text:
Asking 'silly' questions to doctoral supervisor
My doctoral supervisor is very helpful and I really enjoy working with him on various problems. I have officially entered my second year of doctoral research this month. During discussions, I get few basic (probably, 'technically silly' as I would put it) questions that occur to me at times. But, I don't ask these question to him as he might think I am 'dumb' and I lack technical fundamentals. Then, I suffer a lot on the topic by crawling in the books, internet; sometimes I find answers to my questions, sometimes I don't. I get annoyed with myself sometimes.
There are many supervisors and Ph.D. students out here in academia.SE. Could you please suggest me on the following questions:

Should I ask such questions at all during a discussion with him?
How would a supervisor feel about a doctoral student asking such dumb questions? (This part might be opinion-based. I would like to see some experience to interpret my situation.)

Note: The questions are related to the research he has pioneered in. It is not always true that I would find the answers to my so called 'silly' questions by Googling. Many research papers don't even bother to contain such internal details on the topic. The only possibility is either I figure out myself or ask my supervisor.
Some (un)related questions (in different situations and contexts):

How to ask dumb questions
"You are paid to answer my questions!" - how to handle silly questions?

Have you tried asking your peers? They probably had a lot of the same questions when they started, and they're much more likely to have time to talk, especially since there are lots of them and only one supervisor.

Unless you are to become a politician, it is almost universally better to ask and look silly than not to ask and be silly.

Have you heard about the "impostor syndrome"? Something many smart people seem to suffer from in academia.

Every PhD student "lacks technical fundamentals" in some respect.  That is why you are a PhD student and not a senior researcher (though they probably lack more "technical fundamentals" than you would guess, also).  You aren't going to trick your supervisor into thinking you know everything by never asking questions that might be "silly".
But learning to find answers on your own is an essential skill, so it's good that you are practicing doing this.  I don't know why you say it is "suffering".
I think a good compromise is to spend a reasonable amount of time trying to find the answer yourself.  If you can't, then ask your supervisor, and mention what you tried or what sources you consulted.  A reasonable PhD supervisor should not "think less of you" for this, and in any case, it's almost certainly better for your supervisor to have an accurate view of what you know.
If you are in the middle of a meeting and you need to know the answer now in order to proceed with a meaningful discussion, then it is reasonable to ask the question on the spot.  Again, it is better to be honest about what you do and don't know, than to potentially waste everyone's time by proceeding with a discussion you don't understand.
If you find yourself spending too much time chasing down answers to random questions, then prioritize them.  It's okay to say to yourself: "This is an interesting question, but I don't need to know the answer right now; let me set it aside and come back to it in the future when I have more time."

But learning to find answers ... you say it is "suffering". --  I am saying suffering because it kills my time. One example, one question took me 4 continuous days to figure out what was that. It was something related to basics of graph search but was nowhere written as such. But, thanks for the answer (+1). Though it is a rational answer focusing on the unsuccessful discussion, I think at points students feel reluctant. May be it is an act of immaturity. I don't know.

Okay, so that's why I say reasonable amount of time in my third paragraph, as well as the last paragraph.  Four continuous days is not a reasonable amount of time.   As to the last part of your comment, yes, of course it is difficult to admit not knowing something, and it's perfectly natural to feel reluctant to do it!  But part of maturing in your field is learning to get past this if it is getting in the way of your progress.

Yes, I understand. Thank you. Okay, I can do this. Need practice and decision on 'reasonable' time.

Sometimes the silly question exposes a misunderstanding of an underlying fact, which can be hard to clear up when doing the research yourself (because you still search in the wrong direction due to your misconceptions). This will prolong searches endlessly. So yes, you should ask after trying to come up with the answer yourself, it will save time for both of you.

"One example, one question took me 4 continuous days to figure out what was that" Only 4 days? The longest I've spent (in industry not academia) "figuring out what the question meant" was about 10 YEARS. (But solving the problem, once we had worked out what it really was, took hardly any time at all.) Of course that wasn't 10 years doing nothing else - but if nobody had got the question stuck in their teeth and not let it go for 10 years, it would still be costing the company money and losing customers to the competition!

@alephzero: Of course it is often necessary to spend many days or years on an unsolved problem. I am saying that it is not reasonable to spend four days on a problem whose answer is possibly already known by someone whom you could easily ask.  (General rule of thumb, mileage may vary, etc.)

Great answer. I gave it an immediate upvote for '[seniors] probably lack more "technical fundamentals" than you would guess' ;-) but plenty of good advice here.

On the "dumb question in a meeting" -- if you think you should be understanding but are lost, there's a good chance the speaker didn't explain themself very well, or assumed too much background knowledge. There are probably others in the room who'll appreciate your asking the question. These days it may be worth a sneaky Google before asking, though -- basic due-dilligence! As you get more senior, you worry less about looking silly.

This is a good question, and probably more subtle than many grad students imagine. (And perhaps subtler than some faculty would like to acknowledge, having some expert-blindness, as well as wishful thinking, and false memories/ideas of how "good" grad students can/do/should operate.)
First, I don't see how a novice can really know whether a question is "silly" or not.
Second, right, many things are either not readily google-able, if only because a novice does not know the key-words. Worse, naive or archaic versions of (e.g., mathematics) tend to swamp sophisticated (and perhaps more likely correct) versions, as though by a popularity contest. This also tends to be the case in Wiki, still. (Don't get me wrong, I strongly support Wiki, and send them money, and they're much, much better than 15 years ago, but, still, due to the nature of the situation, they're prey to enthusiastic-but-naive/misguided people...)
Third, yes, one can rightly feel that there is some sort of both moral and professional virtue for "finding out things for oneself". On the other hand, it is easy to go too far with this, and slide down a slippery slope into extreme inefficiency (i.e., not using a presumed expert who has offered their consultative services to you!)
So, e.g., I tell my students to ask me all the "silly" questions they want, since, if they're truly silly, I presumably can answer them instantly, and/or tell them that the questions are not silly, where to read about it (e.g., my own notes of various sorts), or that it's not documented anywhere (despite possibly mythology otherwise).
Still, collectively, yes, students are reticent about talking to faculty. Some of this is visibly due to the drift of conversational styles and related things over years, but, in any case, I claim it's an unfortunate waste of resources.
(Sure, some faculty simply don't want to engage in activities like "talking to students", which may be uncomfortable to everyone involved. Sure, some students want to "be independent", even if this means they'll be out of touch with state-of-the-art. Such things.)
So, obviously, it depends on the personalities of everyone involved... Oop, no good answer. :)

+1. There is a great piece of advice Professor Garrett. Thank you. Probably, it is better to convert my questions to keywords oriented questions that could be looked for after getting advice from my guide. The relationship between student and supervisor gets stronger and more informal with time. May be, that is the right time for on-spot asking of the question. My present exploration of the search space is though time-consuming still helps (I guess).

Many faculty will say that they welcome "silly questions," but then judge the student negatively anyway (even if they don't say so to the student's face). This is especially true, and especially damaging, for graduate students. I agree that it's a waste of resources to not ask questions, but it's really on the professor to reassure the student that there is no hidden penalty for making use of that resource.

@ElizabethHenning, oh, yes, I agree, there is plenty of bait-and-switch going on, and I do not know any easy way to dodge it, except perhaps by side-channel info from people who've suffered previously. I avoided asking questions of my own advisor after seeing him yelling at other students publicly during tea... and this was wasteful, but risk/humiliation-avoiding. A bit too Spartan for my tastes.

@ElizabethHenning Not to say you're wrong, but I'd rather be judged a fool for revealing what I don't know than to be a fool for not knowing. That said, I do my best to know what in the heck I'm doing and talking about when working on my own, so perhaps my confidence is bolstered by knowing that I put in the effort where I can. I'm sure the exposure to lots of people who don't know over the years hasn't hurt.

I have actually directly said to my supervisor that I think some of my questions might be silly, but I must ask because I am lost. He says always to me that my questions are not silly and he'd rather I asked than wasted time or made a mistake. From talking to other colleagues I learned that everybody at some point felt like they did silly things or asked silly questions. I think it's normal to wonder if to ask or not, given that supervisors are busy etc. My algorithm: google and if no answer - ask other phd students and if no answer - ask professor. Then my conscience is clear and I can honestly say I've done all I could before going to supervisor. Hope that helps.

I tell my students that asking a silly question is the first sign of progress.
And quite often it makes me realize that I have given an explanation that was ambiguous in some way that I didn't realize.

@PhilipRoe +1. I have given an explanation that was ambiguous in some way that I didn't realize. This is a nice thought.

I have officially entered my second year of doctoral research this month.

