text:
Is it permitted to not take Ph.D. students who have girlfriends/are married/don't come in weekends...?
As a professor, are you permitted to prohibit Ph.D. students from joining your research group if you know they have a boy/girlfriend, are married, don't come in on weekends, who don't stay late, etc...?
The professor does not intend to make them work on stuff related to his/her research outside of normal working hours.  Rather, the supervisor would like their students to be driven enough to study/read publications and books about topics outside their particular research program during those times.
That way, supposedly, by the time they graduate, they will be very well rounded, and also develop their own research programs in meaningful ways.
Since I observe this behavior with a certain professor I know at a US university, I was wondering if that professor is liable for legal charges, which I could bring up to the dean.
One way I hear about how he "weeds" out the normal people is by telling them how much work it takes to succeed, and gives examples of previous "successful" students, and what their lifestyles were. I suppose he says something like: "this is how much you know from being an undergrad, this is how much you need to know to succeed in this field, here is a humongous list of topics you should know before you can competently do research with me, come back to me when you're ready." But I don't think that's all he does....  I think he intimidates prospective advisees with his demeanor, and so this fact along with his reputation leads to him select students who work day and night everyday.

You're asking whether something is legal or not. Which jurisdiction are you talking about?

@QuantumDot: so, does this professor let candidates know what they're getting into? Have them sign a contract that they will remain celibate or something? Or does he/she just squeeze them like lemons, to the point that nothing past their PhD work can fit into their life? What happens when a previously-single student becomes involved with somebody? While still questionable, there is a marked difference between being unreasonably demanding and specifically requiring that a candidate has no other commitments.

@thkala One way I hear about how he "weeds" out the normal people is by telling them how much work it takes to succeed, and gives examples of previous "successful" students, and what their lifestyles were.  I suppose he says something like: "this is how much you know from being an undergrad, this is how much you need to know to succeed in this field, here is humungous list of topics you should know before you can competently do research with me, come back to me when you're ready."  But I don't think that's all he does...

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

The question in the title is completely different to the question in the body of your question. Your title asks whether it is legal to discriminate based on things like relationship status. The body talks about whether it is reasonable for a professor to have more substantial expectations around workload than other professors.

This is a rant disguised as a question

No matter how the question is phrased, the answer is still no, you cannot discriminate based on marital or other protected status in the US and elsewhere.  But there's also no question that the question itself has gone through a LOT of rephrasing since it was first asked.

A disclaimer:  I'm not an attorney.  My opinion is my own but I'll give you my sources.
Here in the US only, universities are probably not prohibited from considering otherwise protected status in admissions, c.f., Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which upheld racial preferences in admissions.
But under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, once the question becomes one of employment (e.g., they work for you and get paid a stipend) you cannot discriminate based on any of the factors you cite.  You should also carefully avoid asking questions that suggest you're even thinking about it, c.f., "Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions And Answers" and "Pre-Employment Inquiries and Marital Status or Number of Children" on the EEOC site.
Added: I agree with Anonymous. Even if you think you can get away with it, perhaps because it's not illegal in your country, I also think it would still be wrong.
Added: If you are the victim of unlawful discrimination in the workplace, HR is not your friend. A priori, their objective is to make sure discrimination complaints don't happen. But after the fact, their objective is to circle the wagons and make sure a complaint dies without the institution having to pay a settlement or admit that any wrongdoing has ever happened.  A great outcome for HR is that you just quit and the problem goes away.  From your latest performance reviews and interviews with your co-workers, it's clear you were unhappy and have been for months and it's been showing up in your work.  So you quit.  Poof!  Problem solved.  Separately, they'll figure out what to do with the others involved.  If you think you may be a victim of unlawful discrimination, you should go first to your own attorney for competent legal advice, not HR.

This is very helpful.  But if the professor is not directly hiring the graduate student, but rather the student is already hired by the university because they are on teaching assistantship/fellowship; it seems to me that these laws are not applicable, and that the professor can choose to deny a student with a family life regardless of ethical issues.  Have I understood you correctly?

Don't go there.  Please do not attempt to split that hair here in the US unless you're prepared to be fired if caught.  And even if you are, still don't do it.  If you're picking the individual and you know they're paid, you may not consider any protected status.  Period.  It's no different than if a manager anywhere tried arguing, the company pays this person, not  me, therefore, I'm not their employer.  You are and you will be held responsible.

I didn't read through it all, but your linked court case doesn't seem to support the assertion that racial preferences are being upheld any more than in employment. This seems to be about affirmative action, which is lawful discrimination in most of the U.S. The dissenting opinion seems to center around whether the university in question did enough to prove this is lawful discrimination. According to wikipedia, some states have banned affirmative action in college admissions, so that might be relevant.

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

Whether or not this is prohibited depends on where you live. In the United States, almost certainly yes (+1 to Nicole Hamilton for her answer).
My own personal belief is that what the professor proposed is wrong, whether or not it is illegal where you work. It also demonstrates an misunderstanding of how people's relationships affect their work ethic. It has not been my personal observation that single people outwork those in relationships on average. Indeed, I know people (both men and women) who are not only married but also actively raising young children, and who work incredibly hard in their discipline.
One may choose to take only those students who demonstrate talent, hard work, and/or drive. I recommend that professors do their best to judge these traits directly, rather than by how they conduct their personal lives.

I wonder if the professor has a boy/girlfriend, is married, doesn't come in on weekends, …?

+1. There is no reason whatsoever that any employer, regardless of field, should discriminate based on non-work factors, e.g. personal relationships. This wouldn't fly in industry, why should it be acceptable in academia? Plain and simple, it's not!

As others have pointed out, we cannot comment on the legality of such discrimination without knowing the location. However, even if it is legal, it seems like a terrible idea. Much of the following has been covered in the comments, but I just want to summarise what I see as some major false premises stated or implied in your question:

Single people have more "free time" available than those in relationships

Being single does not exclude someone from having other hobbies and interests, or from spending time on the dating scene. And indeed, it may mean that certain day-to-day tasks are more time consuming as there isn't someone else to help do the cooking, cleaning, etc. etc.

Single people are more "driven" in their work

I don't get where this comes from. I guess it's true in a few cases that some people are single because they are obsessed by their work and don't have time for relationships, but this is by no means universal. Also, someone in a relationship might be driven by the feeling that they need to support their partner/kids. Importantly, relationships can provide emotional support and stability that, if lacking, might in some cases lead to a loss of motivation.

Spending more time working is inherently more productive

I think this has been fairly well debunked. Rest and variety is very important to remaining productive.

Being in a relationship makes one a less well-rounded person

?? Why would this be the case?

Accepting a student who is currently single will ensure that they remain relationship-free for the next 4 or more years.

Is the student going to be dropped if they start dating someone 6 months into their studies?

"Being in a relationship makes one a less well-rounded person" "?? Why would this be the case?" That would be the case because the asker believes that "well-rounded" means the exact opposite of what it actually means.

Re productivity, I'd just note that I regularly come up to solutions to problems while I'm out hiking, biking, skiing, &c, after spending hours or days trying to figure them out in front of the computer.

Try working a knowledge worker for 65 hours a week and observe how productivity becomes negative on average after significantly less then that.

@Kik I'm certainly not trying to say that there aren't single people who are highly productive. I don't doubt your experiences, but equally others have mentioned their own experiences of married team members being very strong. The point is that people vary, and judging their ability and productivity by whether or not they are in a relationship is just not effective.

You don't mention a jurisdiction, so I get to choose.
What you're suggesting would be illegal in Germany. In Germany, PhD students are employees. First, it is illegal in the EU to select employees based on anything other than whether they possess the skills necessary to do the job. Second, it is illegal under the EU working time directive to make somebody work more than 40 hours per week as part of their ordinary duties.
Even if it's legal in other jurisdictions, it's dumb still. The people who cope best with difficult situations are the ones who have a good support network outside work. The best possible support network is a partner. Time off is important.  Relaxation is important.  Your proposal is to hire only the most fragile students who will be worst able to cope (or the students who can be made most fragile and worst able to cope).

That way, supposedly, by the time they graduate, they will be very well rounded

No, by the time they graduate, they will be exclusively focused on academic research in whatever specific subfield of whatever field of whatever subject they did their PhD in. They will be lonely and have no interests outside the lab/office. That is the exact opposite of "well rounded".

There are a few minor corrections: the EU directive is 48 hours and countries can opt out of the limitation. The directive also does not apply to any higher positions (people with the right to make autonomous decisions) although that's very unlikely to apply to a PhD student at university.

"In Germany, PhD students are employees." All of them? I do not think so.

@CaptainEmacs is the status of being a PhD student in any way  (formally) linked to being an employee? I do not think this is the case at all. Plus, I think there is quite some variance over the fields. You may wish to quantify your "most of them." Plus, the answer to "all of them" is apparently "no."

