text:
What is the correct tone and language to use during peer review?
Our paper has gone through peer review and is now back to us. As I was collecting the different responses to the reviewers comments, I noticed a pattern from some of my co-authors, which was to thank the reviewer a lot and add a lot of sentences/titles/adjectives that were very positive/respectful/...
I am very grateful of the free time the reviewer gave to our paper and their comments, but I feel like starting every sentence with "We thank the respected reviewer for XXX", "We appreciate the constructive feedback of the reviewer on XXX" or "The reviewer accurately highlighted XXX and we appreciate their feedback" is maybe too much.
I naturally matched the tone and languages the reviewers used in their comment as I thought it would be natural to reply in the same way, and now I find the different responses we have very different to this, especially when the answer stretches to 2 lines just to thank the reviewer before finally saying we disagree with this specific comment.
My inclination would be to go for a middle point, thanking the reviewer at the introduction of the response for example, and then later highlighting particular comments or feedback that are particularly important or noteworthy.
Question:
What is the correct language and tone to use when answering to reviewer? (as a secondary question, is being overly respectful/thankful considered "too much"?)

The day you will receive a mean review from an asshole, then you will be as grateful as your co-authors. that the review is coming from what seems to be a normal person :D .

@EarlGrey I guess that one way to understand it! :D

As a reviewer and editor, I hate these endless phrases of gratitude as I'm interested in the content and not in this kind of thing, so they waste time and space and diminish my reading pleasure. So if you convince your co-authors to do away with them it's for sure a good thing in my view. That said, when it comes to any relevant decision, it probably won't make a difference. There is no "correct" and "incorrect" in this regard. Anyway, I'm on your side.

In my experience collaborating with various group, sycophancy in responses to reviewer comments seems rather extensive, which leads me to believe that it is effective (or at least perceived to be effective). As a reviewer, it always make me uncomfortable, which might be part of its effect.

when the answer is 2 line to thank the reviewer to finally say we
disagree with this specific comment.

I suspect this is an excess of courtesy, because reading (and writing) is a time-consuming activity. If the 2 lines add nothing to the discussion, they are excessive.
There is a time to address the review (and the reviewer tone) in general, and that it is in the introduction and in the conclusion of your response to reviewers, but saying thanks at every line is like not saying thanks at any line and it may be perceived as "boot-licking".
Propose to your co-authors a draft of the response, where you sum-up their corteous contributions in the opening of your response, and then proceed to discuss amicably but to the point the various reviewers points. Check their reactions and if questioned about being too direct, express your doubts as you did here.

"boot-licking" that the word I was looking for. That what I was afraid it could be perceived as, even if it is not. Thanks also for the insight on "to the point" for the answer, it makes more sense, especially when not adding anything unnecessary.

@JackRed Personally I'm more concerned with my reading pleasure rather than whether somebody is boot-licking or not. For me as a reader (reviewer/editor) the recipe is: write interestiung things and don't write uninteresting things. This stuff is generally uninteresting and wastes my time.

@ChristianHennig I shall make it interesting and not wasting times, thanks for the confirmation. I sincerely thank you for your comment which gives great insight on how reviewer and editor perceives things, and the constructive feedback you, the respected user of academia stackexchange, gave us.

@JackRed I should probably add a word of caution. I'm German and the answer by Sursula makes sense. Maybe in other places of the world people see things differently.

Actually this feels a lot like a cultural thing. I am from Germany where excessive praise and curtesy are not really a thing and people rather tell what they want to say straight away, which some people can interpret as harsh even though it is not meant harshly. Every time a receive an overly polite reply like this, I just think that the person is probably from a part of the world where such excessive politeness has a much higher value and it is perceived as rude to not do so.
Personally I think this is too much and I don't need it. But it also doesn't hurt me. I also do not want to start overly praising others in reviews myself, but rather write in my dry and to the point German style with minimal praising. So in general I think as long as you are not actively rude or add so much praise and thanks, that the point of what you are going say is lost in the noise, just write reviews however it feels best for you. Research and peer review is an international affair and there will always be differences, so it is best if we all manage to get along with those differences.

This is what I was thinking. I harbor the stereotype that Asians tend to be overly deferential and polite.

Thank your reviewers once and then get down to business
When I construct my response-to-referees document, I give an introductory paragraph where I thank the referees for their work, any clever suggestions they had, etc., and after that I get into the nitty-gritty of the review points in a simple agree/disagree format, without continually re-thanking them each time.  If there is a particular point where the reviewer did an especially good job in identifying an important point/error that I hadn't spotted then I might briefly re-thank them (or just point out that this was well-spotted), but it is nowhere near as obsequious as what you are putting forward in your question.
Here are some general suggestions on approach and tone:

Give a sincere and well-written thank-you to the referees for their work at the start of your response.  This should typically acknowledge the work that the referees have done in reviewing the paper and a general thanks for their useful suggestions and interest in the paper.  Think about the thanks that you would like to receive if you worked hard reviewing a paper and then give that type of thanks.  There is no need to go overboard, but you should take the time to write a sincere and meaningful thank-you for the time given to you by another professional.

Avoid any form of positive feedback that sounds like insincere flattery.  For example, in a submission using anonymous review, I would never refer to a referee as "the respected reviewer".  (I don't know who they are, so how can I know if they're respected?)  Similarly, ask yourself if you really need to augment your adjectives with "very" --- automated use of this form of emphasis is widely regarded as a form of lazy writing and it can come across as insincere when giving thanks.  (Are you really "very grateful" for a review, or just "grateful"?)

As you proceed point-by-point through the individual pieces of feedback, clearly state whether you agree or disagree with the point made, and what (if any) revisions you have made to the paper in response to the suggestions.  You have already thanked the referee, so now the focus is on the merits of the suggestions in relation to your paper --- get down to business and focus on the task at hand.

When you agree with a point/suggestion, there is no need to re-thank the referee for this point/suggestion.  If it is a particularly insightful or interesting point (e.g., if they point out a useful piece of literature you had missed or an important argument you should incorporate) then you might decide to re-thank, but this should be done sparingly.

When you disagree with a point/suggestion, there is no need to blunt this by kowtowing to the referee.  Just be candid and objective about your disagreement and proceed accordingly.  It is okay to disagree with a referee suggestion/remark, but you should always proceed in a friendly tone that respects the work the referee has put in to reviewing the paper.

Excessive/obsequious praise for the referees throughout the response document has two potential negative effects.  Firstly, it distracts from the discussion of the academic issues in the paper and the revisions to the paper.  Secondly, it can come across as sycophantic, which is typically perceived negatively in academia in the Anglosphere.  Things may certainly be different in other cultures, but that would be my advice when operating in an academic environment in the US, UK, Australia, NZ, etc.

that's a lot of very good advice, thanks for taking the time to write them. I'm still a PhD student and new to this thing, and getting such insights and advices helps a lot

"take the time to write a sincere and meaningful thank-you" - assuming that the authors thank the reviewer only once as recommended, how does the difference between a "meaningful" and "not meaningful" thank you look like? (+1 anyway)

@ChristianHennig: What I mean by this is that the superlatives used to describe the work of the referees should be things that make sense in the context of the review (e.g., avoiding calling them the "esteemed referees" when you don't even know who they are).

@JackRed: You might also find the linked answer useful.

I think it is useful to recognise that - at least in the usual peer review model - your response is primarily addressed to the editor. There is no guarantee that your letter will ever be seen by the reviewers themselves.
Some journal systems do make response letters available to reviewers, though (in my experience) only if the reviewer chooses to log in and look for it. Otherwise, they will only see it if the editor asks them to undertake a second round of review, and they accept. Even then, they are reading a letter that you addressed to the editor.
The editor does not want to read obsequious and meaningless expressions of profound gratitude; they want to know what you have done in response to the reviewers' comments. It is courteous to begin your letter by thanking the reviewer and editor for their time, but after that it is entirely appropriate to be brief and direct in responding to each point.

Good point and insight about the peer-review model. I was missing the point of answering to the editor

Oh, I now realize that this may be part of the explanation of why many authors address the response without mentioning reviewers directly, as in "We thank the reviewer for X" vs "Thank you for X". Even so, in many journals in my field, the author response will typically be forwarded as-is to the reviewers for a second round. I thought it was out of politeness, but it may be the reason. (Note that this is distinct from the question of reviewers writing reports in the third person -- that question has been discussed on academia.SE already)

Often in replies, you're writing to the editor, but sending a strong message to reviewer 2.

One practical aspect in addition to the other answers:
One effect of perpetual thanking is that it increases the chance that the editor and reviewers think that you have done something. This particularly applies to the lazy reviewer, who already is positively inclined towards your manuscript and just briefly rushes through your comments and at best checks particular concerns that were important to them.
Now, using this is a double-edged sword:

On the one hand, this may appease certain reviewers and editors as described above. But then, so should thoroughly addressing each and every comment.

On the other hand, some editors and reviewers have become accustomed to this approach and are thus may be more skeptical of replies employing it.