I'll offer my anecdotal experience by focusing on this statement, maybe not in the way you expect.
How your personality meshes with your advisor's personality can play a large role in how you communicate. I know some students who simply present their boss with results, maybe ask what to do next, and get told what to do. Or, if things are going especially well for them, and not a lot of direction is necessary, the interaction is even more one-sided. So they may be more afraid of asking "silly" questions, or such a thing just doesn't even exist in their minds.
On the other hand, meetings with my advisor are less structured; we chat about what he's been working on, what I've been working on, I ask him questions about our field that he has more experience with, he asks me questions about our field that I have more experience with. Certainly some of these might fall under the silly category, but we want to spend more time individually working through problems we're interested in, and gain other information by just asking. I don't have time to work through everything, and I'm more interested in some discussion resulting from it anyway.
It also took several years to get to this point, in terms of reaching some level of both research and communication maturity. Not all advisors are this easy to talk to.

To consider questions "stupid" or "silly" is a mark of insecurity that you may inherit from others. What exactly is a stupid question, anyway? Unless it's rhetorical, a question itself presupposes lack of knowledge - which many typically call "stupid". In that sense, all questions are stupid (i.e. marks of ignorance).
Toss that thinking aside, and ask away - unless it becomes prohibitively disruptive, etc.
Many meetings are filled with people who all have the same questions and objections...and keep quiet. Knowledge and discourse dies that way.
Don't let it die. Ask away. And if someone is too snobbish to deal with your basic questions, try to ditch him and find a more decent human being.

+1.A brief, concrete and complete answer to my question, except the ditching part. Thanks.

I will answer the implicit question here:

How can I get unstuck without bothering my advisor with relatively trivial questions?

Populate your support system with more than just your thesis advisor.  Consider the following characters in the graduate student's food web:

The peer mentor (I'll use gender in an arbitrary way so the writing flows easier): This person is more advanced than you, but it's okay to ask him some silly questions because he's lower on the totem pole than your advisor.  Be sensitive to this person's own deadlines, etc.
The study partner: This person is familiar with your field but perhaps not with your particular thesis topic.  He may be able to answer a question right off the bat; he may be able to give you some ideas about getting unstuck.  He can rein you in when he sees you spending too much time on something that can be postponed or ignored.  This person may help you narrow down which resources are most helpful, and how to use them efficiently.  You can reciprocate.
The listserv, forum or Q&A site.  This works well for anonymous, non-embarrassing posting.  Even if you don't get an answer, it's often helpful just to articulate the question in a clear way -- including what you've tried so far.
The support crew or cheerleader.  This person knows little or nothing about your topic and maybe even your field of endeavor.  But at the very least you can use him for rubber-ducking your problem.  He might surprise you with a helpful insight or suggestion, but his main purpose is to listen with apparent interest as you walk the problem through, explaining what you've tried and what you propose to try.  Sometimes the solution or next step has jumped out at you by the time you've finished laying things out.
Last but not least: the less advanced student.  You will advance your karma by helping others who are not as far along as you; you will consolidate what you already know, and find out more about how people learn and how to teach, tutor and mentor, by helping others.  If you have a good balance between asking some people for help, and providing help to others, you will feel more comfortable about asking for help when you are spinning your wheels.


text:
Will it be considered duplicate submission in a venue, if we knew that the article will be rejected for sure in another venue?
The reviewers have already commented on our article and the conference management system shows us each of their comments. Based on the comments, we know that the article will definitely be rejected. The final verdict is scheduled on 15 days from today.
We are interested in improving (based on the presently seen reviews) the manuscript and submitting it to another venue.
Will it be called duplicate submission in the new venue, if we submit now?

I've never heard of a conference that reveals reviewer comments before revealing an accept/reject decision. Especially two weeks before.That's just bizarre.

@JeffE. This conference uses CMT, and I can see 3 reviews by (probably) three different reviewers. Their summary reads 1. Reject, 2. Strong Reject, 3. Fair

@JeffE Venues with a rebuttal / discussion phase do that, which is the default at least in machine learning conferences.

Based on @JeffE s comment (which I do agree with). Neither I have seen anyone having gotten review feedback before decision on conference submissions. ___ This could very well be someone impersonating the deciders to try and make you disqualify yourself by resubmitting the manuscript elsewhere before you get the real non-forged communication from the venue which could be an accept unless react on the forged mail too fast and get disqualified for sending the same manuscript to more than one. ___ If it is possible for you: Carefully check that the communication really is from the source of the c

@Coder: well the CMT and it's source can be faked.

Formally, yes.  Until you have actually received the accept/reject decision, your paper is still under submission and cannot be submitted elsewhere.
On the other hand, you can avoid this conflict (at least in principle) by formally withdrawing your original submission. Normally I would advise against withdrawing so late, since you'd arguably be wasting the PC's time.  But if the work has already been done and the outcome is clear, the PC is just wasting your time by making you wait two weeks for the official decision.
If you do withdraw and submit elsewhere before results of the first conference are announced, you should make the situation very clear to the new PC chair. In particular, you should forward the formal acknowledgment of your withdrawal.  There is a nontrivial chance that the two PCs overlap, and that someone will flag the "dual submission" without realizing that it was withdrawn.
Finally: If the reviews are so obviously negative, you might consider giving yourself more than 15 days to improve the paper before submitting again.

+1. It is truly not a good time to withdraw, already too late. The results are not negative in the sense that it focuses on rigorous experimentation of two different existing theories, which shows good performance on various problems.

+1 for the last paragraph alone. I suppose it's possible that the rejections were for being out of scope rather than because there's something wrong with the paper per se.

This question is bound to come up more frequently with the advent of rebuttal phases in major conferences. In such a system, authors get the comments, and sometimes the preliminary accept / reject votes, a little in advance to allow them to write an answer to the reviews, which is then - at least in theory - taken into account for the final decision. In such a system, it's fairly obvious when a paper is dead, and waiting for the final verdict is a waste of time in that case.
I don't think there is already a generally-understood moral code on whether you need to wait for the final rejection before submitting again. Formally withdrawing, as JeffE proposes, is a possibility, but given that the paper is, for all practical purposes, dead, a withdrawal seems to only add overhead at this point. Personally, I suspect a busy PC chair will just ignore your mail at this point.
Hence, I would not consider it a double-submission to immediately resubmit the paper. Just think of the paper as rejected and carry on. Note that this advice only holds if it is glaringly obvious that the paper will be rejected. Don't interpret this as permission to speculate if the reviews could still go either way, especially if the conference only gives you the textual comments but not the verdicts. Further, should your paper miraculously be accepted in the first conference anyway, you need to immediately withdraw from the second review process.

+1. Yes, I strongly agree that if by change the paper gets accepted in present venue, we must withdraw formally from the new venue.

I had a small question: Is it a must to participate in rebuttal phase? For example, I know that the paper will be rejected, then I feel that there is no point in writing a rebuttal. Is it better to go ahead with a different venue?

No, we generally do not write a rebuttal if it is clear that a decision is made.

I would not consider it a double-submission to immediately resubmit the paper — Neither would I, but the new PC chair might.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Manuscript status changed from "Reviews completed" to "Editor assigned"
I have been confused with the present status of my manuscript whose status follows the following timeline:

Manuscript initially submitted through Editorial Manager (Springer): 25 Jan 2017
Under Review: 27 Feb 2017 till 9 Jun 2017
Reviews completed: 10 Jun 2017 till 22 Jun 2017
Editor assigned: 22 Jun 2017

The journal is in the field of Computer Science and Computational Mechanics (Applied Computer Science).
My inferences from the above strange timeline:

The reviews have been completed and the system administrator or the journal manager assigned the editor (who is assumed to be associated with it earlier) to take care of the review reports and make a call.
The number of review reports is not sufficient. It would be re-reviewed and handled by another editor.
It is a software issue or a bug.

I have the following questions:

Whether is my inference correct?
As one can see, it has been 6 months already. Is it too early to send a gentle reminder to the editor-in-chief to look after my manuscript?
Is such a timeline of manuscript 'strange' at all? (Although it is difficult to answer this unless the editorial manager software is understood properly.)

Related posts and questions:

Manuscript status changed to editor assigned after under review, what could be the reason?
Editor of manuscript assigned after reviews were completed
My question is different as the timeline does not follow the traditional journal workflow as discussed in the question What does the typical workflow of a journal look like?

I think @ShakeBaby might have nailed it in the "whatever" comment.  Best guess: reviews came in after all this time but were inconclusive, and "editor assigned" is the default state when needing to get more reviews and no reviewer has actually been assigned.  In ScholarOne this would be like having it set to require 2 reviews, then when the 2 reviews come in, changing it to require 3.
Certainly not a very informative status.

Your interpretation seems correct. There's nothing strange with your status. In fact, it seems to be progressing normally. It is ok to contact the editor but I would wait a bit more, given that the system shows that it is progressing and you should expect a response shortly.

Thank you. However, I have added 2 more inferences (inputs from my co-author).

The minimum number of reviews have arrived. So it went back to the editor to make a decision, or ask for more reviews, whatever. There's absolutely nothing unusual with your submission..