@quid: Interestingly, the "status of being a PhD student" is not necessarily formally defined in the first place. It can in fact be as informal as a spoken agreement between the professor and the student. At least in some fields, this usually goes along with an employement, so in those cases, the employment in one of those positions is the one formal status that best coincides with being a PhD student. But, as you say, it's field-dependent and not absolute.

@O.R.Mapper  My point is that I feel the answer is misleading in that it suggests that in Germany one has to be an employee (of a university, a professor or alike) to work on thesis/get a doctorate, which is just not the case for all I know.  In many countries (of the EU and elsewhere) many a doctoral student will be an employee of a university or a similar institution. To single out Germany as "[i]n Germany, PhD students are employees" is (thus) misleading. Indeed, as you explain instead in Germany the system of writing a doctoral thesis can still be pretty informal and open.

@David Richerby, I am sorry, but you got the perectly wrong feeling about a phd student in germany. Since they are students, and not employees, they can work as much as they want, and the professor can of course put enough pressure on a phd student to do 60 hours or even more. While some (not all) phd students are indeed employed, most of them only inhibit part time jobs in the university, and often these work hours are filled with administrative stuff or teaching.

I doubt that "it is illegal in the EU to select employees based on anything other than whether they possess the skills necessary to do the job". What about willingness to do that job, or history of failing to perform assigned tasks? Surely I could choose not to hire someone who tells me he won't do what he's told in the workplace, yes?

A lot of these answers interpreted your question as "is it legal?" or "is it ethical?" or "is it beneficial to the PI/lab?".
However, let's get real here, you actually asked "is it permitted?", which is to say does it actually happen, and is it allowed to happen by the top most levels of authority in the hiring process. And the answer is a resounding 'yes'.
Of course, it goes without saying I think it's totally disgraceful, counter-productive, and most likely illegal, however, it is permitted and there's very little anyone can do about it. We had an applicant recently who was overtly gay. On paper he was fantastic, all the students who interviewed him thought he was one of the best choices out of all the applicants. Unfortunately he was not allowed to continue his PhD after the 3 month trial period, because none of the PIs wanted him. My PI said it was an awkward situation because "you never know what you're going to get from a CV. They might be a good fit for the lab, or they might be, you know, loud, draw attention to themselves, and unprofessional."
This particular guy wasn't unprofessional. If anything he was better dressed and far more respectful and tolerant than I am. What my PI was saying of course was that in the very conservative atmosphere of a research institute, his attitude really stood out, and no one running a lab wanted to take a risk on him. I appreciate i'm likely to get a lot of down votes for pointing out this hypocrisy even though I am myself against it, however ask yourself the following questions:

Why do we have interviews in the first place if all the relevant information can be gained from e-mails and a CV?
Why are photos required on applicant CVs?
Why are people given trial periods? Surely if you don't meet your contractual obligations then you get fired. What are you assessing during the trial period that would be bad but not break contract?

And finally, ask yourself this - are there some personality types that are, genuinely, disadvantageous to hire?
Personally I think questions of ethics should be banned on academia.stackexchange because it inevitably results in the hypocrisy of "No it doesn't happen because that would be unethical!", but then you do a PhD and you see unethical situations all the time. Unethical situations that will never improve if we all insist it isn't happening.

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

I can't talk strictly about the legality, but I will tell you I have seen that and much worse. I would say in my experience it is very unlikely anything would happen to the professor unless it is very brazen behavior. Universities are highly opaque and protective and will absolutely go to the mat to defend professors (example).
Grad students occupy a strange place between education and employment. Although often paid, grad students are not considered full employees by many universities (often euphemisms like "apprentice personnel" are used). Although NLRB recently ruled that grad students are employees in some sense and therefore can unionize, it is probably a legal gray area as to whether grad students are employees for other purposes. Thus rules like non-discrimination, minimum wage, wrongful termination etc may or may not apply to grad student workers and universities can very effectively navigate this ambiguity.

Morally, it is not permitted in my view. I would not permit, nor allow, it to happen in my university or institute. This community seems not to permit it (again, morally, and judging by the other answers).
Also, who comes in on weekends anyway (Unless you have occasionaly time-critical lab experiments I mean)?


text:
How to proceed after failing exam to advance into PhD program, and subsequently losing motivation?
I have completed masters in Pure Mathematics a year back. I was preparing for an exam for pursuing a PhD program in the same. The results came out in this year in the month of April and found that I have failed to clear it.
Most of my friends have cleared the exam and have got enrolled in it. I feel left out. Now I am simply sitting in my home and preparing for next year's program.
Since the results came out, I have hardly made any progress in Mathematics, as I don't find it interesting as it used to be. As a remedy I bought many books to bring back my old interest in Mathematics, but failed to do so. I talked to my teachers on this issue but instead they start telling success stories of my friends who have qualified the exam letting me disgusted.
Earlier I used to spend hours solving  many problems both from my books as well as on Math Stack Exchange but I don't find the urge to do it anymore. Though I open this site I feel that none of the problems posted are suitable for me to solve.
I do read books but the problems seem a distant dream. Asked many people what to do; they advised me to take decisions on your own in your life.
Really don't know if it is a good place to ask but cant find better place. Do share your thoughts if you were in a similar situation or so.
Should I change the subject or look for jobs or do something else? Any alternatives you can chalk out for me.

Two things:

A single exam is a high-variance way to measure the ability and potential of a complicated and multifaceted being called a human.  In other words, I wouldn't take a single failure too seriously.  Sometimes you have a bad day; some people simply don't perform well on tests even if they perform well "in real life."  And even if it turns out that you are less qualified than your peers according to the traditional standards of the field, that doesn't mean you don't have something unique and valuable to contribute.
Is there anything in your life right now that you're excited about?  If not, you might consider external factors.  Some days I'm fed up with my problem, and my research, and my career.  But after going for a run, eating well, spending time with friends, seeing a thought-provoking movie, and getting a good night's sleep, I often find (much to my surprise) that I am excited about my life and my work again.  In other words: don't underestimate the value of external factors.  (Especially exercise.  I cannot stress that one enough!)

Great answer -- also, you may benefit from talking to a trained counselor or psychologist.

Also, you might want to take some time off and do something else, maybe visit friends or go on some short vacation to get your energy back. Since the test is in next year, taking off 1-3 weeks to recuperate shouldn't be a big issue.

Excellent answer (and name, Ups Ground backwards) from @Dnuorg Spu,  and other commenters! I encourage you to take a break and talk to a counselor, if you choose, before making decisions about what to do next. Whatever you do next, you'll be refreshed.

thank you very much for the comments!I will definitely try that

In my view the real problem is that you are not interested in mathematics, not that you failed an exam.  You don't say where you're studying, but it is probably not in the United States because here PhD programs do not have their own entry exams.  In fact, most US math PhD programs would give you several chances to pass all sufficiently important exams.  So if you were interested you could certainly apply for programs elsewhere.
For whatever it's worth, I believe you that you are not very interested in mathematics.  You don't sound very interested.  I looked over some of the questions that you asked on math.SE and you seem to be a bit locked out of mathematics beyond the undergraduate level of solving problems.  Note that I am not speaking of talent but really literally of interest.  I noticed that you don't mention anything in mathematics beyond solving textbook problems.  For someone to have completed a master's degree and not gotten any farther than "I read these books and do these problems" signifies a lack of engagement with the material (again, not necessarily mastery but engagement) at the level that would merit further pursuing it.
This lack of interest in mathematics is not a bad thing.  Mathematics is not your spouse or your child, to whom you probably owe something even if your ardor has cooled.  Pure mathematics is only for the interested; it has almost nothing to offer anyone else, and it doesn't need anyone else.  I think you should find what you're interested in.  Maybe it will be close to mathematics; maybe it won't.  Maybe you should take some time off school entirely and concentrate on purely non-academic interests: getting a master's degree is literally more than a lifetime's worth of schooling for most people.  I can't tell you what to do with your life, but I can tell you what you don't have to do.
Good luck.

Just curious: is an undergraduate who's interested in math one who has done some sort of research, or what kind of going-beyond-the-textbooks  are you referring to? Or is it about the kinds of questions?

@coldnumber That's a seriously large question in its own right. However, yes, doing research (preferably with a professor), trying to further your understanding of deeper problems, and/or working on larger projects either in-class or preferably during an internship show that you are one who's interested in math.

@coldnumber: I agree that this is a hard question to answer, and I should make clear that my impression that the OP is not so interested in mathematics is an impression, not a definitive judgment.  (In part I am taking him at his own word...) Doing research in the sense of writing a paper is certainly not necessary, but at least asking some questions and seeking answers beyond the textbook level is what I had in mind.