I am clearly in the second camp due to my experience (beware of small sample size and confirmation bias): I observed a strong overlap between revisions where the authors overly thank me for every remark in the reply and those where a considerable portion of comments was not addressed at all, be it because the authors did not understand them, could not address or rebut the criticism, or did not want to weaken their claims. I expect that this is often intentional.
For a blatant example, if I point out a minor typo in your manuscript (the kind that copy editors cannot fix), and you reply with a simple “fixed”, I am inclined to believe you. However, if you spend several lines on thanking me for this, I will become skeptical and check whether you actually fixed it. (And yes, I was already rightfully skeptical in such cases.)

Interesting. I didn't think it could be perceived this way and it feels like an additional reason to avoid it (small sample size, yes, but still)


text:
Finding it hard to find a Master's thesis advisor in mathematics, all the professors I've asked say they are too busy
I attend a competitive mathematics department that is very active in research.  The downside of this is that it is hard to get any professor to agree to work on a Master's thesis with.
I have tried asking about 5 professors - all say the same thing, "thank you for your interest in wanting to work with me.  I'm afraid I have to say no, because I am very busy."
To be honest, though, I did ask the top researchers in our dept.  Partly because I should take that risk for my own career benefits, and partly because I just do not know much about the younger, less established professors / post-docs, people whom I am guessing I would have a better chance to work with.
What are some general recommendations from this community?  Keep trying to work with a tenured, well-known professor, or better to hedge my bets and just find someone who will say "yes, you can work on a project with me."?

It sounds like your department doesn't have enough supervisory capacity for all the masters students. It's not an uncommon problem, I'm afraid.

Does your department offer a non-thesis option in the master's program?  Is the expectation that most MS students will not complete a thesis?

What subfields are you dealing with?  In some areas, the argument can be made that an MS student simply wouldn't have enough knowledge to contribute meaningfully to the state-of-the-art.  In other areas (e.g., combinatorics, numerical methods) the research frontier is more accessible with fewer years of graduate courses.

What have you done to establish your own credentials in a way that would encourage top faculty to work with you?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How do professors spend their NSF grants?
If a professor receives $200,000 as the PI (not co-PI) from the NSF, how many PhD students can he/she take as Research Assistant (with yearly salary of $18,000)? I am asking about the most usual cases. How much money does he/she need to handover to the department? How does this budget usually work? Does the professor also need to pay the tuition of the funded PhD students? Or does the department pay it? Very interested to know.

@ChrisWhite Among the offers I received (almost all TA-funded positions though, not RA), $18k was on the low side but not an outlier. Especially from schools located in small college towns with low costs of living.

@ChrisWhite the example you gave is an outlier.  Almost all graduate students are paid less than the NSF GRFP rate.  $18k is too low though.

I am sorry to say that we pay our graduate student TAs less than $18K, and in effect significantly less for those whom we cannot (due to lack of funds) provide a full tuition waiver.

It is very common for engineering research assistants to get a yearly salary of around $18-20k.

Ficticious but reasonably realistic example; YMMV, sometimes significantly:
Fall/Spring:

Stipend: $9,000/semester
Tuition: $7,000/semester @ 50% off
Health insurance: $1,000/semester
F&A overhead: $5,400/semester @ 60%

Summer:

Stipend: $9,000
Tuition: $0
Health insurance: $1,000
F&A overhead: $5,400 @ 60%

Total: $60,200 per student*year. In the example above F&A overhead is 60% of stipend only, with no overhead on tuition or health insurance. Tuition is 50% off because it's an overhead-bearing grant.
So your $200,000 would be 1 student over 3 years plus some leftover for PI Summer salary, travel, misc. expenses, etc.

This is in line with what we estimate at my university, though the balance between bins is a bit different.

Your answer does not actually use the asker's suggested salary.  You might want to revise.  Your numbers may be more realistic.

@AnonymousPhysicist: I agree; I used $18,000 for Fall+Spring because it is more realistic. Will change accordingly.

Thank you for the cost breakdown. Is it solely the professor's responsibility to pay for the tuition? Like in my school the the letter of tuition waivers come from the graduate school. Is it the professor's fund which goes to the grad school through the department?

If you are a graduate research assistant, I'd say yes, however other universities (e.g., public universities, grad schools with a large endowment, etc.) could operate differently. You could always ask your adviser and point to this discussion.

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


text:
Should you contact professors at universities you plan on applying to for graduate studies in mathematics?
I am currently applying to graduate school in mathematics. In the last year of undergraduate study I have read many papers and books by experienced mathematicians, and with the help of my honours advisor, I have a list of potential PhD supervisors at universities in the USA and Europe.
I am wondering if it is good form to email mathematicians (or more generally any faculty) at graduate schools you are applying to, just to assert your general interests and/or goals to work with them.
I'm definitely not planning on spamming hundreds of mathematicians with a generic email, but there are a handful who I think I can say a few words to.
Is this type of think considered annoying? Does it help the application process in anyway? Does anyone else do this?

Related: Is it unwise to contact the professor directly before getting admitted to a program in US?


text:
Can I rewrite sentences after my article has been accepted, when reviewing proofs?
My paper got accepted in AEÜ. I want to make some changes in my article. Can I rewrite some sentences when reviewing the proofs from the journal?

It's not clear at what stage of publication you are. Have you sent a "galley proof"? Has the issue come out already? If not, how much time do you have left? The answer might depend on that somewhat.

The key word in your question is "some."
If "some" refers to a small number (less than about 10), and the "rewrites" are relatively minor, this should not be a problem. On the other hand, if you have an extensive list of changes spanning multiple pages, and the changes affect the interpretation and argumentation of the article, then the publisher will likely balk at making all of the changes without obtaining editorial approval

In my experience, most journals send the proofs with instructions saying that you should only make changes where errors have been introduced during copy-editing or typesetting.  That is, you should correct the journal's errors, not your own.  Nevertheless, I've occasionally spotted a few (fewer than 5, even in a long paper) small errors of my own, proposed corrections, and never had any trouble.  If I found errors of my own on every second page, I'd be very embarrassed and I'm not sure how publishers would react.

Previously, I also did the same. For a minor change, it is valid (specially for text) to do some corrections in the paper. However, change in any form of result must be made only after getting approval from the Editor-in-chief of the journal.
Hope, my comments will help you!

If the article has been accepted my understanding that it is very poor form to change anything that is not grammar/spelling etc.
If you change the meaning of a sentence in any way, even without meaning to, you may change the interpretation of the work in a small way - therefore this is no longer the work that has been accepted, but a different document.

This is maybe more fastidious than necessary.  I've made changes in galley proofs like fixing typos in equations (which technically change the meaning), rewriting one or two awkward sentences, etc, and nobody has ever objected.

@poppyseeds: The relevant criterion is that there should be no significant changes to the content of the article. Minor changes in sentence structure, etc., would not cause a problem.

In the old, dark days of strict page limits, it was not uncommon to have to go and prune a bit to get the length down by a few lines (word counts only so accurate with respect to the typeset version). I usually accomplished this by finding the paragraphs with the shortest hanging lines, and snipped a word or two out to make the paragraph one line shorter. No editor ever complained, but no meaning was ever lost either.


text:
Should I "offer" something when asking for a letter of recommendation?
I'm an undergraduate and currently applying to summer research programs that ask for letters of recommendation. Last summer, I did research at a university with a professor who I'm planning on asking for a letter. He mentioned how he would like more people who are studying computer science to apply to his summer program, so I was thinking of telling him after the request for the letter that as a token of my appreciation, I would be happy to encourage people in the computer science department to apply to the program.
Another professor who I was considering asking is thinking of teaching a course in the fall that I want to take. I was also thinking of asking him following the request for the letter of recommendation about whether he is still planning to teach the course and that I would like to take that course with him in the fall.
My intention is to give something to get something even if both professors would most likely write me a letter regardless of whether or not I "offered" them something in return. Are these things that most professors would appreciate, or do they sound too business-like and Machiavellian (in that they are part of an email asking for a letter of recommendation)? Should I just straight up ask for the letters?

Just straight up ask for the letter.  There is no need to "pay back" with some favor.  Writing letters of recommendation is part of a supervisor's job.  However, it would be wise to include in your email:

Position description so they can describe the most applicable aspects of your prior work in their letter
Ask if they would be willing to write a "positive letter of recommendation" because if it is not positive, they should not write it
Information about: where to send the letter, to whom it should be addressed, and the date when the letter is due
Ask if they would like you to send a reminder email 2 weeks and also 2 days prior to the letter of recommendation due date

Additionally, if it has been some time since you spoke to this person or you do not know if they remember you, include your latest CV or Resume with your email. You should never have to draft your own letter of recommendation.  I highly look down on this practice, though you may encounter it.

The underlying thread in this (excellent) answer is "Make it easy for the prof to write the letter." I agree with that SO MUCH. One more thing possibly worth including: a quick description of major classwork (big paper, role in a big group project, that kind of thing) you did in the prof's classes.

