PhD, what I think of as advantages are:

to let the selection committee know I have not ONLY been offering courses since 2011,
I am not applying from scratch, I have some background about it.
to let them know I had won acscholarship abroad, if they may consider it as great achievement.

Disadvantages

they may think I distanced myself from research for a long period of time (from 2011-to date). UNDERSTAND IT FROM MY CV, EDUCATION HISTORY
they may select only the one who has background about it in their M.Sc.
they may give the chance to the one who have no PhD

If I state my publication and conferences in my CV to let them know my background by CONCEALING my PhD, a series of questions may pop up in the selection committee’s mind:

how were you able to do research on protein engineering while your Msc. field is Inorganic,
how was it possible to work on it with someone in even abroad?
in the publication it is stated that your affiliation is X University which belongs to other country (not the one mentioned you have been working in), were you student there, or did you go for visiting, for internship, ….

if you believe that there is still something to say to convince them while disclosing my PhD, please make a suggestion.

It depends on specifics but it may well be that you'd be obliged to mention your previous PhD. For sure it can be expected to be part of your standard CV, so it may be seen as deception if you don't (assuming anyone finds out). It may also be that depending on what your CV says about the time in question, it raises more questions if you don't state you got a PhD from that time than if you do.

You already finished a PhD? Or did you leave the program withouth a PhD title? If the first one is the case, I doubt that many places will give a sholarship to a person that already holds a PhD.

what if I apply to different department?

In Germany, you have to list all previous studies when applying to a university (no matter if is for a BA, MA or PHD). Failure to list all previous academic history can lead to expulsion from the program (and in case of receiving a scholarship, you might be required to return the money), and you could even be sued. I imagine the situation is similar in other countries. Not disclosing a PhD is thus a very bad idea. I think already having a PhD might limit your chances to get a scholarship PhD position, as those a rare are rather given to people that do not already hold a PhD. Nevertheless, you should disclose it.

The same would be true in US.

what if I apply to different department?

I heard it would be useful if I apply to different department in US

Government and fellowships offers scholarship funding to produce highly skilled professionals. You got the funding and opportunities, but what did they get out of your first program? Trying to double dip here would be outright fraud (hint: if you have to ask "should I lie?", you are very likely deeply in the wrong already). Sorry, life is hard sometimes and we face many obstacles, but your description does not paint an experience so extreme to be likely to elicit sympathy. Concealing your first PhD will get you in a big big trouble; time to work with what you have.

I believe this is actually not true for becoming a doctoral candidate (or getting the actual doctorate) in Germany, because that is (usually, although state authorities are trying hard to change it) purely a matter between the respective committee of the "Fakultät" and you. You're not a student per se (you can inscribe as "Promotionsstudent", pay your fee, and get cheap enty into museums etc.).

Thank you all for your ideas. how ever I don think you did read the whole description, thereby did not got me what I mean by just the question.
due to some reasons I graduated PhD with a knowledge and skills that qualifies me neither for post doc nor for job   application. I want to extend it by applying PhD again but to different department that encompasses researches related to the area that I did in my PhD. ...

....(continued from the previous). If I conceal my PhD and just mention my conferences and publication in order to show the admission committee that I have some backgrounds about the area, they will notice on the article that I was affiliated with X department in Y university which is different from my working place- causes questions in their mind. if I do not mention it, they may not accept me over lack of background. What should I do? should I disclose it along with the reasons that caused me to have little knowledge and skills to convince them that I need another PhD?...

NB: My idea is under the condition of “If there is an option to do not disclose my PhD in the application”

You have not mentioned the most serious consequence - expulsion. For most universities in developed countries, you have the obligation to provide information about all of your tertiary education activities including PhD. Failure to do this will result in punishments once it is disclosed.
Also, many universities will not offer any scholarship/stipend to students who already earned a PhD degree. Check the conditions for research scholarship for more details.

what if I apply to different department?

@Yasin From the same university? You will not have to disclose anything because they already have your information in the database. You may get accepted to some programs, owever, for research scholarship, you still have to check the conditions because for many universities I know, it is clearly state that there is no scholarship for those who already earned a PhD degree.

no. not even in the same country. what if I brief the admission committee my reasons (LISTED IN THE POST) to apply for PhD again? may it be useful?


text:
Is it normal that an editor keep the paper for more than six months without sending the paper out for full refereeing
I submitted a paper to a journal X of maths which is one of the best journals in a field Y. After more than six months I sent the handling editor a polite reminder email, in which I requested to inform me about the review process. After six days I recived the following

Unfortunately, we cannot accept it for publication.  Of the four quick opinions I requested, two have now arrived, and neither is sufficiently encouraging to warrant sending the paper out for full refereeing.

I am sorry to have held the paper so long without being about to do more than to pass on the following brief suggestion:

The suggestion was merely to mention some results from a reference that I cite in the paper in the introduction. Is it reasonable that "quick opinions" took six months? without even sending a report?

It sounds like the editor explained pretty clearly what happened: they asked 4 people for a quick opinion, got two replies that were not supportive, and the other two didn't respond. They were probably waiting to contact you until they heard from all 4, but since you pinged them they took a look at what they had (or possibly nudged all 4 and got 2 quick replies) and decided it wasn't going to matter, so they've apologized for not being in contact earlier and let you know your paper is rejected. What are you looking for an explanation for?

@BryanKrause But do you think that six months is reasonable to get a desk reject?