Qualifier exams are a reality of Ph. D. programs, but they are not good predictors of academic success. They are better at eliminating those that will not do well than predicting those that will do well. I did not pass my written qualifier exams, so I had an oral exam, which I did pass, and then I finished my Ph.D. A Ph.D. program and the world of academia beyond it have many setbacks. What you do in response to the setbacks is just as important as your successes.
Also, remember that you can continue doing math for fun if you want. When you do it for fun, you can solve whichever problems you choose, and you don't have anything riding on it. If you continue on the Ph. D. path, there will be constraints on what you do and pressures that can limit your enjoyment. I was sick of my dissertation research, but I couldn't start over, so I finished it. I'm glad that I did, but I was not doing math that I enjoyed at the time.

Good advice.  A change of focus could be a good way to apply what the op has learned to a new and interesting area. Switching to a area like bioinformatics where there is a need for people with a working knowledge of statistics might be appropriate.

Of my many friends with doctoral (and masters) degrees in math, physics and computer science, I can think of only one who has gone on to a career as an academic professional.  The rest have happily gone to different pursuits.
Chances are, even if you were to get a PhD, the same would be true for you.  In my opinion, you've just been given an opening to go find out what your "different pursuit" is going to be -- a few years early.

I realise that you specified pure mathematics, so this may not work for you, but one option is to think about other fields where your background in mathematics may provide a different research path. Close allies (applied mathematics, physics, economics) are the obvious possibilities, but I originally trained in mathematics and then later in social sciences. The context for my research is social science (for example, how does the social structure influence transmission of ideas) but I rely on a mathematical approach to do the research. Since you also said that you enjoy solving problems (or used to), maybe you could think about what type of problems interest you and work in an interdisciplinary area.

You may want to take a look at "Think Like a Freak" by the authors of "Freakonomics", especially chapter 9: "The Upside of Quitting". Quitting is sometimes a necessary step for your progress.
You may also consider a lateral move. Mathematics...is a gigantic galaxy. What type of math are you focusing on? Perhaps moving from pure math into applied math might bring a whole new perspective? And fun? Probability, Statistics, Machine Learning...these are very hot topics nowadays. And well paid! (Finance & Big Data employers, to name a couple).
If really no good option stands out, then look at that chapter 9 again ("would you consider let us toss a coin for you?").
Good luck.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can I join Master's in CS in Oxford, Mit, University of Edinburgh or similar colleges as a ECE student from India?
I looked into the colleges given above and under requirements it says that electrical engineers would be eligible for CS degrees.
I'm going to study ECE as my undergraduate course. Would that also be enough to enroll into those colleges?

You might need to clarify. Those universities get more applicants than they can teach and are therefore competitive to get in to.

@GeorgeWhite Yes, I understand. But now, I just want to know if I met the basic eligibility to study there. For example, I can't join in the CS master's degree in those colleges if I took a bachelors in gender studies right? That is my question. Just as far as degrees go would a Electronics and communications degree in undergraduate AKA ECE not be entirely rejected there?

if I met the basic eligibility to study there --- This is often a non-issue for US universities, where eligibility is almost never a rigid set of minimum requirements but rather for the most part admission is based on the evidence you can present in your application that you have the appropriate background to begin (content knowledge) and the appropriate potential to complete the degree program (ability and drive), and (roughly speaking) your overall ranking in these aspects is not less than the number of students they can admit. (continued)

Since @Alexander Woo has already mentioned Witten (who I had just now written about, then shortly afterwards I saw Woo's comment below, so I've deleted what I said), I'll give another example. When I was an undergraduate a friend of mine, who was enrolled with me in several of the advanced undergraduate and beginning graduate courses in physics that I took, had an undergraduate degree in classics from Princeton. He got a Masters in physics where I was an undergraduate, then he obtained his Ph.D. in physics at another university.

Correction (if anyone cares): The person I knew didn't get his undergraduate degree in classics from Princeton, he got it from UNC, and he also had a minor in physics. However, he did spend a couple of years at Princeton as a graduate student in classics before doing some (non-degree?) coursework in physics. Notwithstanding his higher prestige, Witten is a much stronger example. He not only majored in history, but his minor was linguistics, and then he spent a couple of years with journalism and politics.

For each available seat in their Masters program, MIT gets around a dozen applicants, all eligible under their published requirements.  This means they are accepting less than 10% of qualified applicants.  They get to pick the best of the applicants.
Keep in mind that many qualified applicants don't even bother applying to MIT because they know they are not competitive.
If you are going to an average college in India, you realistically need to be among the top 1% of students to be accepted to MIT.  This will be attested to not only by your marks but also by the recommendations of your professors based on their assessment of your abilities, not just in your studies but also in any research you might do.

I understand that it is incredibly difficult to join MIT. I'd just like to know ignoring everything else, if I take ECE as my undergraduate would I meet their basic entry requirements? Or would I be rejected as that is a study which is far away from CS so it would not be considered when I want to take masters.

Ed Witten (the Fields Medal winner) studied History as an undergraduate before doing an Masters in Applied Mathematics at Princeton (and then a PhD in Physics).  The US system is amazingly flexible for exceptionally talented people.  It's misleading to think in terms of basic entry requirements.  Rather, the farther away you are from the ideal background, the more you have to demonstrate your potential in other ways, to the extent that someone who did their undergraduate degree in Gender Studies but somehow showed exceptional promise in Computer Science could be admitted.

Any engineering degrees students can study computer science specialization or non-specialization masters. But computer engineers can't study Electrical Engineering in masters specially specialization subjects. You should show the syllabus that you studied in your ECE degree. We need to see if it was more like Computer Engineering or EEE degree.
Getting entry into them is tough though. Unless you're from IITs in India. But it doesn't matter because anywhere in the west, there's good education than in India.

Can you clarify your second sentence? As it is, it sounds like you're saying that MIT, Oxford, Edinburgh, and all similar schools have a blanket policy that computer engineers can't do a master's in EE, which I seriously doubt is the case.

You could study some or none of EE. Like embedded system,Telecom, VLSI, PLCs, DSP,power electronics but no pure EE. EE vs ECE/CoE vs Electronics+Communication is different in India. EE deals with hydropower, high voltage engineering, house wiring designs, whereas ECE deals with 5V components. CoE and ECE could differ according to college, but are generally similar. Elex+Comx is different from ECE, it doesn't contain many computer science core subjects(it does contain OS, Computer Network...).1/2

If you're a EE grad, 100% you can study CS(or any specialization like AI, data science etc) in MS, but if you're CoE/ECE student, it's very less likely you'll get to study everything in EE(3/3 below). Although unis don't tell explicitly, students should take it as a rule of thumb that there chances to study EE as CoE/ECE grad is pretty low. (EE as per the Indian definition of EE).  ECE students can very well study EEE because if they studied 2 semesters more, they can get EEE degree as well in India. So, maybe some preriqusites need to be learnt, like 20 EE subjects haha. It's impossible.

3/3 Only few selected CoE graduates will be able to study EE because EE is tougher and CS is very easy.

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


text:
PhD Program Academic Probation
I'm an international student who starts a Ph.D. in fall 2021 (in a US university) in mechanical engineering. I took two courses which account for six credits (3 each) and three credits for research, a total of 9 credits for the semester.
At the end of the semester, I could not pass one subject (got an F), while on another subject, I had the best grade in the entire class (got an A). I'm on academic probation in Spring 2022 (again, taking two courses and doing research). I'm putting all my efforts into securing good grades this semester to remove my academic probation. However, I'm always stressed out about it, which somehow hampers my studies and research. I'm seeking any suggestions you may have. Or should I drop my dream of pursuing a Ph.D., thinking perhaps the Ph.D. program is not for me?

You're doing what you can and what the probation conditions ask you to: Put your work into doing well in your classes. There is literally nothing more you can do, and in fact nobody is expecting you to do anything more. As a consequence, I can see no reason why you shouldn't stay in the program: Get through this semester, get good grades, get the probation removed, and move on.
It's far too early to throw in the towel yourself.

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


text:
Visiting lectures in German Universities
I want to know whether I can visit lectures in German universities as a listener (without being enrolled at the uni). For example, I wish to study in Heidelberg University but want to talk to the people there, but first and foremost go to some lectures in physics or mathematics.

Lectures held in German universities typically are public. However, there might be special rules in regards to the COVID-19 pandemic (the university I work at has such rules.)

There may well be differences between attending classes and attending seminars as well. Likely university-specific, particularly in the US.

Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking.

The question is rather unclear, probably due to language issues. Can you try to make it more precise.

I am not familiar with Heidelberg in specific, but from this page (in German), it seems that you have to pay a fee to attend lectures as a guest. For instance, if you want to attend a single course that runs for 4 hours a week for one semester (4 SWS, actually 3 hours because German "lecture hours" last 45 minutes) you'll need to pay 51€.
If you are an EU citizen, you can also formally enrol as a student for 171.80€/semester. If you plan to live in Heidelberg, it might be worth enrolling just to qualify for a student season pass for public transport.