@D.Salo, add what classes you took with them, and experience TAing.

I think it's also better to ask from professors who you have worked with in the past. Strangers who don't know you don't have a motive to write a good letter or even write it at all.

@D.Salo Agreed. I would add (5) Send them a nice draft of your statement of purpose/personal application essay. That way your prof would know where are you coming from and what motivates you to apply.

I wouldn't include anything that smelled of a tit-for-tat in your request. It's unbecoming of you and insulting to the professor.

Offering something in return is a bad choice -- it smells of bribery and is insulting. Even worse, it's an insufficient bribe (not that I condone bribery, but if you do it, at least do it right). Seriously, in a way, the prof is vouching for you. You can't and shouldn't pay for that -- first no price is high enough and second, paying would completely remove any value of the recommendation (the person recommends you for your attitude/skills/etc, not because you did this person a favor).
However, do what you wanted to do for the two profs (and yourself) anyway, just don't tell them about it. Don't even hint about it.
This means:

Recommend the summer program to others, but don't tell the prof about it and don't tell the students that you (also) did it to thank the prof. Do it because the summer program will likely be very well done and deserves more participants (if you think so; if you don't, then don't recommend the program -- you can't squander the time of other students to "reciprocate" a favor). If the students tell the prof that you recommended the summer program to them, that's fine, but don't force it. Telling the students to tell the prof that you recommended the program would make you appear very manipulative.
Same with the course. Don't ask the prof whether he will give the course, find it out via the website. Don't announce your participation just take part in the course. And do a good job.

And if the apparent lack of reciprocity still bugs you, pay it forward. Come time, you will be in a position of doing something for others, perhaps including writing letters of recommendation. And if the person is good enough to deserve a recommendation, then do it.

To take a slightly different tack from other commenters: I completely agree that you should not make it sound like you are trying to trade a favor for the letter.  That is not how things work, and would come across as insulting (or more likely, just silly).
That said, your professor, like you, is an ape, and likes to be groomed.  There's nothing wrong with combining your request with positive sentiments that will have the professor thinking favorable thoughts while also thinking about you.  So in the first case you might say something like "I found last summer to be such a great experience that I'm applying for similar programs again for this summer..." and then do the brass tacks as Sydney Everhart says.  Similarly, with the professor in your department, you can write out the email, and then add  "P.S. I heard you were thinking about teaching course X next fall.  It sounded pretty interesting.  Are you still planning on it?"
Don't expect any remarkable results, but I don't think it's problematic to do so.

Downvoted. Flattery has no place in a reference request. It is fine to like a course and to tell the prof so; as an independent thread. Linking flattery or other micro-favours to a reference request is very bad tact, though, if not worse. If profs agree to write a reference for you it is because they should be convinced of your ability/suitability. Reference writing is tedious, but the writers know it is important - any serious and professional reference writer will do that with no rewards attached if they believe in you.

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


text:
Germany how to change PhD visa before defense to a working permit visa?
I have at the moment a visa for my PhD valid until 30.06.2018, but my defense will be in the end of July or middle of August. This week I have received a job offer (full-time) and I would like to change my present visa to a working permit Visa in order to start working and also wait for my defense. Is it possible? Does somebody know which documents are necessary for that?
Thanks a lot for the help and attention.
SOLVED:
As I always expect, I like to see final answers to questions I look for in the Internet. At first I would suggest you to look the answers for my question, they helped me a lot. Finally I needed, the bachelor diplom translated to german, the form of the blue card filled, the working contract, a form written by the employer which describes what work will be done and a photo.
I went to the KVR on a Tuesday and in this day I could not solve much because It was necessary a permission from the Bundesagentur für Arbeit (https://www.arbeitsagentur.de/privatpersonen). This permission was requested on Tuesday and I received an answer on Thursday evening. Friday I went back with these documents again and could finally receive the Bluecard.
An important tip: check if your institution is in the Anabin database (https://www.arbeitsagentur.de/privatpersonen). If it is not, it means that Germany does not know this institution and you will need to do some additional bureaucracy. For further questions, ask here and I will answer asap. =)

Did you ask your university's international office?

Actually I asked in the KVR itself when I did the last visa until 30.06. They said I could change the visa once I had a job-offer. However it was not completely clear If i would need to have finished the PhD or which documents were necessary. I think it is possible, however how to do it I still do not know.

My (limited) understanding is that a job offer is a job offer. The state authorities don't care, if you need a PhD for your job or not. If the company is willing to hire you even if you do not have a formal PhD yet, and provides you an offer, you are good. (This happens quite often, even for the positions where you'd need a PhD, as companies tend to believe that if the thesis is submitted or close to completion then you'd also defend it eventually.)

Thanks Oleg. Yes that is exactly my situation. I am about to submit the thesis and I will have no much to do until the defense but even worse, my visa will expire in this time. Therefore I thought that beginning a job would be the better solution for both things. I really hope that this is ok.

@Oleg Lobachev Authorities DO care. Depending on the field, there could be different types or requirements for a residence permit. If OP doesn't fulfill regular requirements, he could use his benefits as a graduate of a German university to get a job anyway. Furthermore, having the degree will affect what happens when the first residence permit expires, again due to benefits as a graduate of a German university.

Thanks @AndrejaKo for your message, but I could not get your point clearly. I do not have yet the degree, I will have it soon and that is what I am worried about. Of course I think authorities care, the question is since I have at the moment a visa as researcher (§20) may I change it to another one once I have a job offer ?? And do this WITHOUT defending my PhD yet (I can have a confirmation from the Uni that i will finish the PhD really soon - end of July). Just to make the situation clearer I am finishing the PhD in physics and the work is as Software Developer.

@Luiz Carneiro I was trying to explain that, from the point of view of authorities, it's not as simple as having or not having a job offer and that having PhD can matter, in some cases. If your particular case, since software developers are needed (so called Mangelberuf), you could probably get a residence permit as a worker in any case. But if you were doing a PhD in let's say sport, then you'd have to rely on the benefits as a graduate. For the second part of your comment, I'll write an answer.

Under certain circumstances, it is possible to change one visa type for another. However, immigration law is tricky, so the first thing you should do is check with your local Ausländeramt, who will be able to tell you what is allowed and will have a list of the necessary documentation to apply for a visa, but at a minimum you should expect to need everything you had to provide to apply for the student visa, plus a copy of the job offer. You may need to get a "certificate of good conduct" from your Bürgeramt, but I'm not certain about this.
One of the things to keep in mind is that there is sort of a catch-22 involved in the visa process: technically, the visa isn't valid until you get the job, and you can't get the job until you have the visa. So the job offer is the "promise" that the employer will hire you if the visa is granted.

♦ But catch 22 part isn't actually so complicated. For example, when I got my first job, in my contract, it said that I'm supposed to have a valid residence permit on the first working day, and if I don't then the contract is annulled. The Ausländeramt used that to issue me a residence permit allowing work on the first work day of my contract. The only important point was to have the first working day far enough into the future, so that the Ausländeramt could actually finish processing the paperwork.

@aeismail thanks a lot for your answer. Yes I need a bunch of documents. Everything that you cited plus a "written declaration" by the employer. I do not understand why the contract is not already a written declaration from the employer. But ok. I will ask there for official informations (not that I start collecting the documents without needing them) and then start collecting everything. Thanks for your answer, it is in this direction for sure.

It may exist a problem. I went to the Kreisverwaltungsreferat today and got the list of documents (couldn't speak to anyone). The list says:
-University Degree or Diploma (with a certified German Translation and in some cases a forma acknowledgement)

For applicants with a foreign degree: a binding job offer. Your employer needs to fill out the form called "Ausländerbeschäftigung".
-For applicants with a German university degree, a work contract.

All that I have now is a confirmation from the uni saying that  I will finish the PhD soon and I am not sure if it is enough.

Since your occupation is in need, you should be able to to switch your residence permit to a working one.
I know people who were in the similar situation, that is waiting for the Master's thesis defense to complete, with a job offer in hand. Their applications for a Blue Card were approved, based on the undergraduate degree.

Thanks a lot AndrejaKo. I believe on it, but as you may know (and it seems even better than me), things are a bit strict in Germany and It is good to know exactly how things work in order to make this bureaucracies as simple as possible.

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


text:
I applied for a PhD but was rejected after the interview. How do I request feedback?
I interviewed for an advertised PhD and got an email thanking me for interviewing but advising that I wasn't successful. They encouraged me to apply for PhDs at other colleges and their college. I have actually already applied to another advertised PhD with the same supervisor (who knows I have applied), but don't know whether they just didn't like me as a candidate or did like me but had another better candidate. If the former, I won't be considered for PhD2 but if the latter I may be.
This was my first PhD interview and I want some feedback, whether it is about my performance at interview (too nervous, talked too much), or other factors affecting my rejection (lack of research experience, average scores in a particular module that required high scores).
How do I politely request this feedback?