I think it would be a very weird system that would switch from "reviews completed" to "editor assigned" in the normal course of processing.  At least, "normal" systems like ScholarOne will go to "awaiting recommendation" from the editor at that point.  Perhaps this is a weird system.   I certainly would give it some time rather than pinging so soon after it changed state.

@FredDouglis (+1). Yes. That is why I am surprised. I am experiencing this first time. ScholarOne has more clarity on the status.

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


text:
Conversion programs resulting in a MSc
I'm not familiar with the UK higher education system (I'm from a EU country) and this is confusing me a lot.
A friend of mine holds a master's degree in a completely unrelated field. He is now studying in UK, doing a so-called "conversion program" in computer science. It's a 1-year program which results in a MSc degree.
This is where I'm really confused. As the program is meant for people not having any knowledge of computer science, the subjects he's getting starts from the real basics (programming: if/else, loops,... databases, SQL: SELECT, WHERE, JOIN,...). Where I'm from, we would call this a "postgraduate" program which results in some kind of postgraduate degree. The concept of what is considered a master's degree here is that it follows up on a bachelors degree (a 3-year study), which is situated on level 7 of the European Qualifications Framework.
Currently, I'm taking a 1.5 years course on a bachelor's level in computer science as well (situated level 6), which is way more advanced than the basics he's getting and I will only receive an addendum on the bachelor's degree I currently hold already if I graduate. From what it looks like he's getting the subjects of a first year's bachelor (or undergraduate for the Americans reading this) program, still he'll be receiving an MSc degree at the end of the year.
I wonder how this is possible or how the UK education system works in this regard. This is not out of jealousy for my friend (I just hope he will be able to find a job he likes afterwards), however, he did get a little pissed off when I didn't understand how this can result in a MSc degree. I guess the UK education system is more different from ours than I thought.
Could someone shine some light on this matter? When I look around online, it seems many of these conversion programs are actually MSc programs. What are the different options for master's programmes in the UK (especially the "conversion" master's), how are they scructured and what value do they have for potential employers?

What degree does he currently hold?

He holds a masters of arts, something language related. As I said, completely unrelated to computer science.

What university is he currently studying at? For context, I am English and have been in UK academia for my whole career, and haven't come across such a course before. I would say it's very uncommon and not typical of most British MSc courses.

Is it possible to reformulate this into a specific question?

I have tried to add a more specific question, hope it's fine this way!

In the UK, postgraduate degrees are broken down into two categories Postgraduate Taught (PGT: MSc & MA mostly) and Postgraduate Research (PGR: MRes, MPhil & PhD).
Generally, any 180 credit course for which a Bachelors degree is an entry requirement is referred to as a "master's degree".
In science, where it is normal to go directly from BSc to PhD without a master's degree, master's degrees generally serve 3 purposes:

To provide more specialist training (often vocational) than is provided in a BSc. For example we have a MSc that qualifies people to work in human genetics diagnostics labs. While were have a module that covers the same general area in our undergrad Genetics degree, this is a whole year of just that very narrow subject. Or alternatively, a student with a computer science undergrad might do a databases masters - the degree title is much narrower than the undergrad equivalent.
To allow people whose Bachelor's degree isn't good enough for what they wish to do in the future to obtain a better qualification. You can often do a PhD in the British system without a masters degree as long as you get a good grade. But PhDs and almost all graduate jobs require good grades (grad jobs require a 2:1 in British speak, and PhDs formally require a 2:1, but you often need a 1st these days). If you don't get the grades you need, you can do a masters degree and have another chance at getting a good grade. The other people who take these sorts of masters are overseas students who want the cache that comes with having a degree from what they regard as a more famous/better regarded university.
Conversion courses. You've a bachelors in one subject, but decide you want to do something different. These degrees will generally have the same title as undergraduate degrees, and often have similar syllabuses, but compressed into 1x180 credits rather than 3x120 credits. These work on the basis that most the teaching at undergraduate level is not the course specific knowledge, but the transferable skills - you learn how to write, how to read, and how to think critically at a high level. Importantly, you also learn how to learn. The assumption is that if you turn this to a new subject, you will learn that new subject much faster than you learnt your first subject. For example, I had a friend who got a 1st class BA in Philosophy, and then did a genetics master's degree.

People in the know (recruiters and PhD admissions panels) will be able to tell what sort of master's degree a particular MSc is. If you have a BA in philosophy, and a MSc in genetics, no one is going to expect you to know as much about molecular cytogenetics as someone with a BA in genetics and MSc in human molecular diagnostics, but if you were both going for a PhD in population genetics, you might be on a similar footing.

Thank you for the information. I get the idea: my friend successfully completed an academic program before, therefore the assumption is he has learned how to learn/think/work/... on this level and is able to grab new topics much faster.
Still, I'm a bit sceptical of how realistic it is to start with basics up to complicated topics from a completely unrelated field in just one year to the extend it can be called "master's level". It must also be pretty confusing for employers, distinguishing the different kind of master's degrees.

I'm not here to defend the system, just to describe it. However, in my own field certainly, a general masters degree won't get you any job that a Bachelor's wouldn't. Employers are generally looking for either a bachelors degree, or a PhD, unless they are looking for a very specific degree that is only offered as a masters (see human molecular diagnostics above).

Thanks again for the clarification. It's facinating, but also very confusing, how higher education systems can be so different. Where I'm from (Belgium) it's almost the opposite situation: just holding a bachelor's degree from a research university is not worth much for employers, you're expected to obtain a master's degree.

FYI, I have no idea why your post has been downvoted. It wasn't me.

For completeness, it's probably worth also noting that in the sciences it's common for universities to offer a 4-year undergraduate course that leads to an "undergraduate masters" or "integrated masters" degree, typically denoted MSci or MPhys/MBiol/MChem/etc, instead of the BSc that one gets after three years' study.

@avid Thanks. I did leave that out. And these are particularly common in fields where you need a masters for a job. Such as Engineering.

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


text:
Pursuing M2 in mathematics after Masters from India
I am a master's student (5 year coursework, with a 1 year thesis) in Pure Mathematics in Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Kolkata in my prefinal year. I wish to continue in academics and hope to pursue a PhD in future.
As I understand the PhD system in USA is in the form of a grad school, where you first do around 1-2 years of coursework before starting your full-scale research. As my background stands right now, I would be glad to delve into some more advanced coursework before starting research in a full-fledged manner. So I understand, the PhD system in USA is better for me.
I have also searched a bit on the M2 degree in mathematics in France mainly in IMJ-PRG, which allows for starting directly from the M2 coursework without having a M1 coursework. Now if I want to do a PhD in Europe, and especially in France, I think doing a M2 before going for a PhD is a better option for me.
But, I am not at all getting any detailed information of the feasibility of this second option, as the websites of the French institutes seem to be a little less user friendly.
My primary interest is particularly in Operator Algebras and Non Commutative Geometry, but I would glad to explore some other related fields in Mathematics as well.
I would be happy if someone can provide some assistance regarding this M2 and PhD in France, and also whether there are any scholarships for M2 for Indian students, how is the atmosphere for international students there, and also about the medium of instruction. Further, if anyone has any guidance for these particular research areas in France, I would be pleased to hear them.
I would like a clear idea of whether it is even possible for an Indian student who is not comfortable with the French language to sustain there?
In particular, I would like to know the leading research groups in Functional Analysis, Operator Theory/Operator Algebras and Non Commutative Geometry working in France, which universities are best for doing a M2 as a precursor to a PhD with the medium of instruction being English. Lastly, what are the chances of getting a PhD straightway in France after completing M2?
Thanks.

This looks like a good question, but could be made better by asking specific, concrete questions in the last paragraph. Opinion-based questions or questions asking to list resources are generally considered off-topic here.

@GoodDeeds Thank you for your comment, I will make the necessary changes.

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


text:
French Doctorat vs Rest of EU PhD
What's the difference between a doctorat in France and a PhD in the rest of Europe in terms of hours of work, examinations required and publications.
Thanks !

"some (if not majority) of their doctoral thesis are written in french" -- I think this heavily depends on the field. In science, and especially Math / CS, most dissertations are written in english. Similarly, most publications are written in english, etc.

In many fields (specifically in STEM), the quality of the dissertation is relatively unimportant for future career ambitions. What counts is the quality of the publications produced in the course of obtaining the PhD.

@GBat: A lot of algebraic geometry - possibly a majority of what's done in France - is still done in French.  Combinatorics not so much (but not zero).

My early comment fully applies to the part of CS that I'm familiar with. Nobody cares about the actual thesis.

Course credits are not a thing in German doctoral education either. Also, there is no such thing as an "EU PhD".