That's what I needed. Thank you so much!

To add on top of that:
In Germany, this is called Gasthörer (Free listener) you need first to approach the lecturer and ask for his permission to attend his/her course. After that, you need to pay the costs which are based on the number of teaching hours (In my lecture at another university, the free listener has to pay 170€ per semester for a two hours/week course).

This answer seems rather unfounded.

@Younes so “free listener” is a contradiction in terms then?

@ZeroTheHero The word-by-word translation is "guest listener" and I used (Free listener) because it is a common term in English. Also, I don't think "free" here serves for "free of charge" but for "independent".

Yup, it's free as in "free-standing", not free as in "free beer".

You already got two answers and several comments, but I think that a somewhat more detailed answer might be helpful.
Context.

For this answer I'm specifically referring to mathematics, since this is one of the two fields mentioned in the question and this is the field I have most experience in.

I am explicitly referring to the situation without any Covid specific restrictions in place. University policies with respect to Covid tend to be somewhat diverse and can change very quickly.

Reasons to attend a mathematics lecture without being enrolled as a student.
From your question the reasons for your plan don't become completely clear, and I can think of at least two different types of motivation to attend a maths lecture without enrolling as a student:
(1) You are actually interested in enrolling as a student, but before choosing a subject you would like to get a feeling for the "taste" of the subject by attending a few lectures on just one or two occassions.
(2) You do not intend to enroll as a student (maybe because you have other obligations, or for any other reason), but just want to learn something about the subject.
Case (1).
If your motivation is (1), then the most common course of action is to just attend a typical lecture for first year students (in mathematics this would typically be "Analysis" or "Linear Algebra") on one or two days. If it's not the very first lecture in the semester, you probably won't be able to understand much (because you then missed the contents of the previous lectures), but it will most likely give you a certain impression of how a math lecture at a German university works.
Please note that in such a case, it is certainly not necessary to register as a "Gasthörer" and pay money for it. The polite thing to do would probably be to talk to the lecturer just a few minutes before the lecture begins and ask if it's ok to attend today, and maybe also on another day. With very high probability the answer will be "no big deal, just take a seat" - simply because faculty have a very serious interest in prospective students getting a good impression of a math program before joining in the next semester.
It should also be noticed that such lectures in Analysis and Linear Algebra tend to be quite large (though there might be some exceptions). I have never heard of any first year math course at a German university where it is checked who precisely is in the lecture hall, so if you decide not to ask the lecturer whether you're allowed to attend and if the audience is sufficiently large, chances are that the lecturer won't even notice that you are there - so again, no big deal.
Case (2).
This is a somewhat different situation, and I would indeed suggest to you to register as a "Gasthörer" (and pay the required fee) if you want to attend a lecture for the whole semester (although, again, at many universities it's not particularly likely that anybody will even notice if you attend a first semester lecture in mathematics without registering).
But anyway, there are a number of things that I would like to point out since you might not be aware of them (simply because many mathematics students only learn about them after enrolling, and you are not enrolled):

If you do not have significant preliminary knowledge about mathematics from another university, the only courses that you can reasonably attend (unless you are much - really much, much, much - smarter than most other people) are the courses that are designed for students in their first semester (these are often "Analysis 1" and "Linear Algebra 1", although there might be some university specific deviations from this).
Often there will also be specific math lectures designed for first year students of physics, or engineering, or computer science; attending those might also be an option, depending on your specific interests.
But in any case, there is absolutely no use in attending a more advanced math course without having first learned the preliminary stuff - you wouldn't be able to understand anything.

A math course for first year students does not only consist of the lecture, but has a number of further components which are just as important: (a) There are weekly exercise sheets which you are supposed to solve and which typically get marked; (b) There are often (though not always) exercise courses where these exercises (and their solutions) are discussed; (c) there might also be further tutorials held by more advanced students, where you can ask questions or try further exercises.
While in most cases nobody will really care whether you attend a first year lecture (simply because these lectures tend to be large and your presence will not cause any costs to anybody), things might be different especially for the marking of the exercise sheets and the tutorials - because both require valuable resources at an individual level. I am not even sure whether it is possible to subscribe for these activities as a "Gasthörer" (this might actually depend on the universitiy and on the people responsible for the course).
In this context it is very important to note that doing the weekly exercises is one of the most important parts of attending such a math course. Simply attending the lecture and thinking about its contents is very unlikely to teach you much in the long run - on the contrary, experience shows that most people can only reasonably learn math if they do it theirselves, and this is the role of these exercises. So just attending a math lecture without participating in the exercises (or without getting feedback on your solutions) is unlikely to be a fruitful activity.

On a similar note it is also important to have reasonable expectations regarding the necessary time investement to get something out of such a course. A typical Linear Algebra 1 or Analysis 1 lecture will consist of two 90 minutes slots per week. But in addition to that the time for the exercise course and/or tutorial will take up one or two more 90 minutes slots. The most time consuming part, though, is typically your work on the exercise sheets. I tell my first year students that 6-8 hours work per week in order to solve the weekly exercise sheets is a completely reasonable time frame (though some are a bit slower and some are a bit faster, of course). So all of this easily adds up to much more than 10 hours per week - and this is just for one course.
So it's important not to confuse "I'll attend some math lectures" with "I'll put reasonable effort into actually understanding their content."

One small remark about physics.
I have never taught a physics course, but I took physics as a minor when I was a student - and according to my experience from back then, the effort for a typical first semester course in physics is just as high (or higher) as for a typical first semester maths course. In addition, it doesn't make much sense to attend such a course without attending, at the same time or before that, a first semester maths course for physics students. The math that you've learned in school probably won't suffice for more than a week or two in such a physics lecture (depending on the lecturer, it might not even suffice for the first 30 minutes).

If you want to attend a lecture at a German unversity, just go there. Most of the cases, there's no attendance check or anything of that kind. If you want to be nice and/or it is a very small class, talk to the lecturer either beforehand or before/after the first lecture to say that you are not a student but interested in attending. Generally, this will be just fine.
(Of course, as long as you are not enrolled as a student there will be no way to earn credits or the like.)

I don't accept anyone to attend my lectures without informing me so please do not generalize an opinion on all courses at all German universities. Sometimes, even my students, I ask them to register online for a particular lecture and I have my reasons, among which: (1) The capacity of the room, (2) the difficulty of the course (i.e. a "Gasthörer" tends to have different interests and thus arises often irrelevant questions (to the purpose of the course), etc. Also, the students are paying money to acquire knowledge and so everyone else needs to do.

Has this free attendance practice survived also in post-Covid times? It seems to me that it makes contact-tracing quite difficult.

@Younes: I'm not sure I understand your comment: In this question you mentioned that one of your lectures had more than 100 participants. In such a large lecture, how could you enforce that nobodoy attends without informing you?

@FedericoPoloni: The actions that various universities in Germany took/take with respect to Covid seem to be quite diverse, so it's probably impossible to give a general answer. But for instance while I was at University of Passau, the contact tracing in lectures was given up during the later stages of the pandemic, and the free attendence practice was then just as free (or un-free for some courses) as usual.

@Younes: Hmm, now I notice that I also have difficulties to understand the last part of your comment. Are you teaching at a private university in Germany, or maybe at Fernuniversität Hagen? Because for public universities (except for Hagen), the majority of students do not pay money to accquire knowledge (they pay a small administration fee, but this is by its very definition paid for administration stuff, not for teaching).

@FedericoPoloni I would never dream of checking attendance in my lectures. If there were anything above 20 participants, I would for sure not know who is registered and who isn't. And I wouldn't want to know, and I think this is how it should be. Conversely, I also don't want to check attendance. Whoever wants to enforce attendance checks either way, should do that, but I would stick to my answer: Just show up, and maybe talk to the lecturer. If they want to be strict beyond the rules (or whatever you want to call it), let them be, you'll figure out soon enough.

@Younes I think you are quite an exception. Neither during my studies nor now I have experienced anything like that, except in very small courses.

@user151413 I don't think so. Otherwise, the German legislature wouldn't make the obtention of the lecturer's permission an essential step before attending their lecures.  Opinions can differ but following the regulation -in this situation in particular- does not hurt (You may always say, "please be free to attend my lectures" and I say; "Here is my signature and please register officially").

@Younes "German legislature wouldn't make the obtention of the lecturer's permission an essential step before attending their lecures": Is that so? (I agree that you must register as a student to earn credits and the like, but where does legislation say that you must obtain the lecturer's permission if you are not registered as a student? (Not to mention that German legislature can't say that, because universities are a state issue, so each state would have their own legislation.)


text:
If you did not get an informal notice of admission when other applicants did, can you assume that your application was probably denied?
I am an international applicant to a graduate program in Canada. I found out last week that at least one domestic applicant already received an informal email from the admissions team informing them that they were nominated for admission, and that they would get the official decision letter through the online application portal within two to three weeks.
My problem is that I have not received any such informal email, and I have to decide tomorrow on a job offer that restricts me from taking a study leave for at least two years. In other words, I have to choose between graduate school and a new employment opportunity, but I cannot make an informed choice until I know the result of my graduate school application. I already emailed the university about my problem earlier this week, but the admissions officer just asked me to wait two to three weeks for an official result or decision letter.
So, my question is: if I did not get an informal notice of admission from the academic department when other applicants did, can I assume that my application was probably denied?

Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking.

It depends on the department and institution. In my experience, informal emails regarding admission usually come from PIs and in that case you may or may not receive one. In other cases, a graduate admissions committee may send such informal emails to their top applicants, direct admits, or those nominated for fellowships etc. Plus, for programs with rolling admissions you may not get a first round offer but you could get a second or third.
I would say don't give up hope on this institution yet. Ask for an extension on deliberation time for the job offer. Worst case scenario, take the job and if you get an offer of admission you can resign. It isn't ideal, but people leave jobs all the time for a variety of reasons. Presumably, you won't be applying for the same position when you finish your graduate degree.

It means nothing.  The funding model in all provinces favours domestic applicants so it is usual for programs to prioritize domestic over international applicants.  Admission for international applicants also depends much more critically on available funding at the department and researcher level.


text:
What do university professors expect when interviewing a high school student for an internship opportunity? What are some tips?
I have been invited to an online meeting with a professor next week to discuss a year-long internship opportunity. What would the professor ask during the interview? And what kind of questions should I prepare?

What field is this for?

Sorry for the late reply:) It's about nanoengineering.

Congratulations on the interview!
For the most part these sorts of interviews are context specific. Questions depend on the Professor and the position. But there are at least two connected topics that will probably come up: 1. How will you use this internship to develop yourself towards your goals for the future (or what do you hope to get out of it); 2. What do you bring to the role (or what can you contribute).
If you have good answers ready for those, you are going to come off as prepared.

Thank you for your kind reply! (He is an assistant professor in nanoengineering by the way)


text:
Should an engineering master student publish in a conference or try to get into a journal?
I am a master's student in energy engineering and I want to publish my work as I am hoping to get into a Ph.D. after my studies. My supervisor has recommended a conference. On one hand, I trust their judgment and I am at the very start of my academic career. On the other hand, I am afraid my work will be "wasted" on a conference proceeding with low impact (0.5 IF), and then I will be unable to publish the final paper later in a more respected journal in the field. My work is not agenda-setting but I think it could be published.
Does anybody have any advice about this if I had to make a binary decision?
Is it possible to apply for a conference and then back down ( without triggering any simultaneous or duplicate publishing which I do not want intentionally or negligently)? Is a minor and major paper applicable?

Actually, my advice is to follow the lead of your advisor, as they know the field and the proper venues for work in your field.
In some fields, such as CS, conferences are the best venue for new work as it gets in the hands of those who need it much quicker. In other, perhaps math, journals may be preferred and preprints are used for quick dissemination.
There is one advantage of conference presentation for a new scholar in that you will have a chance to meet people. In some fields, again, they might be the movers and shakers of the current research trends. Another possible advantage is that you will hear about acceptance to a conference earlier than for a journal in most cases. Journal review can be quite long, but that depends on the field and the journal, which you advisor should know something about.
But, your advisor knows both the field and, hopefully, your work.
And, I hope that this one paper won't be determinative of your acceptance to a doctoral program. That would be unlikely in US, anyway, where a broad view of the candidate's past work and potential is taken.

Yes, you can withdraw a submission up to the point when copyright transfer becomes a factor, but it just puts off the date at which the work formally appears. And, if you do that, make it explicit.
And yes, it is possible to develop a new work that builds on and extends older work.


text:
Should you decline an invitation for a PhD application interview if you missed the scholarship application deadline?
I applied to a PhD program a few weeks after the university's deadline for this year's scholarship, TAship, and RAship application passed. The application for a scholarship from external funding bodies also closed before I finalized my PhD application. Today, I received an invitation for an interview next week regarding my PhD application. The problem is, even if I get admitted into this PhD program, I would not be able pursue it for lack of scholarship. Should I respectfully decline the invitation, then?

Is this scholarship the only opportunity for funding? There are not other funding possibilities like a TAship or RAship?

Unfortunately, the application for a TAship and RAship is already closed as well.

It is not unlikely that the university can finagle ways around the deadlines.

Yes, you should decline to do an interview if there is any definite reason that you would not accept the position, to save time both for yourself and the interviewer(s).
However, this circumstance sounds a bit odd to me, and I'd recommend clarifying before/while declining the invitation. Something like:

My understanding is that deadlines for funding opportunities have passed. If it is true that my position cannot be funded even if I am accepted, I will need to decline the invitation. Please let me know if my understanding is incorrect.

Like Jon Custer mentions in a comment, there may be ways around these deadlines if the university wants to admit you, and if the lack of funding is the only reason you would definitely decline the position then it would be a shame to miss the interview on those grounds if in fact funding could be made available somehow.


text:
How should a manuscript "cut in parts" be evaluated?
This concerns some mathematics papers submitted for review.
Essentially, I have received requests from two different journals asking me to referee papers, which are parts 2 and 3 of a sequence; essentially the titles of the papers are of the form "A mathematical result, part II/III : the case of B/C" respectively. From the way the papers are written, they are clearly spin-offs of the same paper. Presumably, the author(s) thought to split off the original paper into parts to make it easier for each component to be published.
This type of thing is not that uncommon. Perhaps the most famous recent example (to my knowledge) is Bhargava's series of seminal papers titled "Higher Composition Laws I/II/III/IV" (see for example here and here). All of Bhargava's papers in this series are published in the Annals, which is the top journal in (pure) mathematics.
However, it seems to me that most of the time later parts of the series are published in progressively less prestigious journals, because the most important results tend to be announced earlier in the series. The most well-known example of this to me is the series "Primes in tuples" by Goldston, Pintz, and Yildirm, the first in the series was published in the Annals (Primes in tuples I) and the last of which was published in Acta Arithmetica (Primes in tuples IV). This to me seems to be the more common situation.
What criteria would you apply to justify publishing all parts of a series of papers in equally prestigious journals, and in what situations is it more justified for later parts of the series to be published in less prestigious journals?
In particular, should subsequent parts of the series be judged in line with the first part? That is, should they be considered part of the "same" paper and therefore equally strong/weak? Or should each individual part be judged on their own? The latter seems hard, due to the natural inter-connectedness of the series.

Are you sure that the "less prestigious" journal was the first choice of the author or a compromise after rejection elsewhere? Publishing is up to the publisher, not the author(s).

@Buffy I added a paragraph clarifying my question.

So you got two papers sent by two different journals. Did any of the editors indicate to you that you should take into account the fact that there are more papers in the series? My gut feeling is that each of the papers should be reviewed on its own merits, as independently as possible from the others, unless you were explicitly asked otherwise.

"What criteria would you apply to justify publishing all parts of a series of papers in equally prestigious journals, and in what situations is it more justified for later parts of the series to be published in less prestigious journals?" I'm not sure why you ask this, because as reviewer your job is to assess each paper exactly for the journal to which it has been submitted.

"That is, should they be considered part of the "same" paper and therefore equally strong/weak?" If the editors didn't send you the parts of the paper other than the one they asked you to review, they rather obviously don't expect you to take the other parts into account.

@ChristianHennig I can certainly appreciate the perspective you offer, thank you


text:
Fired/project given to another postdoc during F32 fellowship
I am in my third year of funding of an F32 NRSA postdoc fellowship (one month into my final year). My project is nearly complete and ready for publication, however, my sponsor/PI wanted another postdoc in the lab to conduct a few biochem assays for the project.
Over time, I have been cut out of my own project. My PI now feels that the paper is not near submission, and would like my project to be a "co-project" with this favored postdoc. My relationship with this mentor has started to deteriorate since that point. Favorite postdoc complains constantly about me to the PI, even though I remain positive and productive.
Recently at a meeting with PI and favorite postdoc, I was accused by the other postdoc of not properly analyzing a certain data set. In my defense I explained how I analyzed the data and why I employed the method I did. My mentor then cut me off and fired me from my position, citing that I had a bad attitude. I felt set up.
She asked me in a follow up email to give over all stocks, reagents, notebooks, and data files so the other postdoc can finish the project. I am to look for work, and I do not need to report to lab anymore.
What I don't understand is that this project is funded by an NIH fellowship in which I am the PI listed on the grant, can she give this project to someone else and take my three years of data away from me? Also, I had a year of salary/work coming to me, I was going to use this year to publish my work and apply for jobs but now I'm screwed. I was a free employee to the PI since my salary was covered, so I don't understand her actions. Any advice?