This is the kind of conversation that is important to have for your professional growth, but also difficult to have. This is not something that will be done "on-the-record," for obvious reasons, and the answer may be as simple as "there was another candidate who was more highly qualified." (This is very often the case!)
But if you'd like to ask more details about the interview, email the contact person for the position, and ask if you can talk by phone about how the interview went, and if they can offer you any constructive feedback about how to improve your application for future openings.

It is appropriate for the panel to give a feedback after your interview. therefore, it is sensible to ask for a feedback. I also get rejected for my first PhD interview too, even though I received my interview feedback, I also has the feeling the potential supervisor doesn't like me much as she looked quite stern throughout the whole interview compared to other member.


text:
Grade assignment methods to make learning efficient
The way a grade is assigned in a course influences the way students study which in turn influences their gain from the course.
I want to focus on ways to assign grades which aim to eventually increase the students' gain from the course (in contrast with grade assignment methods which try to single out the most talented students).
I'll start with the questions:

What are such grade assignment methods?
Are there texts/papers/other resources discussing this subject?

An answer should address issues such as: memorization vs. creativity, the temptation to get help from external sources while doing homework, spoonfeeding vs. self-learning, etc.
I will now give my own example of grade assignment components:

Excercises which are graded regularly throught the semester
Exercises for self-learning with a solutions manual provided
Quizes during the semester
Strictly technical questions in quizes/exams
Questions in quizes/exams which mostly require to repeat what was taught in class
Questions in quizes/exams which require some creativity
Student presentations
Practical assignments (programming/labs)
Interviews (oral exams)

I believe all of the above may have a place in some courses with the specificed goal in mind and would like to get new ideas for grading components, for how to combine them, and to know whether any written work exists which tries to answer this question.
I am thinking mostly of courses aimed towards math and CS students and mostly about senior undergraduates, but I do not want to limit the question to these subjects and this level of students.

Perhaps the best way is not to assign grades at all to prevent substitution of intrinsic motivation by extrinsic motivation. Providing feedback is still essential. Alas, usually this is not an option.

As a recent graduate in CS I can only provide my experience with grade assignment methods I came across during my studies.
I think the worst method is to let the grade solely depend on one exam at the end of the semester. The students will most likely put no effort in learning for this exam during the semester and will instead invest a couple of days before the exam to repeat the lecture's content.
The most promising method I came across was using (bi-)weekly assignments out of which the student had to reach at least 50% of the points. This way, they have to focus on the topic in order to solve the assignments to be able to take part in the exam.
In addition to this method, some lecturers awarded students with more than 80% of the overall points a bonus in the exam, i.e. they will obtain (let's say) 10 points bonus within the exam. I for myself think this really motivated me to invest time into the assignments and consequently into the lecture content.
Finally, there was one lecture where students could pose questions with possible answers in an online learning platform. The other students could use these questions (after review by an assistant or professor) to learn for the final exam. Students posing very good questions gained a bonus for the exam, similar to the above approach.

Posing questions as a grade component is a new and interesting idea for me.

A good place to begin research on grading methods is under such topics as "formative assessment", "educational assessment/evaluation" and more general headings would be "evaluation" and "educational measurement". From memory, there have been favorable results from formative assessments given periodically throughout a course session. Such tests or quizzes help provide numerous chances for students to demonstrate their learning, as well as giving themselves feedback on how well they are or are not progressing.  Finding out early that the subject is beyond them is always helpful, as is giving the more capable opportunities to improve over time. There is little merit in giving single, end of course exams or projects, assuming that you value students' opinions and their mastery of the course objectives.
Note that there are a variety of alternatives to "tests" these days, many of which can provide students with the chance to show their learning way beyond the mastery of the facts.

I've used several Pedagogical Patterns in my courses, namely Grade it again, Sam that is part of Some Pedagogical Patterns. They're oriented towards computer-science curriculum, but could be adapted to other areas.


text:
What are some considerations that I should be aware of when it comes to creating a code package?
I am performing a wide survey on algorithms and models on a current hot topic in machine learning that I have been taking part in contributing recently. Many of the algorithms/models proposed in literature have proven to be efficient and robust. Moreover, these papers (including my contribution) are still relatively new (published 2022 and onward), and I have been planning to create a Python package that implements these models and algorithms in a unified fashion.
This project will be accessible on GitHub for everyone to download and implement. My main concern is how to properly cite their work? And what are the proper means to take in order to request permission from the respective authors of the various models to implement their models in my python package. Of course, they already have their code available on GitHub, but I am not interested in duplicating the same code in my project.
The reason for this confusion is because I understand that researchers sometimes publish a paper on arXiv regarding their python package, which includes the usual citations. However, I've seen users that made a python package and only included links to various websites instead of properly citing papers.

Who are you? A PhD student, professor?

I am about to enter as a first year master student in my academic institution. @AzorAhai-him-

Then putting something on ArXiV would probably be a good idea

You don't need permission to use published algorithms in your code. Academic ethics requires only that you give credit when you use someone else's ideas.
Cite the papers the same way you'd cite papers in a manuscript. I'd recommend citing them directly in the script that implements the algorithm, again in a "readme"-style document that describes your whole package and the inspiration, and in any publication you write for the software package (you could cite them as you write about what algorithms the software uses).
Using someone else's code is different, and more like if you are reusing a figure from a paper. The specific code or text is likely protected by copyright, and whether and how you can use it is entirely dependent on the terms of the license that the code is released with. You would need permission for any uses not allowed under existing licenses.
It sounds like you don't plan to use any of their code.

Thank you very much for your detailed answer. I am now considering your suggestion by citing the paper directly in the code and through a read me text file. I will not be using their code implement, rather my implementation of their algorithms as you have mentioned. So, I will proceed with your suggestion.

@SPARSE Another consideration is which license you want/can use for your package. It may depend on whether you or your institution is the copyright holder and what their policy may be in that respect. Some funding bodies have policies that may also have to be taken into account when making that choice.

@SPARSE in my published packages, I tend to make the citation of the original paper obvious: if you are using classes, implement a cite() method that outputs text/bibtex. Otherwise, have a big general function that does it.


text:
How to manage inconsistent behaviour and communication from a supervisor?
I've been in this lab for a year (one year Master's finished and three years to go in PhD in marine ecology) and I thought my PI was great (chill, kind and supportive) despite forgetting absolutely everything, never meeting our deadlines, etc., frequently leaving super early or not showing up for days and almost never being seen in the lab. I'm fine with this but deep down I became convinced that he doesn't care about his job or science that much, sorry. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that by accident he knows that.
A few days before Christmas I'm still coming in and he wanted to have a meeting earlier than usual, I said I might be late because I'd moved back home 2hr drive away. I came in 20 minutes late in the end and very apologetic but he seemed happy with me. I told him that I'm leaving super early to pick up my grandparents who live ages away to drive them home for Christmas, I had to finish an experiment and show him the results but he offered to do that tomorrow afternoon instead. So I left early as I said. A few hours later he sent a nasty angry email that he came back from lunch and I didn't see me in the lab and I was also late that day and I didn't communicate (?), I was also late some other time before this, therefore I have an attitude and the conclusion was that although he is ok with me, no one else would ever tolerate that.
It's very rare if I'm ever late and recently I worked nights and weekends for a month to finish two months' worth of work which had to be done before Christmas and I thought he's meant to be happy with my progress. And I literally emailed and told him about both being late and leaving early, he didn't say anything against that. So this email really shocked me (it didn't sound like him at all) and I expected an apologetic email that he had a hard day, etc. but no. I showed up the next day and he's all happy with me again pretending that nothing happened. At one point I tried to explain something, he suddenly interrupted me with "see- you're just not communicating!"
I don't know how to interpret this but I don't like how he seems to bottle up little grudges and then spill them out in a mean email just before the holidays so that he won't have to deal with me for a few weeks. I know I'm socially inept but I try my best and mean well, his own communication and manners were never exemplar and this projection just scares me. Has anyone gone through this? And how would you respond to such an email?
It is technically possible to change advisors but I've heard it's complicated and my funder may not approve. I'd prefer to avoid that, I feel as if it's fixable I just want to approach this correctly.

To people thinking of adding a comment: there are a lot of answers here already. If your comment is for improvement or suggestions for the question that's okay but if you want to write a partial answer please don't, find the answers that you agree with and upvote the ones you find useful.

You've written that you don't want to switch supervisors, so I will add some advice on "fixing" things, but I want to highlight some things that sounded alarm bells first. In your description, your PI is:

forgetting absolutely everything, never meeting our deadlines etc, frequently leaving super early or not showing up for days [..] I became convinced that he doesn't care about his job or science that much

This does not sound like someone for whom you have professional and scientific respect. Are the pros of working with this specific person outweighing the cons? Moreover,

he sent a nasty angry email [..] therefore I have an attitude and the conclusion was that although he is ok with me, no one else would ever tolerate that.