The process is by and large similar. Certainly, such a thesis will be recognize as such in other countries. In any case I don't think France is particularly an outlier. Of course details vary by country, for example the way the thesis defense is handled.
As for course credits, there are some requirements for activities, such as courses, other than writing the thesis. But it is generally true that there is no period before the thesis that leads up to choosing the subject, etc. France is not unique in that either.
In some places in practice doctoral programs exist that start with a year of taught courses, via letting students start in a second year of a master program rather than right away in a PhD program. Generally, the idea is that the master prepares for the doctoral program.
The standard process, at least for universities, is 3 years undergraduate (called "Licence"), 2 years master, 3 years doctoral studies. (There is a complication in that a lot of the higher education does not happen in universities.)

Thanks for the reply, that's the information i needed !


text:
Could Ph.D. students assist Ph.D. students?
For a finishing Ph.D. student, is it well common for them to assist other Ph.D. students technically?
What other lab activities could the finishing Ph.D. students be involved in aside from lecturing?
Thanks

Of course it is. Why hoard knowledge to yourself?

but Ph.D. students should focus on their work and do it well enough first, or not?

@Sam It sounds like maybe you have an XY problem question. What's the actual specific problem you're trying to solve? For example, if the problem is "I'm a graduate student about to graduate and I'm not going to be able to graduate on time because I'm spending all my time helping a new graduate student with their experiment" that's very different from the question in your title.

Teaching others is a great way to solidify your knowledge. Not working well with others will not be good for your career in most areas. And that attitude of yours will come through quite clearly in interviews and it would be a definitive No Hire for me.

Not only is it allowed, it's extremely common and a great idea. I'm working on a shared project with a group right now, and we have published many papers.
Consider that every paper with multiple authors is a collaboration, and there are many papers with 2 or more PhD students in the author list. Sometimes there is even "shared first authorship" where the researchers make it explicit that each first author gave roughly equal contribution.
Also, consider that often PhD students with more experience will assist those with less in research, lab work, and other PhD tasks similar to how PhD students will assist undergraduates. There's even a term for this: mentorship (see other stack exchange questions like this one), and many universities (including the one I'm at now) have mentorship programs which match earlier students with later ones.
PhD students with more experience are especially able to help earlier PhD students; because they have more knowledge and experience both in their field and academia in general, yet unlike some professors they haven't forgotten their PhD research and experience or it hasn't become obsolete.

Note that there are a few exceptions where assistance is prohibited:

In the PhD thesis, most of the work is usually done alone. But even this isn't a full-out exception: collaboration with other students is perfectly acceptable as long as the others' contributions are explicitly stated, and most of the work is still original: see this ,this, and this question.
Obviously, any exams, or any coursework where collaboration is explicitly prohibited, since this is cheating.
Some research groups guard their work to prevent others from stealing credit, and the advisors may not want their students to collaborate. But this is frowned upon within the larger realm of academia, and I would consider it a big "red flag" that the group may be toxic.

Ultimately, before offering any assistance, you should ask your advisor and make sure they're aware. But I suspect in most cases they will say yes, if they don't actively encourage you to assist others and work on collaborative projects themselves.

but some students made a lot efforts to gain their knowledge, wouldn't be just if every Ph.D. student deserved their position and the Ph.D. title and do the same to gain that knowledge instead of getting it for "free"?

It is just, because even with assistance, all PhD students still have to make some sort of individual contribution. The point of a PhD is not to just put in work and effort, but to advance the field. If someone already discovered or invented something, there's not really a point in recreating it vs. learning from the first person. But if someone already discovered or invented something to get their PhD, the next person has to discover or invent something different (ideally, something which builds off the first discovery)

'But this is frowned upon within the larger realm of academia, and I would consider it a big "red flag" that the group may be toxic.' lol


text:
Involving additional staff members in PhD supervision (beyond co-supervisors)
Is it possible that a staff member (Asst. Prof.) offers their help to a PhD student even they are not their co-supervisor ?
How involved (if solicited) could Lab members (mostly Asst. Prof.) be in the research of PhD students.
Thanks for the clarification.

In some fields it may be essential. What is yours?

Computer science

Some places have fairly active, but small, research "seminars" with a few faculty and students. Sharing can be pretty wide in such groups without formal arrangements.

That's fairly common (at least in my field). In a CV, the involved staff member could specify their role in this PhD project as "assisting supervision", to distinguish it from a  formal/official co-supervision role. Of course, such an involvement should be discussed with the formal supervisors first, since it might otherwise lead to tensions.

At least in my bailiwick, mathematics in the U.S., I've always been willing to answer questions if I could, without necessarily thinking about official obligations or channels or prohibitions.
Yes, in some cases, oddly, I was chastised for talking to "other peoples' students" down at the coffee machine, etc. Unclear to me the genuine motivations for such complaints.
But, indeed, my own picture of, for example, "a math dept", is that people profitably talk to each other, without formal rules or arrangements.


text:
Is it inappropriate for a student to attend their mentor's dissertation defense?
I'm an undergraduate student at a research one university. My former instructor and current research mentor is defending their dissertation soon. I asked if I could attend and they said they would be fine with it.
My primary interest in doing so is to see how the defense process works for when I attend graduate school. I am also just genuinely interested in supporting them since we both research the same material and they've been incredibly encouraging and helpful to me.
I know defenses are open to the public, but, in your opinion, would a student attending your defense add more stress or disrupt the process? I just want to make sure I'm not making anything more difficult for them or overstepping a boundary, even though they say they are totally okay with me attending.

A country tag might be appropriate. Some countries do not have public thesis defenses, for example, and in some places the defense happens in several parts with different assumptions about attendance.

Discussions about the definition of professor as well as answers in comments have been moved to chat. Please read this FAQ before posting another comment.

Go!  Four of my friends flew nearly 700 miles to attend my defense.  I was really happy to see friendly faces in the room, and they took me out to a memorable dinner afterwards.  (You don't need to do the dinner, though.)

It's fine. As you say, these are open to the public, and it's common for family members, department members, and friends to attend. Since you perhaps are not "firmly" in any of these categories, asking whether it's okay to attend is probably a good idea -- but you've already done this and been given the green light. Enjoy.

I would actually have been more offended if the student I was tutoring did not attend the defense.

This answer really sums it up, the only thing I would add to it is that the OP even asked if it's ok to attend. At this point it would be almost inexcusable to not show up.

I think @cag51's answer ("it's fine") is actually a bit too mild. Please go if you can!
Attitudes towards thesis defenses seem to vary a bit from program to program. My PhD program had a pretty strong (but informal) expectation that people would attend defenses, especially if they a) worked together b) worked in the same sub-field, or c) were friendly. That expectation is weaker in my current department: students do go, but it's acceptable to skip defenses due to non-specific 'busyness' too. In both places, it would certainly not be seen as odd or inappropriate to attend, especially if you have some relationship with the presenter or a professional interest in the topic.
On a more personal note, the final stages of grad school are often lonely and miserable, or at least it was for me. It was therefore incredibly touching to have people turn up for the defense: the room was packed with friends, family, collaborators, and even a few new people who were inexplicably interested in my work. To the extent that your presence triggers an emotion, I think it's much more likely to be gratitude and pride ("Awww, she came!") than stress or confusion ("What's she doing here?!").
Plus, there might be some free food afterward!

Re: loneliness and stress.. What you say is on point, although how people react to that varies, to say the least. My gf didn't want me to attend her thesis, specifically saying that my presence there would stress her even more.. Re: free food - for us there is usually a reception with bubbles, food and beer... so that's always a plus :P

Re: free food afterwards. It is quite common at my university to have a small snack and a drink right after the defense with your commitee and all the guests, and often you have even more snacks and drinks with your guests, after the commitee left. Essentially, after the defense is over you have a party of sorts.

+1, and agree that it varies...perhaps I was too mild because we never ever had more than ~10 people show up to a defense, and for my defense, there was only the committee and one student (even I didn't show up! [was on the phone from thousands of miles away]). I can imagine such a situation being uncomfortable for an undergrad

Echoing praise for paragraph 3.  That's how I felt about it.  It helped quite a bit.

In the similar situations I know (habilitation kind of dissertations) it will be seen bizarre if you are not there, both on scientific as well as human relationship point of views.

This is a normal thing to do. I was in a similar position and will be attending my mentor's dissertation in May. It's nice to give back to someone who has helped you out a lot by supporting them during a very challenging experience. Just make sure he's okay with it. He will probably be very encouraged!

It's fine, I have walked into stressful defence-type lectures which one of my teachers was teaching. I don't mean to put the person off, but it's standard and you have to get used to it. When I first started teaching even though I was nervous I invited my friend to sit in on one of my lectures as it's something you have to get used to. Anyone can walk in there, you could be giving a stressful lecture one day and a family member you haven't seen for ages will randomly walk in and sit down to watch.