It seems you may be able to move your funding to another lab. (See comments here).

First of all, it is your work and paper too. What does your contract with the university says about that? Do you have a contract with the university, or only with the funding agency?

I know next to nothing about NIH, but I highly doubt that a professor (or really anybody that isn't the NIH) can reassign a project that you are listed as a PI on. If things really went down as a you said, I am not sure whether the professor can even fire you, let alone decide to reassign the resources given to you by an external entity. You may look into legal representation.

I don't know much about this type of postdoc, but this seems unethical if they were to take your name off the paper entirely. I would check with someone in your field that possibly has your back instead of any bias. Say, your PhD advisor, if your PhD advisor is from a different university. She/he may be able to advise as you're not getting any feedback here.

This feels incomplete -- firing someone in most jurisdictions is not that easy. It would certainly involve the HR department, and probably some formal caution period. You aren't clear on who holds the grant -- you refer to your boss as "the PI", then say that you are "the PI listed on the grant" -- is it your money or theirs? The NIH probably has rules on transfer of the grant, and if you are the grant holder then the department would not be keen to lose the money. This is not the sort of decision one capricious person can make instantaneously, so the story is surely incomplete somehow.

I second that this feels incomplete. From the surface, it seems unethical but let me play devil's advocate: your tone suggests a bias, it seems you are already certain that it is an issue of nepotism, this might not be true, and even if it is then it is a diffferent case altogether - you'll need hard evidence to support your case. You also say that you had been cut off (including by your mentor) where they cite your bad attitude, what if they can produce convincing evidence to support their claim? Again, what you think might not be the true.

Generally speaking, it is VERY difficult to fire anyone in academia.  Speaking as a professor with a postdoc of my own, there are generally negotiated contracts between the university and the postdoc.  Faculty and the university can get in trouble if they violate the terms of that.  I highly suggest you talk to your HR person to see if they was all above board.  They will be able to tell you if any of the terms were violated.
Futher, NIH funding, like other pots of government funding, is a contract between the government organization and the institution, not the individual.  That being said, that is frequently overlooked for things like professors leaving one university to go to another and then taking their funding with them.  I would strongly suggest you get a copy of the exact contract between NIH and your institution.  There might be some language in there that can help you.

I do not know about the work arrangements in the U.S. and speak purely from my experience in the UK.
In the UK postdocs (often called Research Fellows or Research Associates) are  employed by the University. Their salary can come from "their" grant (i.e. the postdoc is also P.I. on this grant), from their Prof's grants (Prof is P.I.), or directly from the University. The postdoc "reports to" their Line Manager, which can be their Prof or Head of Department. However, their employer is the University, and the only the University can fire them.
Needless to say, that the terms of employment should be fully described in your contract, including the right to access the workplace, and conduct the activities related to your work. They also describe the conditions when your employment can be terminated.
My suggestion is to arrange a few meetings: with your Head of Department, with a member of your trade union, and with the University HR. Try to clarify the situation and determine the status of your Prof's words. You may find out that they are "just words" and do not have any legitimate power. This will not solve your problem completely, but probably will allow you to negotiate a more independent role in the project and the publications which come out of it.

Here is the issue, while your fellowship does have your name on it, it was principally awarded for several reasons 1) your CV suggested that you were competent to complete 2) Your PI had a track record both in the topic of the proposed research and they have committed to supplying the supplies, equipment and
other needed support to do the project.   Yes, your fellowship pays for your salary,  but that covers only a fraction of what it will cost to complete and publish the work.    Also, it is likely that the professor had data which laid the foundation for your project, which preceded you. The NIH therefore technically considers the project as belonging to the professor.   I dont know why the professor now wants to add another person to the project, but I suspect it is because the project is not moving fast enough. Maybe there is competition out there that might publish first, or maybe they need a paper NOW so that they can
get a grant which will keep the lab open.    I suggest you discuss your concerns with the professor, but keep in mind the project belongs to them and not you.

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


text:
Uploading online all Data used in thesis?
For my Ph.D work I used large volume of data which can not be put into my thesis. So, I am planning to put all this data online, so that other could download freely and cross check my work. It would also help future scholars to do the same work conveniently in future. Providing data online used for research is not commonly practiced in my country. I just want to know is it right(also sensible) to do the same? Won't it lead to any complication in future?
Can you also please tell me what is being practiced in other countries like USA and UK regarding data?
[Note : all data is downloaded from free sources so does not involve any copyright issue]

What do you mean by "free sources", exactly?

Have you asked your advisor about that? Do you have a hosting space? What discipline are you?

I am from finance background

free sources mean all data available online for download for free and does not require any subscription.

Something being freely available for online download does not mean that it’s free to distribute, in particular free to host for yourself. Anyway the corresponding issue would be primarily a legal one to be decided on a per-case basis. Moreover: If those data is freely available, is there any particular reason you want to mirror it?

No I donot want to just mirror it but in filtered and analyzed way which would be very easy to handle for other.

In general I think this is a good idea, but it might depend on your area. This way others can verify your method and compare it to yours. At least this is how it is used in for example Computer Vision and Machine Learning.
Some examples:

Online image database (University of Edinburgh
Different data sets of the University of Texas
Computer Vision test images (Carnegie Mellon University)
Microsoft Research Image understanding

Some theses with a dataset published:

Doug Downey's PhD thesis
Soo Ling Lims' PhD thesis
Toine Borgers' PhD thesis

Professor S. Rüger from the Open University UK, wrote in How to write a good PhD thesis and survive the viva (for a PhD in the computing subject):

Some value in a PhD thesis is drawn from careful
  experimental design. It is best practice to only change one parameter at a time; to use datasets that are publicly available or at least make datasets available; to describe experiments in a way so that they are reproducible; and, particularly in Computing, to set up experiments in
  an automated batch fashion.

You however have to make sure that you are allowed to (re)publish the data on your web without violating any copyrights (even if it can be downloaded for free), otherwise you can just link to the external data set.
Edit: also see this question about Publicly Available Datasets.

Some things people should consider before making their data freely downloadable.  Many of these may not apply to you, but they're general considerations.  In some cases these are things that should be decided before data are ever collected.

Are the data truly yours?  Does your institution have some claim to the raw data, or to the analysis? Do you have co-authors who also have a claim to the data?  Do you have permission from all parties to make this available? Can you document this?
Is there anything confidential in the data?
Is there anything copyrighted in the data?  Are there other potential legal concerns about making it available?  If you have modified or analyzed the data using software, is the download compatible with the software license?
If humans were involved in any way, is their information anonymized? Did they give permission to make their data available, even in aggregate?  Did your institutional review board approve this part of the project? Do you have clear documentation showing this?
Are you willing and able to maintain the data? Will it be on a site that you control and will control for a period of time? If not, who controls it, and are they willing and able to continue to make it available?  What is a reasonable time for the data to remain available -- two years? Five? Twenty?

For many studies, 1-4 may not apply, but 5 is something people don't seem to think about very much.  Far too often, individual researchers stick their data, or supplementary information or whatever, up on their institutional web sites, and then two years later their IT people do some reorganization and all the links are broken; or the people move to another institution and their pages are all deleted; or a bug hits and no one notices.  Or they put the data up on their personal pages, and then GeoCities is bought by Yahoo! and gets shut down in their country.  The web five years ago was a very different place from today, and it will be very different in another five years.
One option is Dryad, which promises to store researcher data; see their claims here.  I have no experience with them other than downloading data, but the concept seems good.


text:
Should I mention being enrolled in distance course currently as a backup option in application form?
I am currently enrolled in a distance masters's course in my country as a backup. I will be only applying to some really very competitive schools. If I don't make it through those schools I will apply next year or year after that and continue to do so till I make it in. I am very very passionate about these schools and the research going on in there.
Class for this distance course will begin by the end of this month and I will quit as soon as I get an admit in any school of my choice. Should I mention joining the course in my application forms?
Some of these schools want me to upload transcripts of any course I have attended after school. Considering the fact that the course has not yet begun there is no way I could get a transcript from them.

The basic rule of thumb is this: if you're actively involved in something at the time of application, then you should mention it. If you're tentatively enrolled (for example, you've been offered admission, but have not yet officially registered), then it doesn't actually count, and you need not mention it.

Your grammar's a little strange, but as I understood your question: (1) you haven't taken any classes in said program, and (2) you don't plan to if you get into another program.  In this case, no, there's no need to and I can't see how it would help at all.  If you do plan to take at least 1 class even if you get into the program you're applying to (so you would have extra experience currently not documented before your desired program starts), then you can mention this in a cover letter or other appropriate place on the application.

I am not hoping to get an advantage by showing that I am currently enrolled in some course. I am worried that I might violate some rule by not declaring that I am enrolled in some course. I am a Indian student BTW. I am worried that I might run into some VISA issues or something.