(bolding mine) This does not sound like appropriate treatment. Even in the hypothetical parallel universe where you flubbed up and didn't communicate your absence properly, this gesture of putting you down while praising themselves for putting up with you(?) is uncalled for.

his own communication and manners were never exemplar and this projection just scares me.

This does not bode well for the next three years. The holidays are approaching, maybe your PI is under a lot of stress- sure, fair enough. But  there are going to be plenty of stressful moments in the next few years. When planning to move forward, assume that your supervisor will respond disproportionately to minor issues whenever they are under pressure. It might still be worth it for you to keep working with them; I can't answer that for you. But don't assume that you can fundamentally change their behaviour and working patterns.

Alright, assuming you decide to stay, what can you do?

Improve your communication skills

You labeled yourself as "socially inept": if that was referring to something along the lines of neurodivergence, your university might have support services that you can access. They might also have trained people (perhaps more along mental health lines) who you can talk to about how to respond to "nasty email(s)". Does your university offer Soft Skills courses on personal development? Perhaps they've got one on conflict resolution.

Optimise communication channels

I don't work in your field, but the experimentalists I do know in mine often have some kind of shared calendar or scheduling system for labs. If your supervisor receives a lot of emails (most do), there might be a better way to arrange this information sharing. In a more calm moment (after the holidays), ask your supervisor explicitly about how they want to be communicated with: emails? messages? meetings, how often?

Boundaries

You can't "fix" this particular incident, or your supervisor's general attitudes. In general, you're also not going to win arguments with people about their behavioural patterns- you're going to have to deal with issues when they come up, in a consistent way. What you can practice is to decide for yourself what you will let slide (probably this email) and what crosses a line for you personally. Similar things apply to working late/weekends. Plan ahead how you're going to respond, and then (most importantly) go through with it. E.g. if they make a comment about how only they can tolerate you, have a prepared response like "That was a really hurtful thing to say, please don't speak to me like that." Because at this point the conversation is no longer about professional feedback: it's an insult. Sometimes people overstep in the heat of the moment: this gives them a chance to back down. If you asking to be spoken to in a respectful manner results in more rage? Time for an ombudsperson.

Document everything, and sincerely consider talking to an ombudsperson

Keep all the emails; if there's a verbal incident, write it down. If your university offers some form of mediation, that's also something to look into.
tl;dr You can't fundamentally fix anything, but you can be proactive in improving communication, getting support from your university and pushing back whenever your PI behaves inappropriately.

I think this answer is helpful at general workplace too. Especially, having a prepared sentence ready in repeat adverse situations - meaning having a mental framework to fall back when it emotion runs high and it is difficult to think logically.

Consider, at least, that this is a person under a lot of stress, perhaps for things you have no way of knowing about. You might be able to speak, informally, with someone else who might be able to confirm that.
A mental health issue might be another possibility, say, an inability to juggle a lot of short term memory items (not a diagnosis, just making uninformed guesses). But, a department head or other faculty member might help you understand.
My suggestion for action, however, is to let it slide off for a while later to see if it is a short term issue or something more serious. You can't put it off forever, though.
Also consider, perhaps, that the more important question is whether you are on track to graduation or if this is negatively affecting your chances, not just making you feel bad. In that case, you may need to find a different path.

In theory your answer sounds great, but when I think back about my own PhD, one of the main reasons it went so terribly bad is because I let things slide too long before realising my supervisor did in fact not have a "short term issue".

I think ''letting things slide'' is not the way forward in this situation.  I tried this before and the problem just got worse until I actually did something about it and reported my supervisor to someone higher up who was in charge of well-being of PhD students.  You can let these things go a few times but then you do have to actually do something about it.

The answer is good and could be improved by including suggestion to document everything. This is almost obvious, and other answers have that, too, but it would make it more self-contained.

@Tom that is a valid concern - I know a student who tolerated an unstable and useless supervisor for the first few months of PhD until he decided to change his supervisor, the first thing his review panel said was "why didn't you tell anyone earlier?" (but they were supportive and he did move to a different lab). Perhaps it pays off to have a casual chat with a member of the review panel, at least to make them aware but hopefully to get good advice, especially if they were on the panel of the previous student(s) from your lab and know your supervisor from other student's perspective.

Reading your post is very concerning. Based on what you've said I am concerned for you and your supervisor. Others have provided some very good advice. I'd like to add that you should bring this to the attention of someone within your institution. At my institution (Australia) we have various levels of potions with different degrees of responsibility regarding Higher Research Degree programs and the candidates within them. These include Research Degree Coordinators, Prof. Leads in Research Education, Deans of Research, Exec Deans. These people can be invaluable in helping sort out such matters. Ultimately, you should have institutional support services in place and my advice is to access them. I sincerely wish you all the best.

You are shocked. And rightly so.
We know only your side of the story. And I think you are honest and clear about what you do. There starts to be a gap between what you do and how it is perceived by your supervisor. In fact (and rightly so), you have some doubt about your own ("I know I'm socially inept but I try my best and mean well") ... which is right and fine, for a normal human being.
The other side of the story is not known, and unfortunately it does not need to be known. There is what you do, what your supervisor does, how you perceive what you do and how you perceive what your supervior does ... and there is what your supervisor perceives about what you do (not enough, never) and how they perceive what they do (they are the bright star that were negated the luck of getting professorship at Imperial, but they still managed to get a position at UoA because of their brightness).
Unfortunately, there is a literature on bad human traits that facilitate success (success to be considered as = reaching apical positions) in various contexts, either industry or academia (see here for a non-peer reviewed start on narcisism and ego being a proxy for success).
You see the behavior of your PI and then you think they are flexible and easy going. Your observations are right, your assumptions are wrong.
Do not expect that they perceive you as a good worker ... how could they: they are not so often in the lab! In fact the one time you are not there, they were there and they got angry at you.
Do not expect that they have the same standards for students/PhDs/coworkers as they have for themselves, quite on the contrary!
They rarely show up, they are late at meeting, they are hands off ... but they expect you to work as a slave in the lab.
Nothing new, there was even a question here in Academia:SE that I cannot find about a similar advisor in the UK (maybe they are the same person? you hope so ... I am pessimistic and I recognize this as a common albeit not dominant trait in the academic-succesful people. And that other question was about engineering something).
Unfortunately, there is no way to make them realize how profoundly bad is this way of thinking, holding other people to a much different standard than themselves (in short: narcisisim).
Only a sudden health problem, or a big scandal at the university may make them reconsider their behavior. And you are just a PhD, you have no leverage to make them change their attitude.
The good apsect of the whole story is that this random act of expressing latent grudges and conflicts tell you one (big) thing, i.e. how really is your supervisor. Forget about the chill, kind and supportive face, they are the narcisistic person that for a stupid things spit out such a malignant email. Be glad that you did not yet discover the unempathic peer that goes hand in hand with a narcisistic person.Can you imagine if you had a "bigger" problem (think it big, post-natal depression, cancer, loss of relevant family member) and you had to face such a mail? Exactly, at least now you know you likely cannot count on them to be supportive when you are really in rough seas.
In short and to survive the situation: ignore the tone of their emails and communications, focus on what you do, find a collaboration in another university/research centre, colaborate with other academics in your dept/uni (other as "other personalities" ... they are less likely to be on the same page of your supervisor, even the well-knonw grumpy person may be a better person ... at least they are coherent) and ... re-assess your situation in 1-2 years.
Final note: please remember that abandoning a PhD is no stain on your CV, you will learn and you already learned a ton of things and how to perform research. Additionally, if you finish a PhD you have a marginally high chance of getting an academic position (let's say %5) vs a 0%. And academia on its own counts for less than 10% of the open, relevant working positions in the world. So if everything goes south and you are forced to completely abandon your PhD because contingent boundary conditions ... it may look like the end of the world, but it is not a big deal. Not even if your goal is to become a succesful (empathic and different from your supervisor) academic.
Good luck!

If this is a case of narcissism, doing the nasty stuff by email is likely to be a deliberate choice: keep the target sweet by being nice in person where nothing's recorded, while building a paper trail of nasty emails for when you need to show someone else how incompetent the target is.

Hang in there and wait until a bit later to broach this
Based on what you've written, my guess would be that your supervisor is dealing with some exogenous source of stress/grief that has led to a mood change.  These things happen from time to time when dealing with colleagues in professional settings.  In particular, when a person lashes out in some way but then is sweet-as-pie the next time you see them, and acts like nothing happened, that is a fairly strong sign of exogenous circumstances that are causing them stress.
What you've described here is one bad experience in an otherwise good candidature (albeit a short one so far).  Consequently, my advice would be to hang in there for now and see if you can restore your previous good dynamic with this supervisor.  Try to jump through the hoops he sets you and show that you are committed and compliant with his instructions.  Don't worry too much about his email for now --- if he was acting happy with you the next day, and pretending like it didn't happen, that is a sign that he probably thinks he overreacted but does not wish to apologise or discuss the matter further.  Later on, when calm is restored and all parties are feeling better, you might then decide you want to broach the topic and tell your supervisor that you were surprised by his email and see if he is willing to discuss and resolve what happened.
You might be right that your supervisor is the type of person who bottles up little grudges and then explodes when they reach some critical magnitude.  Alternatively, he could just be a man dealing with some source of exogenous stress/grief that you are not aware of.  In either case, you can make a holistic assessment of who good he has been to work with over the course of your candidature and use this to decide if you want to continue to work with him or seek an alternative supervisor.