@GeorgeM : No, but it is a similar situation


text:
Should I mention in my statement of purpose that I did not attend lectures in my last two years of undergrad?
In my first few years of university I had very uneven grades because traditional classrooms just didn't work for me. My GPA was probably around a 2.8-2.9. I was able to turn my grades around by not attending lectures at all. My GPA for these last two years of undergrad was a 3.5, and my GPA in graduate coursework was a 3.8.
Most of my statement of purpose is forward looking, but I feel the need to elaborate on my transcripts a little bit, particularly because I am hoping to switch fields. I also want to also try to amplify the fact that the decision to not attend classes was positive and life-changing; it has benefits for functioning independently as a researcher.
So, my question is: Would it be perceived negatively if I stated in my SOP that I stopped attending classes?
I'm not asking for writing help, but I'll include a short snippet just to demonstrate what I have in mind:

I have always been naturally curious, but coming from a family where both parents did not graduate from high school I struggled with developing healthy academic habits and with finding success in traditional classroom environments. My poor habits persisted until the fall of 2015 when I made the decision to stop attending classes so that I could experiment with alternative ways of learning. This risky decision forced me to critically reflect on my weaknesses in a way I never had before, and while I did not realize it at the time, this decision was my first step towards becoming an independent researcher. By initially stepping away from the structured classroom environment I struggled finding success in, I was then able to enter and engage in my graduate classroom discussions with maturity and a recalibrated sense of purpose....

Despite the very specific-to-you nature of your question, it seems to me that it could be a suitable question here by asking something along the lines of how likely would graduate admissions committees view non-attendance as evidence of some of the desired skills for research success? Maybe revise along these lines if you get downvotes or someone says this is too specific for Academia. The only thing I can think of now about your (partial) statement is that "was my first step towards becoming an independent researcher" might sound like you think you're already there, which could backfire.

Fair enough. Thank you for your comments on the paragraph. If the downvotes come in i'll try to restructure the question. Hopefully it's apparent that i'm not seeking for specific writing advice for the paragraph in my question statement.

I largely stopped going to class too, but I would never dream of baldly stating that -- it sounds confrontational at best. Why not focus more on the positive aspects? Instead of saying you didn't spend time in lecture, why not emphasize the "alternative" methods of learning you started using?

Yeah, I get the criticism. To me it doesn't sound confrontational at all so I'm thankful for the feedback and my bias check, it's nice to have input with a similar backstory. Perhaps you can try to formalize your comment as an answer?

Interesting question. I suggested some clarifying edits; feel free to edit further if you disagree with any of them.

It might be worth specifying the field also (or is this obvious from your username?). My experience is in physics, where the professor often uses the lecture to work through the derivations from the textbooks, but you mention "classroom discussions", so your field may have different considerations.

@cag51 I tried to avoid being too-specific intentionally so that it is applicable to a broader audience. I think some of the answers thus far are very valuable at a very general level.

You haven't explained why this is good for you being an independent researcher.

The implication is that I was able to learn the material without being dependent on a course. As a researcher if you need to learn something new you wouldn’t typically take a course, so I thought that would extend, but alas. I opted to change it.

What is this SOP for? Grad school? Job hunting? Linkedin? A cover letter?

What are "healthy academic habits"?

I'd shorten and tone it down if I were you. Being a researcher involves a lot of sitting in other people's talks, so we all know that lectures are boring. But we still do it, because those are an excellent chance to socialize. We might just pack a paper to read in case it gets too boring. So your statement makes you look a bit like a loner. And being able to study something without being present in a lecture is a skill I'd assume anyone with a degree has. I don't think anyone ever finished a degree where all lecturers are perfect explainers and there is no need to study something on your own at some point.
So while I would not necessarily view your explanation negatively, I also don't see it as helping you much. So while you should explain your bad initial grades, I'd keep it short and simple. Something like "Coming from a non-academic family background I struggled initially, but then I changed my approach to studying" without going too much into detail.
Finally I think there is also a bit of an "I am very different"-undertone in what you write. It makes you seem aloof and possibly difficult to work with. This is again minor, but in direct comparison with a similar candidate it could tip the scales against you.

"And being able to study something without being present in a lecture is a skill I'd assume anyone with a degree has." Depending on what you mean by "study something without being present in a lecture". I've been doing miserably in my classes this year because I have a disability that impairs my ability to work/study from home; I can't learn effectively without having in-person lectures and tutorials/practicals.

Agreed with this: during my undergraduate studies, 80% of the reason I would attend a lecture was because it got me out of the house, seeing my friends, probably hanging around a bit afterwards. If nobody I knew would be there I invariably wouldn’t attend.

@nick012000 so what do you do if a particular instructor's lecture isn't helpful? What will you do after you graduate when you need to keep your skills up-to-date on your own? I hope you figure out a way to learn independently, that sounds like a rough disability.

@Kat Mostly I've just withdrawn from classes with the intention of giving them another go next year, once vaccines from Covid have hopefully been approved and things can go back to normal.

@nick012000 I think what Kat was suggesting is that there are plenty of things that cannot be learnt in a classroom (mainly, but not exclusively, because such classes do not exist), both in academia and in industry. You should have a plan to address this issue, if your disability is preventing you to learn them effectively in the traditional manner (I don't want to presume you don't have one, but the way you phrased your comment seem to imply that you only learn stuff in a classroom).

First, I am sympathetic to your dislike of sitting in classrooms, at scheduled times, for artificially limited intervals, and too-often lecturers/teachers who add little to the textbook, or even to their own notes... and are possibly non-interactive as well. Or, as in k-12 in the U.S., often far more concerned with crowd control (not their own fault) than course content.
So, when I got to college, I rarely went to class, but/and read assiduously outside of class. My repeated experiments with class attendance mostly confirmed my skepticism of the value of such attendance, with a few notable exceptions. And, from a pragmatic viewpoint, some instructors are very offended if one does not attend...
Thinking of the latter point especially, it would be hugely unwise to make a blanket declaration about the worthlessness of classes. It would also be wildly premature to claim that your viewpoint on that somehow validates your "research skills".
So, as in @mlk's answer, I'd recommend just saying that, due to being a first-gen college student, it took you some time to figure out how to successfully navigate the system, but/and now you are indeed succeeding.

I will take up this advice, some of the criticisms mentioned in your response and mlk's response are ones I had in a blindspot. Particularly that sitting in lectures you might not be interested in is just part of the job - it's a viewpoint I never really considered fully. I am grateful for the insights.

Did your GPA improve as a direct result of not attending class?
Or did it improve as a direct result of you using the time you would have spent in class to do more study by yourself?
If so, the fact you didn't go to class is irrelevant.


text:
How to handle non-published thesis work from previous co-workers in a publication?
Im doing a MSc thesis and I need to write an article, and eventually submit it by the summer.
My work is actually based on two theses that were written past years by other students.  However, they did not publish, neither them nor my supervisor.
Then comes the question: if I want to include the work that is referenced in one of these theses, how should I deal with it ? Should I gladly propose the previous students to be second authors, should I just cite their theses in the bibliographic part...?
Thanks !

Do you really want to include their work, or merely use/reference their work?

@JeffE In fact I am improving a model and must previously build on and present what have been done at the first part of my work.

Even if not "published" in some sense, prior work can/should/must be cited. E.g., cited literally as "... Ph.D. thesis 20xx, University of X, (unpublished)."
Unless they literally help you significantly change what they'd already done, they should not be authors on your work.


text:
What correspondance for corresponding author?
I was wondering what kind of correspondance should one have with persons denominated as corresponding authors ?
Let's assume one was reading through a paper and did not understand a specific point. Is that a reason to mail the corresponding author ?
I've read through the different answers that it is in general the main contributor of the work. So, what are the reasons one can encounter being sufficient to make contact ?

Related question: Does "corresponding author" carry an implied meaning?

@scaaahu Thank you for your suggestion. I've read the post. My question isn't about why one is a corresponding author, but rather about what a corresponding author should address ?

most correspondence you receive as the corresponding author is usually with the journal (and spam from other journals and conferences) That pretty much answers my question.

In my experience (from an HCI-related CS subfield), the only messages that go specifically to the corresponding author are the ones related to organisational aspects during the publishing process.
All questions about the content will rather be sent to all authors (in the vague hope that at least one of them is still reachable by means of the indicated e-mail address).
This experience (from talking to other researchers and receiving enquiries myself) fits with some additional observations:

The corresponding author flag can usually be set in the submission system, normally at the time of manuscript submission. It is not necessarily visible to readers of the paper.1
Accordingly, requests for formatting changes are sometimes sent only to the authors marked as corresponding authors.
Also accordingly, as such technical details are often dealt with by the more junior researchers among the authors, it is likely the corresponding author is not in a permanent position yet, so they might not be reachable at the indicated address for much longer, just about long enough to complete the publication process.
I have come across copyright forms that required the corresponding author to sign as a representative of all involved authors. Hence, the corresponding author in such cases will be the author who happens do complete the manual steps of submission, not necessarily an author who will be available for questions about the content of the paper in the future.