Most of the application forms make it pretty clear that I need to mention all the colleges I have attended after high school. But my situation is kinda atypical so I dunno, whether what it says in the form applies to me or not. I tried mailing them but since this being admission season and all, I didn't get any response from them. So I was hoping that someone here could help me.

It sounds like the instructions say you need to submit transcripts for any post-secondary schools previously attended.  Being enrolled to take a course does not count as having attended, so they are not asking for something which does not exist.


text:
Is the signature track on coursera useful for MS admissions?
I read through the forum and the opinion seems to be that doing a MOOC is equivalent of reading a book on that subject. This is largely because of that you can cheat through a MOOC.
So what if I join a signature track on a MOOC such as the one of Coursera ? I haven't ever tried a signature track out, but they capture your photo and recognize the way you write to ascertain if you have genuinely gone through the work or not.
Even american council of education is acknowledging this ....
How is this a duplicate of that question :|

possible duplicate of mentioning MOOC's I took in my scholarship application

If MOOC is just like reading a book, a signature track is just like giving an official prove to others that you have really read the book.

Really ? Cause I have to write a project writeup and make a project for this mooc that am attempting. @bingung

At best, MOOC's are going to be viewed just like any other course on your transcript—they're not going to make it or break it anymore than any other course that you can take. However, as many people have pointed out, MOOC's are also viewed with substantial suspicion, in part because of their low completion rate and because of the difficulties with quality assurance.
So I would ultimately say that a MOOC probably has little or no advantage over a comparable course offered at your university. If it's something that is both highly relevant and not available at your university, that's another story—but then that should be clearly stated in your application as well!

So if I have poor grades like 8/10 ~ 3.2/4 having a mooc certificates is going to make the person reviewing my application overlook my grades ? See in my college they force the elective on you. My class took public administration as elective :| so my grades plummeted. So will I have an advantage if I have a mooc certificate in machine learning? I plan on doing a ms in machine learning. Also no one seems to have answered the question of whether this slight advantage of doing a mooc will be "amplified" if it is verfied in the signature track :|

As I said, it's going to be treated like another course in your transcript. It's not going to explain away a weak GPA.

It is unlikely that listing the completion of a MOOC on your CV will have any meaningful contribution to admission into a graduate program.  The weight of this type of educational experience does not parallel that of credit-based coursework.  However, in your narrative, you can describe a MOOC experience as evidence of your motivation and independence in learning / work.

I am not in any admissions committee, so I am more or less guessing here.
A MOOC shows you have interest in the subject, and that you have a basic knowledge (you are familiar with the topics and some vocabulary). This knowledge is very easy to test in an interview by a few basic questions, so having a signed track will not add much to it.
Nevertheless, the skills learned during the course can be a good point if they are a good complement for your degree. For example, if you are a physicist wanting to get into experimental data analysis, knowing machine learning is very useful; but most Physics programs do not include this as subject. On the other hand, taking a programming course for a CS adds next to nothing.
An advantage of MOOCs is that you can take them for free, and you can just sign up for several of them just to see if the topic interests you, so they have a very low cost of opportunity. If you sign up for a university class, you have to pay for it (depending on the country) and/or actually see it to completion. Even if you find the topic too hard, too easy, completely irrelevant, or poorly taught.


text:
Does listing several research directions in SOP give the impression that I have a shallow research interest?
I am applying to MS in CS degree. In my SOP I wish to talk about four distinct, non-overlapping research directions. Two of these pertain to computer vision and the other two pertain to machine learning. (I am interested in how computer vision utilizes the theory of machine learning.)
Now my question is, if I talk about all four of these distinct, non-overlapping research directions and quote a paper each in these 4 directions, will it give the impression that I have a shallow superficial research interest? Also I don't have any particular research idea in my mind for any of these directions yet.
As I am still in college, I don't get enough time to conduct research on these directions. My college coursework keeps me busy for most of the time. So as of for now I can't narrow down to one of these directions.
Over the course of the last four years, I read papers whenever I got time and I saw a pattern in all these papers. I realized that the papers I read fall into these distinct directions. I realized how one paper builds on top of the other. It's just that I was casually reading this stuff not with an intention to contribute to either of these directions. But if you ask me to write a grad level thesis I would definitely choose one of these four directions.
Edit: The papers are pivotal papers to those directions. None of them are older than 2012 and they have established that direction. So omitting them could potentially jeopardize the coherence of my SOP.

I don't understand how not many people will know about a paper that has been cited 150 times in less than two years.

Edited that part out. Still without quoting these papers as @Bob Brown is suggesting, it will be very difficult to refer to these ideas!

As I read your question, it seems to me that you have one area of interest: Machine learning applied to computer vision.  Consider revising to emphasize that.
You mention quoting papers.  Unless they're papers you wrote, consider leaving that out.  Admissions committees want to know your interests and accomplishments.

Those papers are pivotal papers that established that direction. They have been extended by people in so many ways. To state that I have interest to work in that direction I need to talk about those papers. Is it fine?

Better let someone with more experience than I answer that one.  I'd say omit, or at most mention without quoting.  Admissions committees read hundreds of SoPs; what is appropriate for a research paper is not necessarily appropriate for your SoP.


text:
Will uploading a half completed paper to Arxiv hurt my chances of getting admitted to a grad school?
I worked on a independent research project during my free time in college. Nobody guided me and nobody assisted me. I developed a algorithm for a problem and I tried it out on few data-sets and compared it with some leading algorithms(Papers for which I could find implementation online) on the same data-sets and the results were great. I didn't get enough time to finish the paper and now I am working in a job.
I wish to apply to US colleges for spring for MS. As I don't have time currently, I am thinking of just uploading the unfinished paper that I prepared in college to Arxiv. The paper will just lists my results on 4 ~ 5 data-sets and nothing else as I don't have the comparison data with me anymore.
Will uploading a half completed paper to Arxiv and mentioning it in my SOP give me any advantage or will it hurt my chances of getting admitted?
Also what should my affiliation be in that paper?

The arXiv is not intended for "unfinished papers", but rather for completed drafts prior to, instead of, or even after their acceptance in a scholarly journal.

So how do I show my work?

I don't think the arxiv is the right place to upload unfinished work, no matter what you hope to gain from it.  It would be worth reading what the arxiv says about what should be submitted as well as talking to others and seeing what is done in practice in your field.  My own understanding is that the arxiv is an "e-print server", i.e., an electronic preprint server.  A preprint is a completed paper which has not yet been published.  (Though one can still upload published papers to the arxiv in many cases...)
It is only fair to mention that a small but non-negligible percentage of arxiv papers are not intended for submission to journals in their current forms.  For instance, I currently have 27 arxiv papers; a few of them have not been submitted yet, and one of them is not intended for journal submission in its current form.  I was asked to upload it to the arxiv because a colleague of mine wanted to cite it in his accepted journal article and the journal had asked for something a little more formal and stable than my own homepage.  In retrospect, I think this was a good idea on their part.  But all of my arxiv submissions are "complete".
Concerning incomplete submissions, here is a sentence from the webpage linked to above:

Please note that we do not accept submissions with omitted figures, tables or sections. We also do not accept "abstract only" submissions. Such submissions are unhelpful to readers and of very limited archival value.

Based on what you describe, I am concerned that your putative arxiv submission would violate either the letter or the spirit of this requirement.  You certainly do not want to submit to the arxiv in this case, because the arxiv is moderated, and low quality submissions can cause you to lose future privileges (as well as giving you a very poor reputation with at least the arxiv moderators, who presumably have some stature and influence in the academic community).
On the other hand, in many cases whether a paper is "unfinished" is known only to the author, and it would probably be possible for you to prepare a version of your paper which meets the above requirements.  In my opinion, as an undergraduate you should not upload (or widely distribute in any e-forum) work that you know to be seriously incomplete.  Work that you upload to the arxiv stays there forever.  (Truly: even if you withdraw a paper, the record of it remains and people can still access all the earlier versions.  I don't know about anyone else, but when I see a withdrawn paper it makes me curious and thus more likely to look at earlier versions.)  Outsiders are not going to judge your work by undergraduate standards; in many cases they will not know that the work was written by an undergraduate.  They'll look at a paper that has the level of an incomplete undergraduate project: that is not making a good name for yourself.
If you want to include your unfinished manuscript in your application, that's a different story: definitely do so if you spent a lot of time on the work and are proud of it.  (Even mature academics list unfinished manuscripts on their CV and sometimes even post them on their webpage.  I do this, although less often as time goes on.)  I may as well say the obvious thing though: it would be better if you finished it.  Couldn't a hard-nosed faculty evaluator say that if you were really passionate, serious and competent, then you would have finished your project?  As above, having the submitted version be formally complete as a document though you yourself know that you'd like to do more with it seems like a good idea.