Or it may be a personality issue. Or the supervisor may make accumulative mistakes themselves which then spill over and lead them to project on the OP. Somehow, the scenario feels like that latter one.

Thank you very much for your answer. My first thought was exactly as you described - that he's going through some tough times with his family etc. But if that were true he'd normally mention that he's been particularly stressed and apologise afterwards. Lashing out due to stress and deciding not to apologise afterwards is pretty dire communication and attitude on his side, and on top of that he says that I'm the one who refuses to communicate which is not true. I don't want to know about his personal issues but the problem is that if he cared he would have handled this in a more mature way.

Focus on finding solutions and improving communication moving forward.

Set Boundaries
Clearly communicate your availability and workload.
Discuss expectations for communication and deadlines collaboratively.
If needed, propose specific communication methods like scheduled meetings or progress reports.
Consider Resources
Seek support from trusted colleagues, mentors, or academic advisors.
Utilize campus resources like student counseling or ombuds offices for confidential guidance.
Explore avenues for switching PIs if the situation remains untenable.
Document Interactions
Maintain a record of key communications and agreements with your PI for future reference.

Remember, you deserve a supportive and respectful work environment. Don't hesitate to advocate for yourself and seek solutions, while acknowledging the possibility of miscommunication.

No guarantees that this applies, but it may be helpful.
About 16 years ago I got a 'dream' design and consulting job as a result of winning a design competition. I designed electronics in NZ, communicated with US client and Canadian industrial experts in Canada and factory in China and went to China numerous time for factory visits, visiting suppliers etc.
I 1st met the client in person on my first China factory visit. Prior to that he had been affable and delighted at my proposals. By midday on the first day I felt like going back to NZ. I wasn't going to, but ... . It rapidly got better from then on.
Over the next + years I became used to a very familiar pattern. We usually got on very well. But: The client would switch between 3 modes:

Normal bright enthusiastic intelligent push-his-product business man. Happy with my performance and designs.
Super hyper enthused we can do anything, the sky's the limit, go go go ... Ecstatically happy with my performance and designs.
Deep depressive despair, the people we are about to meet are going to steal my ideas, why did you do that, you are not working as you should, why are you going to Xian (like he said I should 8 hours before, as he said I'd done all that he wanted and there was no need to stay.), get back and talk to the factory ..., the design changes I approved yesterday cost too much and I'm scrapping them. ... .  Throw in suicidal in the last mode.

A real roller coaster. Very interesting. Lots of fun. I NEVER knew what the next session was going to bring.
A psychiatrist friend said it sounded like "short cycle manic depressive" See Bipolar Disorder. He noted that dealing with such people was diabolical :-).
He was a nice guy, usually. I liked him. I wish for his sake that he wasn't as he was.
Your man does not sound exactly the same BUT there may be enough similarities to be useful. Or not.

If this is a single or a very rare occurence, just move on.
We are pretty much short on ideal persons to work with (others are forced to work with us, so it is somewhat fair, isn't it?). People do have bad days (or weeks, or months, unfortunately).
They may have failed to receive or read your email or they may be just feeling bad for unrelated reasons.
It is a thing when a person consistently fails to control their mood-induced behavior. This is pretty much a show-stopper.
But for a single occurence in an otherwise productive cooperation - come on, allow them to be a human.

I have exactly same story!
Its very pity that "serious" people behave like that, like offended and trying to get rid of you. Unfortunately, sometimes we are covered with just bad people. Thus, no reason to spend time on them. I recommend these solution:

find another advisor
find third-party solution officially staying with current
work solo

Bonus tip: always use official communication channels (like university email) with archiving all messages. Never speak about late/early but write and then just mention during meetings. This helps in conflicts and really cools down harassment level from your super.


text:
Why do some admissions processes request an exhaustive list of jobs held?
This question is motivated by Should you list irrelevant work experience on graduate school applications?
In that question, the OP cited text from one graduate school's question about employment history:

[List] employment experience (including part-time) since secondary school

Why on earth would a graduate school admissions committee care whether a candidate worked part-time in a dry cleaning store from May to August of 2003?
Are they just trying to narrow the field by making the application process more tedious and daunting?

I think you nailed it almost exactly. I won't say that they

...just trying to narrow the field by making the application process more tedious and daunting...

but they (people, designing the forms) do not particularly care about streamlining it and making it more inclusive for mature students students from "non-typical" backgrounds.
I do not want to say that Universities as a whole do not care. At some level, they very much do. Universities often have special people or even teams dedicated to improving access for "under-represented" groups of students. However, the activities of these accessibility teams, however excellent they are, rarely affect the practices of internal departments responsible for managing the application process: Admissions and HR. I have certainly came across the HR departments using the same forms for ~20+ years, some of which are quite bizarre. My favourite was perhaps when I applied to a University Lecturer post in the UK and was asked to produce the results of my GSCE exams, which are college-level exams in the UK, which I never had because I did not grow up in the UK. The web-site of this University proudly announced their international outlook; however, the HR processes did not recognise a possibility that anyone with non-UK education may ever apply for the post.

They may wish to verify that one hasn't been fired, account for all time (exclude people who have been unemployed, etc), and make sure there are no security looopholes as well.  Whether this is valid or not, who knows?

My suspicion would be that the school with such a requirement has a very narrow age window it desires in its graduate students, or at minimum desires that the ink still be wet on their baccalaureate diplomas -- the "train them up young" approach. Listing all post-high-school jobs is not usually terribly onerous for the typical 23-year-old.
I can't speak to how appropriate this is across disciplines. I can only say that where I am we only ask for a résumé and do not specify how far into the past it need go, because we value learners of all ages.

During my PhD application in 2001, I was required to list all jobs held since I got my first degree, in 1970. I am not at all sure of the 21st century relevance of user interface programming based on punch cards and paper tape. Obviously, I was not a typical applicant.

So maybe the question is a left-over artifact of days gone by?

Could be! Sometimes it's too long before procedures are appropriately questioned.

This is not about admissions.  Forms for employment in the private sector and visa applications will also ask for complete job histories, and other tedious lists.
The information is not used for anything and there is not a reason to collect it.  The cost of collecting the information is on the applicant and not the the organization, so the organization sees no problem with it.
In recent years, the information is collected through a form created by a third party software vendor.  The vendor designs the form to cover all use cases (such as hiring people into security-sensitive roles).  The organization collecting the information has to actively remove things from the form if they are not wanted.  As a result, in most cases you get the default form.


text:
What are the pedagogical and institutional implications of implementing a Lecture Capture system?
My university is about to roll-out a Lecture Capture system (Panopto in this case), and I am in the business of promoting and supporting it.  In case it makes a difference, I am in the UK.  I suppose there might be some degree of cultural specificity here, but my suspicion at this point is that the technical environment is a more significant factor.
In principle (being something of a hardened technophile by nature) I have no problem with championing this kind of system, but I want to be able to anticipate both the opportunities AND the challenges that it represents.
Therefore I am interested in people's direct experience and/or theoretical observations concerning the real-world consequences of adopting such a system, AND in the real enthusiasms and anxieties (even if they are ill-founded) that such an adoption tends to raise.  Those will be real and must be managed positively, whether or not they are initially well-informed.
For example, I am pretty sure that such systems can be used poorly, just consuming effort without observable benefit.  I can imagine them generating perceived requirements that achieve little, imposed for political reasons by administrators who neither use nor understand them.  (I am not at all prejudiced against university administrators as a group:  I am a long-time administrator, and only more recently an active teaching academic as well.)  In turn this might conceivably increase the pressure of fee-paying student demand ('I want you to do it like this...') perhaps without really benefiting anyone at all.
On the other hand, I can also easily imagine the possibility of enhanced and enriched educational delivery, presumably with a suitably tuned sort of preparation.
Most broadly, my immediate instinct is that use of this kind of system will necessitate at least some extra considerations (and presumably effort) in preparation... but that a well-planned implementation could pay off in terms like scaleability of provision and replicability of material.
Then again, that also seems automatically to raise the idea of maintenance.  In a way it's rather lovely to think that a 'captured' lecture could just be presented over and over again... but in practice both the subject matter and the institutional context (course structure, audience, whatever) will change over time.  Surely there will be conflicting pressures to create material that will last through many presentations, but also to update it dynamically from one presentation to another.  Even if we have the time and resources to do that, how do we do it with credibility, when (for example) I might go grey from one year to the next (that happened), or might simply no longer possess that jacket?
So...  As a long-time technogeek (I have built all of my own PCs, for 25 years) I am vividly aware that simply adopting a potentially clever system does not intrinsically produce cleverness, and might in fact produce nothing but headaches.  At best, it seems inevitable that niggles like my guesses above will arise.  At worst, decommitting from a poorly-conceived implementation and its associated expectations can be costly and even catastrophic.
Pretty much the whole point of asking this group this question is that I am bound to have missed loads of issues or possibilities; and the ones that I have thought of so far might not be the most important ones at all.
Any observations specific to Panopto would be splendid, of course, but I am also interested in the cultural effect (and/or comparisons) of any analogous systems.  I will welcome both idealistic and suspicious assessments, anything from hymns of praise to bitter war-stories.  In the end, the well-being of thousands of students will depend on us getting this right, so we need to get it right for staff from the beginning as well.