With this background, as a direct recommendation in response to the question, I would suggest to e-mail all authors for any questions of understanding. Do make sure they know they have all been e-mailed, though, as this allows them to agree who will answer (if they are still in touch) rather than wasting time by each of them writing essentially the same answer. For this purpose, simply put all of them into the recipient field of the same e-mail without hiding the other recipients.
1: And frankly, I usually do not remember who was the corresponding author in any given paper of mine for long after publication.

I don't know how it is in other fields, but in Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, any questions pertaining to the paper should be addressed to the corresponding author, that is if you don't have particular reasons for contacting any of the other authors.
And whether you should contact the corresponding author depends on many things. If there is no other way, or if it is, e.g., much more invloved, to get an answer to your question, then yes, contact the corresponding author. However, if the information is easily available out there, then perhaps you will just be wasting the time of the corresponding author.
If you are fairly certain you've found an error in the paper, then I believe you should definitely try to get in touch with the corresponding author.
Also, be prepared to not get a reply. Corresponding authors are often too busy.

It's not uncommon for the corresponding author not to be the first¹/major author.  This is especailly true if the paper was written by a postgrad or even a postdoc close to the end of a contract -- the supervising/most permanent author may be a better point of contact.
There's "did not understand" and "did not understand".  Only you can judge (having worked through the refernces and possibly with the aid of more experienced colleagues) whether you couldn't understand because of a gap in the paper, or a gap in your knowledge.  Only in the former case is it generally worth contacting the author.
¹Assuming author order matters.

As corresponding author, I have had people contact me for a few reasons:

Much the most common has been to request a PDF copy of the paper.
Twice, someone has contacted me to tell me about a potential error or something they didn't understand.
A couple of times, people have contacted me to tell me how much they enjoyed and appreciated the paper - this was great to hear!

I have contacted authors myself for reasons 2 & 3 and also:

To ask whether they wanted to collaborate on a project that I had good reason to think they'd be interested in, given their work
To ask for more information (data behind published figures, details of methods that weren't fully described, or whether they'd be willing to share their code or database).


text:
Where can I find a collection of past exams w/ answers on various subjects?
I am not currently enrolled in any university (too costly for me at this time), but I would like to study as much as I can in various subjects (Advanced Mathematics, Psychology, Computer Programming and so on.) I'd like to find out the areas in which I am adept in case I decide to attend a university later on in life. This will prevent me from working towards an area that I may not be good at or a line of work that I ultimately find out I'm not interested in (both of which have happened to many people I know.)
Are there any universities that provide past curriculums and exams (with answers) online to be used as study guides?

Do you or your acquaintances know any students? They probably have access to huge, unorganized cloud storage pools containing every kind of college/university test you could ever dream about!

MIT's Open Courseware project has a lot of material of this sort.  Here is a link to the Course Finder, with courses organized by topic.  The depth of the offering will vary from course to course. Some have only syllabi, others have complete video lectures, homework assignments, exams, solutions, etc.  The coverage is quite broad and includes courses in all of the specific classes you have listed.

Coursera provides free courses in many different fields from University professors. They also offer you specialized programs and certificates when you complete them (certificates are not free, but not expensive either).

Search for courses, you'll find lots of material. Common are (more of less polished) lecture notes, often you'll find homework (sometimes with answers), also exams.


text:
MPhys Physics to Theoretical Quantum Gravity/Particle physics PhD
Do universities accept Physics graduates in theoretical PhD positions? I will finish my masters this year and I want to proceed in a theoretical physics phd. I'm not sure yet as to the exact subject but I want to do theoretical research in either Quantum Gravity(LQG/String Theory).
Do I have decent chances in being accept in a purely theoretical position?

Do universities accept MPhys Physics graduates in theoretical PhD positions?

Yes they do. People change field all the time, and moving within a field when going from undergrad to PhD is perfectly acceptable, provided you can demonstrate that you have the interest and aptitude.

Do I have decent chances in being accept in a purely theoretical position?

Well, I know nothing about you except that you're a final year MPhys physics student, but that puts you in a better position than someone studying biology, or fine art.
Your chances will be improved if your dissertation is on a theoretical topic or if you have done any theoretical modules (eg QFT, GR, astroparticle physics, even cosmology). You should have good grades in these, and any mathematical modules you've taken.
The answers to this question: Will an off-topic Masters hurt my chances of a PhD place? may reassure you that you don't necessarily need expertise in the field you want to go into; having research experience in any field is generally sufficient, along with good grades. A good personal statement/ statement of research interests can also go a long way to convincing the admissions committee of your interest in the subject*.
I would also recommend speaking to your personal tutor/ dissertation supervisor/ other potential referees as soon as possible, as UK physics PhD application deadlines (for funded places anyway) are usually quite soon after Christmas.
*Please don't take this the wrong way, but it will probably help if you get your personal statement proofread by a native English speaker, or otherwise be sure to check your grammar very carefully (you made quite a few mistakes in your question).


text:
Effective use of extra time during a PhD
I am a PhD student in mathematics starting my third year with the goal of a tenure track position at an R1 university. I believe I have enough research completed that I could graduate this year if I chose to, however my funding situation allows me to stay in my program for up to 6 years fully funded and with little teaching obligation (I do have the opportunity to teach a full course over the summer and plan to do so). I am currently planning to stay for all 6 years, unless I receive a very good offer in my 5th year. I have somewhat different taste in problems from my advisor, so I am currently working on becoming a more independent researcher.
My question is on how to best take advantage of the remaining years of my degree. Is there anything more subtle than "do more research"? What can I do to prepare myself for a postdoc or otherwise get ahead? Are there things that can be done as a graduate student in this situation that cannot easily be done as a postdoc or that are much better to start earlier?

If you're moving out of your advisor's field, my advice is to go and present your work at conferences and start building your network. People knowing who you are and what you do will be very useful when it comes to finding a job.

It is not so much moving out of his field as moving within it, and the types of questions we are each interested in would most likely end up at the same or similar conferences. I still think this is good advice either way.

The question is really too broad. You could do literally anything, even take up the guitar. Examine your goals more closely and figure out how to get closer. Career in Academia is itself pretty broad.

I would ask "should I do X in this situation", but I don't know what X is. I will edit the question to say tenure track position at an R1 university, but I don't think it's so broad as stated that it includes literally anything, unless you can convince me that learning the guitar is an effective way to get an academic job.

How about spending two months each with mathematicians all in different countries. I didn't recommend guitar, just pointed to the possibility. Your goals are your own. Try to refine them. Everyone here has different goals so their suggestions on such questions are mostly just relevant to themselves, not to you. Write a book. Anything.

Note that there's a definite economic cost to staying in grad school longer - although you're funded, you'll make more as a postdoc or professor, and the sooner you start on that path, the more you'll be earning in each successive year.  Of course you can certainly decide to trade off money for something that's more important to you, but you should know what you're giving up.

Extra time during a Ph.D.?  What is that?

Very interesting question, the answer of course depends on you and your preference. A few pieces from a Y3 postdoc...

Advice 1: Think of a skill that you feel as your biggest weakness. If possible, try working on improving it. This can be a management workshop, a presentation class, whatever. As a postdoc, having a well-rounded skillset is going to be useful.
Advice 2: Think of an area adjacent to yours which you considered to learn about, and then try to take an online course or something like that for it. Having broader overview helps a bunch.
Advice 3: Present your work to others. Write a bunch of profs of interest that you'd like to visit their lab and give a lecture about your PhD topic. But also, consider giving public-oriented "outreach" lectures, so that interested general public knows what's happening in your field. One feels this to be  important, given we're usully paid from their taxes.
Start writing that book that you always wanted ;)

As a third year student who is ready to defend their thesis at the end of the year (start of fourth year), with six years funding, I'd recommend:

Writing your thesis; and
Starting your job hunt.

You can "hang around" at your current institute until you find the right position.
A PhD is training. You claim to be complete, so move on.*

*I've deliberately used "claim," you should consider whether you are really complete.


text:
VERY Slow Review process
I have submitted a paper in a journal 19 months ago and the manuscript is still under review. Up to present, I have contacted the editorial manager several times but the results have not changed. They always reply "your manuscript is still under review." What should I do in this case?
Thank you for your comments.

Assuming you're in a field with a quicker response time (e.g., not mathematics), I would email the Editor-in-Chief directly (outside of the journal's system) an tell her or him that your article has been in review for 19 months and if you do not hear back from her or him within a set deadline (1 or 2 weeks) you pulling your manuscript from that journal.
I had a similar experience where a manuscript of mine sat in "under-review" for 12 months. The Editor-in-Chief apologized for the delay and promised me the review would be completed within a set deadline. In my case, the Editor-in-Chief was clearly unhappy with the Associate Editor I was assigned.
As long as you are polite, but firm, there is nothing wrong with being assertive.


text:
How to react to this editor response after a long fruitless review phase?
We submitted a paper 26 months ago.  Until now, more than two years have passed, but we have not got any information of our manuscript. Several times we wrote emails to the editorial office and current editors-in-chief   to ask them of about our manuscript but the status of the paper is still under review.
Yesterday, we sent a letter directly to the editor-in-chief to say that:

We can wait one month more. After this time if we shall not obtain the first reviews then, please, permit us to  withdraw our submission from the journal.