It's not really a desk reject if they've solicited opinions from four reviewers. It seems like two of them said the paper wasn't worth their time to review. Other questions here deal with review times including in math, for example: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/32768/average-time-alloted-for-manuscript-review-across-disciplines

I don't think this is reasonable; "quick opinions" should actually be quick. When I have had papers rejected in this way, the timescale has typically been less than one month. However, there's not much you can do about it other than avoid that journal in future, and probably you are fortunate that they didn't take significantly longer getting a full review.
Four quick opinions would be excessive, so presumably the editor sent it out to two people, never got a response (or, worse, got confirmation that they would do it and then nothing more), and then tried two more people who did respond. Even so, it's hard to see how this took so long.


text:
Is it generally acceptable to refuse to teach Summer classes?
I am a tenured professor in a public university in USA,
with 9-month salary.
This Summer, I have been assigned to teach a Summer class, and I just found out that I will not be paid to do that (yes, 0% of salary).
Will it be reasonable to refuse to teach this course in such a situation? Will such refusal be sufficient reason for me to be disciplined?

Are you on a 12-month contract? Or a 9-month/10-month contract?

What language does your faculty handbook include about course assignments?

Does your faculty have a union? What do the terms of your contract say in terms of teaching load? If you are on a 9 month contract then the summer is not a period of obligation. Is summer teaching going to offset teaching in the fall/spring?

@Dawn I only get 9 month salary.  In Summer, we have to find our own income.  Teaching in the Summer is one way most of my colleagues get Summer income.  Handbook does not say anything about Summer courses.

@Spark  No, we do not have a union.  Our teaching loads only include Spring and Fall.  Summer teaching does not offset teaching in Spring/Fall.

@Timmy If teaching is the way most of your colleagues get Summer income, why does this particular teaching assignment not result in you getting paid a Summer income?

I guess you can argue that you aren't obligated to teach in the summer then, at least not without being paid. The fact that others get paid to teach in the summer and you don't seems really strange.

If you are only paid for 9 months then you are not obligated to do anything for the university in the summer.

@BryanKrause The income is a function of number of student enrolled. When enrollment drops below certain threshold, the Summer salary drops to 0%.  At least this is what I have been told so far.  It is news to me though.

You really should seek out an employment lawyer.  This has some potential to go very wrong for you.

BTW, it's pretty common that summer courses without a baseline enrollment just get cancelled, and you don't get paid.  You need to figure out if that's what is being communicated to you poorly.  Some people, myself included, do not participate in summer  courses because of that chance.  This may or may not be OK with you.  There is no way that you should actually teach any summer course with no compensation.

"When enrollment drops below certain threshold, the Summer salary drops to 0%." Well, then it seems just natural that the number of available teachers also drops to 0. If education is organized as a business, then no business case means no education.

@ScottSeidman "...some potential to go very wrong for you." In what way?

@Timmy -- I have no idea how secure your position is, what conditions your tenure is revokable under, ....  Worst case is you lose your job, same as with any labor dispute.  Making you work for no money is wage theft.  That's the language that you may well need to roll out in discussions.  It's also an inflammatory term, and people who accuse their employer of wage theft may be the target of retaliation.

If your univ. is in Florida, in particular, absolutely anything can happen these days.

@ScottSeidman Out of curiosity, what’s happening in Florida?

Here's the response I would suggest (NSFW language)

@MassimoOrtolano the governor is changing trustees at some public unis, and the new Trustees are working to stop tenure cases or revoke tenure in "woke" fields.

Yes, it is reasonable to turn down summer teaching assignments if they do not benefit you. This would be doubly true if you were not being paid.
Your situation sounds sufficiently unusual that I wonder if some institutional norms are in play. I would suggest “refusing” in a way that seeks to gently clarify those norms. Something like “I have just learned that the summer course is to be offered without pay. Is this correct, or have I misunderstood? If that is the case, I will unfortunately be unable to teach it. I am happy to discuss teaching this topic when I am back on contract and the course will be counted toward my teaching load. ”

Unethical, wrong, exploitative from the university? Yes. Grounds for disciplinary action against the professor? Hmm. Maybe. It really depends on your contract. Do you have a union? Ask the grievance officer. As others have said in comments, it really depends on the exact language of the contract. Most people think that tenure is some generally-agreed term, akin to a constitutional right, but in reality it's just a specific contract between the university and you. In general, it protects you from firing due to speech inside of the classroom, but tenured professors have been fired for all sorts of reasons, large and small, including classroom speech. Some contracts have enough loopholes to drive a truck through. So yes, bring up the issue, but tread carefully.

Generally, a 9month Tenured isn't obligated to take summer classes without compensation. Also, typically a Tenured would not take more than two consecutive summer classes. It tilts towards illegality.
However, it is not uncommon for some universities or school or department to include a clause in their policy along the line of ... Summer classes will be assigned based on the best interests of the university/school/dept. What is 'best interest' is left imagining!
PS: even at that, not that the Tenured can just be bamboozled or compelled with recourse.
Kindly check your institution policy and take it from there. If you have union, get feedback from there: they might want to take it up for you.
If your policy has a resolution clause, explore the route provided.
If you're being singled for 'no pay', raised it firmly with facts yet respectfully. It might sit on #discrimination leg.
[Edit] Might be worthwhile scanning through the #reddit post The legality of Requiring Work Over Summer for 9 Month Contracts.
NB: any advice/comment bothering on law on a faceless forum shouldn't be construed as legal advice.