Very good advice on all counts...

another option would be to send an email to potential advisors you were interested in working with and attach your draft as a writing sample saying "this is something I have been working on independently for the past few months. It is an unfinished piece but it should give you an idea of my research interests ...Of course, please do not redistribute." Only do this if what you have written down is reasonably polished.

@WetLabStudent Is there anyway I could actually hurt my chances by doing what you suggest?

@Aditya yes it could, especially if what you have written isn't good or doesn't interest them. Its probably better to send something like this if you first get a reply from a professor after writing a more basic email that states your research interests, why you are interested in working with them and asks them if they are accepting students. If they show interest, on a follow up sending them this could help if you think it is good, but could hurt if it isn't good work. I couldn't possibly judge this.

When I applied to my PhD position I mentioned I had a couple of documents pertaining to research projects I had carried out and that I could email them if the professor wished so. He eventually asked me to and my impression is that this helped me get in.

@Miguel are people considerate or less picky when reviewing a single author paper?

@Aditya I have reviewed a single author paper only once (I recommended rejection) and the number of authors was not something I took into account in my evaluation. I'd imagine most reviewers are the same.


text:
Switching universities/research groups after PhD
I am finishing up my PhD thesis at a top university. I have been given the advice that, for an academic career, moving universities for your postdoc is generally a good idea as you are exposed to new faculty/ideas.
I have however found a postdoc opportunity at my current university, but within a different department (mathematics as opposed to engineering) which I am interested in. Is this just as good for my career as moving to a new university? Or are academic committees focused on a big change in environment for networking purposes?
Many thanks!

As long as you write papers without your PhD supervisor in order to demonstrate your independence, staying at the same university should not be held against you. But, better to decide when you have offers in hand, so apply and see what happens.


text:
Secondary citation and intro signals (i.e. see, see also, e.g., c.f.): when to use "as cited in"?
What is the correct way to treat references modified by intro signals in my source?
Consider the following case, where the primary source is by Example (1999):

From the arguments discussed above, it can clearly be shown that some pigs can fly. These pigs are called Flypigs (see Author, 1988).

Now, if I want to make use of this term, how is it properly cited?
I.e. do I only reference Example (1999), because Flypigs is not a direct reference to Author (1988) but only modified by a intro signal; or do I use Author (1988, as cited in Example, 1999); or some combination of both?

From your question, I don't understand why Example (1999) needs to be cited at all (in this same spot).

According to APA guidelines, the intro signal "see" is to be used, if a statement is based on the works of another author, but a step of inference is made from their works to reach the statement made. Therefore, if a statement is referenced with a "see" intro signal, that statement is not found as is in the referenced author. Therefore, the primary source -- Example (1999) -- has to be cited in my understanding.

I am still not following, perhaps because the example is hypothetical.

Unfortunately I cannot find the cited source to check, but the into signal would suggest that the term is not actually taken from the referenced work (Author, 1988), in which case it would be inaccurate to (only) cite Author (1988) instead of Example (1988), no?

Please edit your question to identify the exact scenario you are imagining (e.g. A88 said pigs can fly, but E99 named them "Flypigs").

If the term flypigs was introduced in Author (1988), as the position of the citation in the example suggests, I see no reason to cite Example (1999), at least with regards to the naming.
If instead flypigs was introduced in Example (1999) (but then I would expect the citation of Author in the example to go at the end of the first sentence, not the second), you can cite Example (1999) directly.
Also note that depending on the field and how common the name is, the naming itself might not warrant a citation.
To answer the question in the title, I would only use "as cited in" if the original citation was not available anymore, you have no way to verify its claims, but somehow you do need to cite that original paper. I have (almost) never seen it used, but it might be field-dependent.


text:
Author contributions: Listed as "writing original draft" despite not writing anything
I am the first author for a review paper with ~10 authors. I wrote the full first draft entirely alone (about 8,000 words and 200+ references). Then, I opened the (very polished) draft to all authors for contributions.
Some authors made very small revisions. Another author (Author A) sent me one page of text, and asked me to add parts of it if I wanted. I did add their text throughout the manuscript.
While preparing for submission, I asked each author to add themselves into the CRediT system. Later, I noticed in the "author contribution" section that 3 names were listed as "Writing-original draft": Myself, Author A, and Author B.
I understand why Author A listed their name. Even though I wrote the original (very polished) first draft entirely alone, Author A did later write one page of text... enough to warrant more than a "Writing-revisions and editing" contribution. So, I agreed with that.
However, Author B not only did not write anything substantial, they did not write anything (even a single minor revision) at all. The document has lived entirely on Google Docs, so I can see they made not a single revision or comment.
Author A and B are both senior authors. In my head, I imagine two scenarios:

Author A and B both wrote the full page, and only Author A sent it to me. In this case, Author B deserves the credit.

Author B noticed that Author A listed themselves as having written the original document, and assumed they could just do the same. After all, Author B could not see that Author A wrote a full page separately, since they sent it to me behind the scenes, and I added the full page directly myself (under my name on the Google Doc). In this case, Author B does not deserve the credit, and acted unethically (in my opinion).

In any case, I recognize it is unfair/useless for me to make such assumptions. I would like to know the truth, and I plan to ask Author B.
I have not seen many questions like this on StackExchange. I see much more authorship byline questions, but not so much authorship CRediT questions.
My questions are:

Is the culture around author CRediT creating this possibility that Author B might have acted unethically? I'm sure it varies across fields (I'm in biology).

Is it even worth asking Author B? I suppose this depends on Question (1), and, if it is ingrained in the culture for a senior author to claim CRediT unfairly, then better to just move on and not work with them as much? I am only at the graduate student level; Author B is a professor.

Thank you.

You should definitely ask Author B why they listed themselves as writing the original draft if you couldn't find any evidence of their doing so. Do it in person and in a non-confrontational way: bring it up nonchalantly during your next in-person encounter. Based on their response and body language, you'll get all the information you need to judge their character.

Thank you. I did end up asking Author B. We just received reviewer revisions, and I wrote to Author B, asking them to "remind me" what they had written for the original draft... so that I could assign appropriate reviewer comments to them (I assigned some comments to Author A if the reviewer covered Author A's original text). Author B wrote back that they only "coordinated logistics" and "read the paper". So, I then asked them if it was a mistake their initials were credited with helping write the original text. Author B agreed, and we erased their initials.

I am sorry to hear it happened with you. You obviously did a fantastic job -- congratulations on pulling through wiring such an impressive piece!
If the document tracking system (git or Google Doc in your case) says Author B did not wrote anything, and Author B did not bother to present a proof of his contribution to you and other authors, then it is natural to assume author B did not actually contribute to writing. If Author B claims it via the CRediT system, it is natural to assume they free-ride on the work of others, hence act unethically by passing the work of others as (partly) their own.
Academic culture in many places is very hierarchical and protects established professors and directors of big labs, even when their acts are blatantly unethical and wrong. Depending on your local culture, it may be safer for your career to let it go. But please do not  feel bad about this (Prof B should feel bad about this, not you), and do not allow this situation to gaslight you into thinking that bad acts of others towards you are somehow justified. They are not justified, and it is just a reflection of a poor state of our current academic culture that such things still happen.

There is an option you haven't considered yet.

Author B has been working on several papers, being at a professor
level they can't remember each one individually and so just took a
quick guess at how they contributed to the paper before moving onto something else more
interesting/something they view as more relevant. They may also
consider it bureaucratic paperwork and so are just ticking the
boxes. Infact maybe they contributed initial writing to another
paper on the same topic and confused it with yours.

Coming from physics I won't say anything about the culture. But its worth asking Author B if you trust them. If not you could also ask Author A or anyone else who supervises you and may be able to provide insight/back you up/prevent you falling into a political trap, then depending on the response ask Author B.

I tend to follow the CRediT guidelines generously under the assumption that all of the authors did in fact do significant work. If there is some evidence that someone contributed to a particular domain, then I try not to split hairs. But if there is no evidence of a particular contribution then an author shouldn't be listed. The entire point of the CRediT taxonomy is to be more transparent not less.
To try to answer your first question, CRediT is a relatively recent development - within the past 10 or so years. So I don't know that their are really ingrained cultures around it. It hasn't been common for all that long to include an author contribution statement. That being said, I'm sure the same people who would fudge an author list would have no problem fudging a contribution statement. Also, I'm sure a percentage of people see them as just a box to tick, so to speak, and so might not be inclined to put too much thought into it. I hope that answers your first question.
As for the second question, it would be reasonable, since there appears to be no evidence that author B actually wrote anything. Since you're a bit lower in the hierarchy, you might try to be diplomatic about it. But even that might stir the pot (whether or not that is worth it is up to you). You would definitely be in the right though. Best case, it might be that there was a misunderstanding or some measure of laziness involved. It might be that you were correct in your initial assessment. From there, what you do depends on how secure you feel and how far you are willing to fight it. It's a shame that this sort of thing happens.