The answer we received was:

The better think is what you are proposing...

How should we respond to them in this case?

"the better think is what you are proposing, that is withdrawing this version and in case submit new results" -- if you're really quoting from the journal editor's response, it looks like this person has clear communication issues. Anyway, this looks like an awful publisher, find a better venue for your work.

How long is this paper? If it's 150 pages and very dense, and the journal is stringent, then the wait time is not completely unheard of, the issue is that you've got a bad editor

I believe the editor meant “thing”, not “think”. Then it makes sense. Withdraw the paper.

Actually, you don't need their permission to withdraw the paper until you give them the copyright after final acceptance. The paper is yours to do with as you please.
The answer you got is hard to decipher. It makes me question their competence, as does the long time "in review".
Just tell them that you are withdrawing, though you might want to wait out the month that you offered.
Find a better publisher.

until you give them the copyright after final acceptance – Note that for most journals I am familiar with, copyright transfer (or similar) happens before final acceptance. However, it usually also includes a clause that allows either party to void the transfer until final acceptance.

Find a better publisher is the most important advice here. And maybe, inquire among your colleagues what the best suited journal would be.


text:
How do successful undergraduate and PhD students differ?
I was recently speaking to a university lecturer about studying at undergraduate and PhD level. He spoke about how many successful undergraduate students ended up doing poorly at research level, as the skills needed to succeed at undergraduate and research level differ. Is this true? I'm just curious, how do the skills required to succeed at research level differ from those to succeed at undergraduate level?
I've always considered myself a book smart person (I'm good at understanding difficult concepts from textbooks and I'm good at solving problems when I  know what steps I need to undertake), but I don't consider myself to be creative, so I'm curious as to whether he was implying that those types of people won't succeed at PhD level.

Age mostly, I would imagine.

Note that practically all PhD candidates were doing really well academically as undergraduates, but that about half of them drop out (some disciplines more than others, some countries more than others, but roughly half). Which suggests undergraduate result are a poor predictor.

@user3445853 but do you know anything else that is a better predictor? Maybe getting a PhD is just really hard.

@user3445853 to be clear, I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm just trying to make the point that (people were doing well as undergraduates drop out,  lots drop out in PhDs -> undergrad success is a bad predictor) was not a very scientific statement to make without additional evidence

this question is heavily opinion-based and not a good fit for this website

certainly debt or at least financial independence.

The phrasing suggests that some people are inherently capable or incapable of succeeding as undergrads or PhD reseachers. That is not the case.

I'm not a big believer in "types" of people. But yes, some succeed in an undergraduate program but don't in a doctoral program. The difference, I think, is largely determined by the nature of the programs, not the people.
As an undergraduate you are mostly exploring what is already known and the connections that are already known between them. Too often the method of evaluation is poor. Poorly designed multiple choice questions, for example, test memory primarily. Memory is a useful skill, but more is needed to complete a PhD. An undergraduate degree, even when focused on a particular field, as in UK, is still pretty broad.
A doctoral program, on the other hand, is an exploration of the unknown. You can't plan for success in research, only work effectively so that you can find it eventually. But it is much more frustrating for many people than is the exploration of the known. You are trying, among other things, to make connections that others have not yet made. It is a different kind of thing. The boundary between the two isn't smooth.
So, the undergraduate degree is only a partial preparation for what needs to happen in a doctoral program. Being successful in the one doesn't guarantee success in the other. It gives a basis on which to work, but that is all. Some people learn, too late, that they just don't like researching the unknown, even though they love what they did as undergraduates.
In mathematics, for example, if you are studying things already known and come to a hard part, you can find someone, or a book, say, to explain it to you. You can find exercises to deepen your knowledge. But as a mathematician researching some area, there are no such resources. You are a creator, not a consumer. There is no guarantee that you will ever succeed in answering some particular question.
So, I attribute the effect you see more to the different nature of the two levels of learning than to the "types" of students who succeed or fail.

However, as an afterthought, I think that most people will start out in their education finding things fairly easy to do. The things are fairly simple, of course. But usually people reach a point where it isn't easy anymore and they have to work to continue. I think that the people who don't reach this point early in an undergraduate program, or at least by its completion, will have a hard time in a doctoral program. If you've never had to work hard to advance, research can be a shocking awakening. I was lucky enough to learn my limits in secondary school and so learned to work hard at learning. Others, who far surpassed me early on, didn't advance as far. I doubt that this is a universal, but think it is pretty common.

+1 for "If you've never had to work hard to advance, research can be a shocking awakening."

In analogy:  An undergraduate program is like directing or performing a work of Shakespeare.  A PhD is like trying to write a brand new smash-hit play.

@Chronocidal, pretty good analogy. Thanks.

I think you really hit the main point by comparing it to “being a consumer” versus being a “creator”.  Consuming a medium (youtube or science) takes a lot less effort than making something new of equal or greater value.

I think the key difference is the openness in a phd versus undergrad. If you receive say a homework problem as an undergrad you can savely assume (in most cases) that this is a problem that can be solved in a reasonable amount of time with the knowledge of the course and its prerequisites. If you study a problem as a phd it might happen that

the problem is still decades away from being solvable
this problem was solved under a different name somewhere else
once you properly understand it, it is actually trivial
the problem doesn't have a good solution in any reasonable way

Finding problems that look interesting is not that hard but knowing which ones actually lead to a fruitful phd is hard and a problem that doesn't really occur as a undergrad. Your advisor will help but this is difficult for him/her as well.

I've had all of these issues in school as well and I definitely don't have a PhD.

I'll say this from the perspective of an undergraduate student where in my first two years my gpa was 2.7 and my last two were 3.5 which allowed me to get into graduate school and finish my courses with a 3.8. I am an MSc student, but after about 8 months in research I have had time to think about this question.
Undergraduate studies are tricky to think about, because what is the point of them, really? The institution needs to consider that a small fraction of people will pursue PhDs and so course work needs to be tailored to many more people. So the question becomes, how should you approach your studies if you want to be a researcher as opposed to how to be "successful".
Looking at it from the lens of undergraduate studies being preparation for a PhD, you are essentially learning a lot of different tools and techniques. Consider any sport, when you're training at the lower levels you are trying to grasp onto basics and principles, but what separates young (undergraduate) and elite (PhD) athletes is how the elite athletes use those basic skills and principles to pull off incredible highlights. Elite athletes don't think about how to dribble the ball or move in a certain way, instead, those basic principles are ingrained into them so they don't have to think about them at all. As the undergraduate, it is your job to gain mastery over basics so that when you try to break into your PhD you're able to use those fundamentals in new and creative ways. As the undergraduate you answer homework problems you've never seen before, now you're job as a PhD is, in a way, to be the one to write those new problems. When I started to see a boost in my GPA it was not because I suddenly "got it", but because instead of just studying the material, I would create my own tests and try to think of all the different ways I could play with the material. I begun to take those basics and create "new" things with them. By doing this, you are essentially expressing concepts you're familiar with but in new ways. For example, I would write down my own integration problems and try to solve them with the techniques that I had - sometimes what I wrote was analytically solvable, sometimes it was not.
As a PhD you're now primarily focused on finding new problems in the literature, and this is really challenging and a skill that I believe can be developed and nurtured. Because I believe that problem finding is a skill that can be developed, the notion of creativity instead becomes how well you can connect the dots that are in front of you (for most of us). But again, how can you connect the dots if you lack the skills to be able to draw the line between them?
As a PhD you are flexing brain muscles that you never really had to before, so it's frustrating at first but I believe over time it gets easier as you adapt to that type of new thinking. Research, like homework, is practice and the only way that you will get better at being a researcher is to practice doing it. So don't let yourself give up before you've had the chance to start.

Is this true?

Yes

how do the skills required to succeed at research level differ from
  those to succeed at undergraduate level?

I'm not sure the skills differ, per se. The vast majority of PhD students were exceptional undergraduates; PhD students overwhelmingly have the skills necessary for undergraduate success. But, a successful PhD student needs much more.

I've always considered myself a book smart person, so I'm curious as to whether he was implying that those types of people won't succeed at PhD level.

I don't believe such an implication holds. (Albeit, I'm not entirely sure what book smart means.) You need many skills to succeed as a PhD student, including, but not limited to, the ability to study hard.

"But, a successful PhD student needs much more." Please elucidate on this. It will be useful for the OP.

It will be useful for the OP: Will it? The OP seems rather vague. If they are more precise, then I'll revise. As it stands, I'm not going to spend my time guessing at what they might want to know.

The difference is that between a traveler and an explorer. The explorer ventures into unfamiliar territory, hoping to find interesting and useful locations. The boundary between the unknown and the known is breached with certain expectations and aspirations. Likewise the researcher is fully aware of the boundaries of knowledge, and strives to form new pathways for the thought processes that can be profitably followed by all. The enticement for the explorer is the same -- the possibility of discovering something spectacularly valuable!