Apart from everything else, a bank of recorded lectures, even if not wonderful, give administration a potential excuse to reduce staff and just replay lectures. Relatedly, who will "own" the intellectural property rights?

I think this is backward. You have already reached a conclusion ("I am in the business of promoting [..] it"), and ask for what for the implications of doing what you are about to do.

@BorisBukh -- yes and no. I mean that it is my professional duty (whether I like it or not) to support the implementation decision that has already been made, by others. The fact that I do happen to like it (at least for its potential, on balance) is not as important as understanding as well as possible the pros and cons of what we are (as you say) about to do. I tried to show in my initial remarks that there must be both opportunities and traps available here, so I am seeking a range of real-world and/or purely theoretical perspectives. Perhaps I have not been properly clear about that...?

In that case, ask whomever ordered you to implement this for justification --- surely, there must have been a decision process that involved figuring out pros and cons. That will make it easier for you to sell the change, and save you the extra work of figuring it on your own. (For example, paul garrett's concern should have been handled by your legal department, not amateurs.)

@BorisBukh Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, naturally we are in the midst of the present institutional rhetoric concerning the planned steps. What I'm trying to do here is to engage with a wider discourse including (among others) colleagues who have already been down the path that we now survey. Of course we can get justifications within the already-committed governance structure. If I were concerned only with 'selling' the thing, as you put it, I could do that with no further knowledge at all. Here I seek a wider range of (perhaps) less partisan views. I didn't expect that to be controversial.

@paulgarrett  In my experience, it routinely tends to be in one's contract that an employing university owns whatever 'text' one produces in its direct service.  Not long ago the head of one research project actively warned me off drawing too closely on some of my own emphatic specialisms, in case I might end up with the university tangentially owning work that I might want to publish elsewhere.  I don't see why that would be different in this case.  I suppose I mean that it's probably already true of lecture material... but yes, this might introduce a new issue of 'performance'.

At my univ currently, written material, whether for courses or on-line or traditionally published or whatever, is essentially owned by faculty. Part of this is that no regular faculty seem to be "commanded" to create course material, since it's a "research univ". Some years ago I had a disagreement about IP rights for potential videos of my teaching a very popular class, and the univ would not make any deal in that regard. But textbooks, lecture notes, etc., are still ... good. I realize it is different elsewhere.

In my institution, lecture capture, though not with Panopto, has been going on for many years. We have policies in place to address such concerns. There are, as you note, also opportunities.
Issue 1: availability of the captured lectures to students
If students are enrolled in a traditional face-to-face (F2F) course, why do they need access to captured lectures? If your institution is (or plans to) offer distance education courses to off-campus students, make the captured lectures available only to them. Of course, if you have instructors who would like to try the flipped classroom model, where F2F students watch the lectures before class meets and then do the work (assignments, group projects, etc.) with the faculty member facilitating during class time, there would be exceptions.
Issue 2: Maintenance of recorded lectures
We have developed policies and purchased professional recording equipment to help ensure quality. In addition, faculty are not allowed to use captured lectures for longer than 3 years. Some subjects, such as computer science, for example, change so frequently that 3 years is much too long. Those might be re-recorded each semester. Alternatively, these faculty may tailor most of the lecture to more timeless topics, then record "update" videos to include the latest news and research in their subject area. This is possible in our institution because we provide recording studios for faculty use, so F2F students don't have to watch the "canned" version of the lecture. Since we use our recorded lectures for distance students (except for the occasional flipped class - I can think of only one of those currently offered, off the top of my head), they get both the "canned" or generic lecture plus the freshly recorded update videos. We provide "re-development" stipends to faculty to offset the additional time required to re-record every 3 years.
Issue 3: Quality
Because few of those who will be capturing their own lectures have education or experience in lighting, design, and the like, it is most helpful to provide them with training and/or "tip sheets" on the best recording situations. We've had more than one professor capture lecture using a webcam in a dark room with a bright sunlit window behind the instructor, resulting in very poor quality. They may also be too far from the on-camera mic and produce low-quality audio, which is also frustrating to students, and rightly so.
Another quality issue to consider is length of the video you provide to students (for whatever reason). Research on instructional video favors segments of 10 minutes or less. Sign up for a free Coursera course and you'll likely see this in use. If you're capturing live lecture in a classroom setting, breaking the lecture into 10 minute segments is jarring for the viewer unless the lecturer has prepared for it. He or she should locate stopping points at the end of a topic, sub-topic, or example, and employ a transition (pre-communicated to the video team) to switch topics. One research-backed way to do this is to stop and ask a handful of review questions to increase student mastery. Panopto, according to their website, allows the addition of interactive quizzes quizzes to facilitate this practice for online learners.
Issue 4: "Replacing" faculty
Our institution does wish to use the video of a professor who is no longer at the institution. Our instructional videos are primarily used for online/distance instruction, which is delivered through a Learning Management System (LMS). The instructor is the primary developer of the online course, with support from staff and teaching/graduate assistants. Student evaluations have shown that students are confused and frustrated when "Professor Smith" is the instructor of record, but retired "Professor Martin's" lecture videos are utilized in such a course. Because we host our own video on our own servers, video is deleted when no longer needed. I presume you could do the same on Panopto.
One opportunity related to the implementation of this system is increasing offerings and enrollment in distance education courses (or, if your institution doesn't offer such courses yet, implementing such a program). This could be a most helpful source of additional revenue for the university and for non-traditional students who cannot attend F2F courses.
I'd recommend joining an organization like the Online Learning Consortium to have training and discussion opportunities about such topics with other administrators of online learning programs. This will help shorten the learning curve.

Re/Issue 1.  Students in face to face classes really appreciate having the opportunity to review parts of a lecture after the fact.  For example, you'll see huge increases in the viewing of the videos just before an exam or final exam.

Thank you both (inc. @BrianBorchers) for these very thoughtful breakdowns of relevant issues.  You have given me a lot to think about, and a good basis for structuring it.  Very much appreciated.

I was involved in the installation of lecture capture systems in many of the classrooms on our campus with funding from a grant from the US Department of Education.  Overall, this has been a very positive addition, and both students and faculty seem to be happy that we've introduced the technology.  However, there were and are some concerns.
Student concerns.  The lecture capture system records in-class discussion.  Some students have been concerned about their privacy, but a policy that the lecture capture recordings will only be used for the current semester and be made available only to students in the class takes care of most of this concern.  A related privacy issue is that instructors should be careful not to have sensitive discussions with students (e.g. about grades, absences from class, etc.) while the system is turned on- this could easily lead to FERPA violations.
Faculty concerns.  Some faculty were concerned that students would stop attending class if recordings were available.  Our experience has been that having lecture capture recordings available to students has little or no effect on attendance.  Faculty have also been concerned that the recordings would be used in ways that they didn't approve of (e.g. for administrative evaluation of teaching or to offer the course to other students without paying the faculty member to teach the course.)  You should have clear policies in place to address these concerns.
A major faculty concern had to do with how they present written content in the lecture.  For practical reasons, video recordings of material written on a blackboard (with chalk) or a whiteboard (with dry erase markers) simply don't work well with lecture capture systems.  Some faculty simply use prepared slides for their lectures.  An alternative (the one that I use) is to write the lecture material on a tablet or digitizing display.  Some folks use a document camera and write notes on pieces of paper that are displayed by the document camera.
Distance ed concerns.  Instructors and students can use lecture capture recordings as an informal way to have distance education courses without official permission.  This might not be acceptable to your administration or your accrediting body (or the US DoED- such a course would count as a "correspondence course" because of the lack of two regularly scheduled two way interaction with the student) but there's no good technical way to prevent it from happening.

I am concerned not to seem unappreciative of this. It seems an excellent framing of some types of issue, and has certainly got me thinking. Sadly I am now in the throes of a marking crisis, worsened by Other Stuff suddenly appearing with Perfect Timing. I recognise the thought that has gone into framing this, anyway, and I will reflect on all elements. For one thing, I have seen elsewhere statistical claims that this makes zero difference to attendance, making it a bit odd that anyone should do it at all. I have also seen a claim that it even increases attendance, which sounds like magic.