I've always considered myself a book smart person (I'm good at understanding difficult concepts from textbooks and I'm good at solving problems when I know what steps I need to undertake), but I don't consider myself to be creative, so I'm curious as to whether he was implying that those types of people won't succeed at PhD level.

You may find some interesting perspective and context in this clip, from a University of Toronto lecture regarding to being "book smart" and "creative". For context let me point out that measurements talked here are from the big five model. Unlike random internet tests, this theory of "types of people" seem to be backed by empirical results although there are critiques of it as well.

To answer the OP's headline question:

How do successful undergraduate and PhD students differ?

One will be a hardworking productive member of society and the other will be twiddling their thumbs for 3 to 10 years.
(I studied and started working in Electronics Engineering, we don't see many PhDs and there is a general joke about academics being the unemployable ones)

Now that joke is out of the way we can discuss the important points behind it.
Firstly, academics are employable and productive members of society they just contribute indirectly to the industrial complex.  We do need them to advance our knowledge and explore the current possibilities, especially those that do not presently have obvious commercial use as industry or business will not look hard there.  To do this they will need to be driven by some thirst for knowledge, not capital gain or direct and immediate impact on society.  If I make a cool thing and it takes off I see customers using it in 2~5 years.  If someone's research shows promise they are likely going to have to imagine any tangible benefit for much longer or perhaps never live to see it.
To pass undergraduate studies you have to learn what is known.  You can parrot with little deeper understanding and pass.  If you can apply what you know, you can get a job and do well on what you can recall.  To come up with new ideas, new problems and new questions relating to what you know you must have a deeper understanding.  Sure if you go to industry you may do better with this deeper knowledge but it may not be essential.  To work as a PhD you will likely need to have a deep enough understanding to work new things out from scratch (OK some PhDs are a bit of handle turning exorcise based on someone else's idea but you can see the concept).
In many of the PhDs I know and those who chose to not do a PhD there are several differences:

The Jobs you get with a PhD are different.  If you do not want the job type, you do not get the PhD.
You have an interest in academic work with PhD study.  You must enjoy reading papers.  You are going to have to be OK writing papers.  You are going to have to play the game of getting your name on papers and having other peoples names on your papers.
You have to be able to operate in isolation to do the PhD.  You may get little to no guidance and support compared to when you were an Undergraduate.  In industry, if you got for a graduate role or similar they will likely train and mentor you further to take you from someone used to learning to someone used to doing the job.  In PhD study you maybe get a few questions a month but are largely left to sort yourself out.

Going from someone being educated on a program, with regular goals and checks and validation to someone who sits alone thinking for years on end is a big change.  I realise I am exaggerating that but it makes the point.  Can you cope with not knowing if you are doing an OK job or having any way to gauge your achievements?  Can you go from quite a lot of provided and enforced structure to very little at all?


text:
Why do conferences keep deferring the deadlines?
We work on some research problem, obtain some publishable results, then we target an international conference to disseminate the results and methods in, and then there is a 'last' date or deadline.
We submit the complete manuscript to the conference on or before the mentioned deadline of the conference.
Then, suddenly we see the deadlines (both for submission and for the acceptance) continually change over time. For example, in one of the last year's Computer Science conference, the deadlines were changed repeatedly. Please note that the deadlines for submission were getting extended on the very day of the earlier notified deadline, which is another demotivating factor.

Why might it be happening?

Because the targetted number of submissions were not received.
The reviewers could not meet the deadlines.
Can there be any other reasons than the above two?

I have the following questions:

If the conference organizers were not so firm about this stuff, why did they even have an important date page?
It is actually frustrating for the authors who have submitted the paper on the first submission dead line and still waiting for 3 months to get the review. This is ridiculously bad for a conference.
The papers which are submitted at the last notified deadline will be reviewed in a less productive way. If this is true, then what is the point of having a peer review?
In such a scenario, is it advisable to withdraw the paper from the conference?
Does it not hamper the quality of the conference as good researchers would not submit to the same conference again in following years?

I believe that this question is not a duplicate of this question.

I've received these "deadline extended" emails from conferences that I've never submitted a paper to and never attended, so apparently they send these emails to a fairly large mailing list. Might they view this as an opportunity to get a little extra publicity, at least in the sense of getting the conference's name into my email list (for a few moments until I delete it)?

I don't think this is an exact duplicate, but there are too many questions for one post.

PLZ tell me the name of this conference so I could submit my own piece!

There are many reasons why the organizers might extend a submission deadline. You listed two of them. A third reason I suspect might be relatively common is that some conferences have come to expect that they'll have a lot requests for deadline extension. The program committee (PC) doesn't want to argue with a dozen authors about extensions, so the PC gives an initial deadline that is made artificially early with the expectation that they'll give everyone a 1-2 week extension and not have to argue individual cases.

It would be extremely frustrating to have a conference submission extended by 2.5 months. My experience is that a week or two is not unusual, but ~10 weeks is unexpected and unprofessional. If this is a middle-tier conference I'd think about targeting another venue- if it's a top conference I don't know what you'd do other than voice your displeasure. There might be extenuating circumstances on any given year, but if this happens every year it'd be a definite red flag for me.

I don't get the impression that papers submitted later will be reviewed differently from those submitted early. The conference model I'm familiar with is that all submissions are received before any are sent out for review, so all are reviewed at roughly the same time.
If that weren't the case it would be completely plausible that the time difference would skew reviewer or PC opinions.

+1. Answers to your comment: 1. Many top and middle tier conferences in CS do not consider every author requests. 2. yes, such a huge extension is not normal and frustrating. I had emailed the PC chair the same and got no reply back on this. 3. Would not the earlier reviewers feel that there is enough time to submit the review and do some more lingering on?

There are basically two approaches for conference deadlines.  In my experience, top conferences have a "hard" deadline and do not slip it, and the rest frequently slip it once.  Usually the slippage is actually planned, and it's announced pretty far in advance: for instance, a conference might say 2 weeks before its announced deadline that there are actually 3 weeks to go.  Sometimes it's a panic because of low submissions, which is probably a bad sign.
Notifications are another story.  It's considered poor form to miss the announced deadline, though if the change takes place before submission (delaying both submissions and results) that seems ok: people can choose not to submit.  Simply missing and redefining the deadline isn't playing by the rules.
I wouldn't say that the changes to the deadlines are a reason to avoid a conference.  Many factors go into the decision about which conference you submit to.

The top conferences in my field will often slip by a week or two, but they're relatively small conferences.

+1.  But in my experience even high-quality conferences often announce changes to the submission deadlines.

@DavidKetcheson They do, but they do it before time. Not on the last day. I have added this part to the question. And, thanks for editing the earlier question.

In CS systems,  they have hard deadlines and stick to them.


text:
Why does a professor cite his own works with unbelievable proportion?
There is a professor X who publishes as many as 20-30 research articles (usually in journals) every year. It is quite obvious that these are the outcomes of his big lab and multiple collaborations.
I usually follow his works. However, his publication surprises me in terms of the number of his own published works he cites in each paper. For example, in one of his latest paper, there were 145 references out of which 70-80 were his own publications. Many of the cited references are not so related to the latest published work and cited like this ([1,7,8-10,12-18]).
Moreover, it should be noted that he has been the top-cited researcher in his field as per Thomson Reuters.
My questions are:

Why might he be doing it? (Is it just to increase [self-]citation?)
If this is the case, then the claim that he is the 'top' cited researcher does not hold. Isn't it?

"Why might he be doing it?": to boost his publication indexes, indeed ;-)

You will have to read the specifics of Thomson-Reuters to see whether they include self-citations or not.

"Why might he be doing it?" - he (or his group) knows his work (or that of the other group members) best?

Plus if he's done previous ground breaking work in the field and he's still working in the same field, chances are that his works are the most commonly cited anyway.

Beyond his own citation count, it's pretty common and expected that a researcher's future work is going to depend on their past work. It would be expected that any given paper would heavily cite the author's previous work.

70 per paper is a ridiculous number. In my book, that's unethical behavior. In most fields, less than 10% percent self citations is the average: https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/self-citations.

Also from this blog: "There is a limit to the benefit one can receive from self-citations. Fowler and Aksnes estimated that at 40-50 self-citations a year, additional self-citing will decrease citations from others."

Because this is the numbers game the academic world is playing. It's how "research" is done.

While there can be good reasons to self-cite, and sometimes self-cite significantly, if many of the self-citations are not relevant, then it's pretty clear the citations are there in order to inflate citation metrics.
The appropriate response is to pay less attention to citation metrics. After all, by those sorts of metrics King Abdulaziz University is ranked above MIT in mathematics.

Thank you very much for the link. I couldn't believe the ranking of KAU at 7. But, I learned a lot of insights into this fishy game.