Students typically prefer to attend class and then selectively use the lecture capture videos after class to go over points in the lecture that were unclear (or just plain wrong!)  I've been surprised by the number of minor errors in lecture that would have gone unnoticed in the past that students are now finding in the lecture capture videos.

In the post-covid world, I'm finding that more students are trying to do a simple version of distance education by watching the lecture capture videos and not coming to class.  Sadly, nearly all of these students end up failing...


text:
If I reworked an idea published by a paper which has a fatal error, could I publish a paper on my work?
While doing my M.Sc research in Engineering, I encountered a nice idea published by almost an unknown journal. However, while studying that paper I found a fatal assumption which is made at the beginning of the paper, yielding the whole work to a ruin.
So I restudied the idea from the beginning, and I developed a whole mathematical form yielding to the final correct equations. And that's took me for about three months.
So my questions are:

Is it appropriate to publish a paper in this work.
And if yes, then should I cite the "wrong" paper, telling that it has a wrong assumption which I am avoiding in my work for example.

Kindly advise.

You could collaborate with the authors of the original work to publish a new paper.

Sure, if your results are watertight you should publish them. When you point out the shortcommings of the previous paper, you have to do it with extreme tact. Ask somebody knowledgeable in the area of work, probably your advisor or respected faculty, to go over that particular part of your text (at least) before sending it out for review, and be specially careful with any suggestions in that area.


text:
Can I get hired as a psychology professor if I get a PhD in educational psychology in an education department?
I'm interested in educational psychology and learning sciences. However, most educational psychology graduate programs are within the education department, not psychology.
What's the difference between having a PhD in education as opposed to psychology? are there different job prospects? Can I still apply/get hired as a psychology professor if I have an education degree?
I understand answers may vary depending on institutions, but I just want to get an idea.

Are you interested in getting a PhD in Education, or Educational Psychology?  It's a little unclear from your question.

There are some related questions for other fields, Is it possible to become a professor in a field where you don't have a PhD degree? and If I want to become a professor, do universities care what field my PhD. is in or just that I have a PhD?, so this question could be answered as well by someone with experience in the field.


text:
What to do if international student exchange supervisor doesn't answer my email?
I am applying for an exchange program in Romania next semester. The teacher in Romania sent a research topic one month ago to my teacher (So I guess they both found an agreement and I should be able to go?). I am now expected to do most of the rest . So I sent a first e mail asking for more information about that topic as the research topic has to be accepted by professors and lectors at our university. A few days later I sent him another e-mail specifying exactly who I was as it may have been unclear in my first e-mail. Its now been one week and still received no answer.
What should I do? Keep waiting until I maybe don‘t receive an answer? What would be a good way to deal with that type of situations?

Also see What does it mean if a professor does not answer your email in time?

Also see My new advisor didn't reply to my email, is it a sign that she doesn't care?

Also see How to get people to reply to emails and what to make of a no response?

Also see Is ignoring emails acceptable in academia?

Also see What can I do when my e-mails to professors go unanswered?

Who is "your teacher" in the second sentence? Is she from your local university? Please clarify.

@henning yes he is from my university.

Professors are often very busy and receive many emails, sometimes more than a hundred a day. It is not uncommon that an email gets forgotten, especially if it was sent from a stranger. Since a week has passed, it is certainly appropriate to send another polite reminder. However, other strategies might be more effective:

Ask your local teacher about the issue or ask her to contact the Romanian teacher, explaining that you could not get a response although the issue is urgent.
Write an email to the Romanian supervisor's secretary/the secretary of the institute.
Call them on the phone

When writing email, make sure that the issue can already be understood from reading the subject line.


text:
Is it ethical to put a surveillance camera inside a lab
The Lab leader is putting a surveillance camera inside the lab to protect some precious devices bought recently. The viewpoint of the camera covers most of the lab and shows clearly the lab members 24h per day and 7 days a week. The camera is only accessed by the lab leader.
is it ethical to put such a camera inside the lab?

The answer depends on many factors wihch should be added. E.g. jurisdiction, whether the data is recorded, if yes if there are rules for deletion, if non-employees are present, ...

@OBu, certainly the legality depends on those things.

You should also have a look at the legal side of this question. However, this depends strongly at the country in which you are in. Could you please specify this further?

This largely depends on disclosure --- in cases where you record employees at work there are ethical and legal obligations relating to notification and disclosure.  The legal rules depend on your jurisdiction, but in most jurisdictions this situation is regulated by some kind of legislation on surveillance.  (E.g., in NSW in Australia this would be regulated by the Workplace Surveillance Act 2005.)  To check on the legality of this practice you should consult relevant surveillance legislation in your jurisdiction.  Regardless, your lab leader should certainly contact the university legal counsel before installing a surveillance camera.
As to the broader ethical question of surveillance (as opposed to its legality), there is a reasonable literature on this question in the business ethics journals (see e.g., Ottensmeyer and Heroux 1991, Fairweather 1999, Halpern, Reville and Grunewald 2008, and Hadjimatheou 2014).  I will not attempt to paraphrase this issue here since it is a large issue which is best understood by reference to the literature.

Thanks for your post. Which of the four references you indicate, would you counsel to read first as an introduction to the subject? (Yes, time constraints...)

Halpern et al (2008) is most directly associated with your question, so I'd start with that.

(I am not the OP, but thanks all the same.)

Oops: "Download ($43.95)"... Fortunately: http://www.whatthelawprofessorsaid.com/files/2941320/ArticleByHalpernRevilleGrunewaldJofBusEthics2008June.pdf

Yes, it is certainly ethical, so long as everyone knows it is there. It doesn't even necessarily show lack of trust in the regular lab denizens. An alternative, of course, would be to pay someone, a guard, to be always present.
I suppose it is possible that the leader's motives go beyond protecting the equipment, of course, but even that isn't problematic if a record of lab activities might be needed to assure against possible bad behavior, such as, for example harassment. In some situations the lab work may be so sensitive that a record needs to be kept.
As noted in comments on this page, the legality may be in question. But that varies from place to place.
To make it even clearer, if the camera is put in place without the knowledge of the participants it would be unethical. If the camera were put into a public area then it would also be unethical in the absence of come compelling reason that would mitigate it.
If the camera were put in place to monitor the people and their performance, rather than protect equipment, the situation becomes more difficult to asses. But it would probably be unwise to do it, whether ethical or not, because of the strong negative reaction that it would cause and which is evidenced in the comments here.
The ethical judgment I made is, therefore, very limited to a particular set of conditions as expressed in the question asked.

It should be noted that - whether you think it's ethical or not - video surveillance of your employees may be illegal depending on jurisdiction. In the described case for example I'm fairly certain that it would be illegal in Germany.

Thanks.  with the widespread use of the surveillance camera I think this subject should be treated well so that employee know their rights.

Sorry but "ethical, [as] long as everyone knows it is there" is an extremely short-sighted approach of the question.

@Did, sorry, I don't understand. Spying isn't ethical, generally speaking. Observing is a different issue.

You don't really explain why you think it's appropriate to use camera surveillance in the lab; you just claim it is, period. Or am I missing something?

Your argument seems to be that, if the "observed" people know they are "observed", then it is ethical to observe them. Sorry but, to me, this is a fallacy. Let us imagine a situation such that we cross every morning in the street. On day D-1, I calmly explain to you that the next day, when we shall cross, I will punch you in the face. Do you think the cops would dismiss your complaint if, on day D, we do cross as usual and I do punch you in the face? After all, I warned you, so my ethics, if I understand your logic, is impeccable...

I think it is fine as long as people know it is there. Similarly nothing wrong with screening researchers coming out of weapons grade facilities in Los Alamos to prevent plutonium theft.  Just part of doing business.

@Did, your analogy and your reasoning are flawed.

Glad to know. Care to explain how they are?

@Did Seems obvious to me: Permission to punch was never granted.

@user2768 By that logic, you would also require permission to surveil in the original scenario, not just give acknowledgement of the surveillance.

Folks, I think what @Did is saying is that, while it may or may not be ethical to install surveillance cameras in the lab, the explanation “the employees were informed” is not sufficient, just like saying “I informed you that I was going to punch you in the face” is not sufficient to make the action ethical. So it is the reasoning that is flawed (as the analogy illustrates quite well IMO), while the conclusion itself may still end up being correct, but for a more complicated/subtle (or entirely different) reason than that offered. (@Did, hope that’s consistent with what you wanted to say)

@DanRomik, I wasn't giving a reason why it was ethical. I was giving a binary condition. If you install it without informing everyone then it is unethical.

Moreover, a lab is not a public space. The answer would not be the same if the discussion were about public spaces. Nor was the question asked about surveillance of the people, or monitoring job performance and behavior,  but protection of the equipment in a place where non-authorized people might appear.

If the lab ever uses human subjects, it's important to keep this camera in mind as a potential breach of confidentiality. Most IRBs would (a) want to know that subjects are being recorded, (b) want the camera mentioned in the consent form, and (c) want a plan for the storage and disposal of recordings that include subjects.