text:
Second time chance for applying in one university
My application for admission to a degree program or research position at  universities in Europe, USA, Australia, and so on has been rejected. If I then write several new papers for journals and conferences and again apply to the same university, is there any chance for me to obtain admission, or will I be automatically rejected?

I can only speak about the admissions process in the United States, but you will not automatically be reconsidered (i.e., you will need to apply again).
At least in my area, published papers do carry non-trivial weight in the admissions process, so it's great that you now have those. Overall, I think they key factor in getting an different outcome this time around is highlighting what has changed since you last applied. It seems like you now have publications you didn't have before, so be sure to highlight those. If your grades or standardized test scores were weak, highlight anything that can show that you've made an effort to improve them (e.g., getting good grades in areas where you were weak, getting a higher GRE score, etc). If you suspect that your recommendation letters were not strong, perhaps try to ask someone else who may provide a stronger letter this time. Et cetera.
In most cases of multiple rejections from the same program, I believe applicants are rejected again because their new application is not substantially different from their old (previously rejected) application. Like Alexanders, I also encourage you to apply to different schools in addition to reapplying to the same schools as before, just to maximize your chances of admission (of course, only apply to schools where you could realistically see yourself going, as to not waste your time or the time of the respective admissions committees).


text:
What should I do if I accidentally get graded on a take-home exam for someone else's work?
A few weeks ago, I had an exam. Some of the questions were to be solved by computer and the results printed out and handed in. I didn't do well on the exam: I didn't solve some of the questions and I didn't do the part where I was supposed to print out the results, so I expected to get an F or D but I got a really good grade! Then i went to the professor's office to check my exam i was shocked to see that the papers that I was supposed to print out were "included" and solved correctly!
I was so shocked and nervous I didn't even say a word and left the office! I'm still shocked. I don't know what to do: I don't know if he really helped me or the papers weren't mine and by mistake got included with my papers! And now, when I see him around, I feel awkward. What am I supposed to do?
Shall i go back to his office and tell him i just want to check my grade and leave? Or that i need someone to explain what happened?

Tell him that you didn't do those parts and ask him to retake the exam. Also inform him that "your" exam is probably someone else's who may deserve a better grade than he/she got.

While this may be off-topic as a student question, it's very much on-topic for faculty who may have to deal with such a situation.

Do go and see the professor, as pointed out someone else may be hurting. It may well be that the prof could turn around and sort the other person's grade to its correct value - if that is the case, and then say, well for your honesty, yours won't change...
However, do be prepared to retake it, or your grade to change...
It also depends on how many assessments there are in the course: if there are only a few it may be corrected, but if there are many - then it won't make a huge difference...
Be known for your attitude...

You should go to your professor, explain what happened and your confusion with your score, and ask to retake the test if indeed this was in error.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Relevance of Advanced Placement courses to graduate admissions
So a lot of websites recommend taking AP courses and earning college credits in advance. What exactly are advanced placement courses and where can one take them ? Why are they stressed upon; are they really all that important a factor while considering students for admission to a Master's program?

Advanced Placement (AP) courses are taken by high school students in the US as a way of earning undergraduate college credits.  This isn't relevant to admission into a Master's program and is off topic for this site.

https://apstudent.collegeboard.org/home  AP is a system for getting college credit by examination instead of taking classes.  They are for bachelor's degrees, and as far as I know they are irrelevant to master's programs.

@BrianBorchers: Not directly, no. However, they can have an influence. See my answer below.

As mentioned in the comments above, the Advanced Placement (AP) program offers students the opportunity to earn college credits for courses completed during high school by successfully passing an exam of difficult comparable to that of a college course.
Directly, AP courses do not influence graduate admissions, since they are generally excluded from cumulative averages. However, they indirectly can influence master's and PhD admissions, because the ability to place out of lower-level courses can open up the possibility to complete more advanced courses in a given discipline, or allow for enough "freedom" in the course plan to allow time for graduate-level coursework. For example, I had sufficient AP credits to opt out of a number of courses as an undergraduate; as a result of this, I was able to take three different graduate-level courses plus an advanced undergraduate math elective that otherwise I would not have had time for.

I strongly second the points in this answer! To reiterate: no, the literal getting of more undergrad credits does not affect graduate admission, but it makes possible coursework and other activities that can greatly enhance graduate admissions prospects. E.g., taking as many graduate-level courses as possible while an undergrad.

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


text:
How can I make sure that my paper's work is unique?
I am trying to write a research papers that applies the ELK stack to visualise social media data (twitter API). How can I make sure that my work was not done by someone else before? I searched in different repositories for the two titles but did not find any paper that deals with them combined. How can I assure my work is contributing in that area?
My professor is really busy person outside the campus and I can't meet him regularly so emails is the only way that I keep him informed about the progress, once I asked this question he answered, "we'll get the answer when conference reviewers send you the feedback."
Isn't that too late? How should I proceed?

Getting on top of the literature in your field is an important skill for a researcher and, I think, too broad as a question for this format. However, from what you tell us, it sounds like your advisor does a very poor job in advising you, which is a real and significant threat to your chances to graduate. If you still have the chance to switch advisors, you might consider doing so.

I can tell you that applying ELK to social media is not novel in industry. Whether anyone else has written a paper, read the answers.

Possible duplicate of How can I improve the effectiveness of my literature searches?

There are several questions on this site about how to do a literature search: see, e.g., http://academia.stackexchange.com/q/13594/705.

To address you concern that it is too late once it has been submitted to a conference.
Acceptance: Conference reviews are not the be all and end all. Getting accepted does not make it a good or correct paper. It does not mean that the paper makes a novel contribution. Acceptance reflects the views, knowledge and biases of the reviewers. This type of peer review is useful from the view that it is a  a final last check on paper quality, novelty, etcetera. before being put out in the wild to see if your ideas are useful/deepen understanding/correct.
Therefore, you should only rely on the reviewers as a last line of defense against publishing something non-innovative, etcetera. and do a thorough literature search beforehand. You can never be sure, of course. Some authors put "to the best of our knowledge" before making claims of novelty.
Rejection: If you are rejected because it is not seen as novel is not as detrimental as you might think. Firstly, the next time you submit to a conference you might get ignorant but positive reviewers, or the reviewer who thought it was not novel may be someone who thinks everyone is copying them.
Therefore, if it is rejected for not being novel you should not worry too much. Most likely your paper might claim to be the first to do X and Y, but another paper already does X and Y. However, X and Y might be a very broad general contribution. Perhaps the existing work does X and Y using method M1 whilst yours uses M2. Or perhaps existing work makes a more specific contribution than X and Y, X1 and Y1, whilst yours makes X2 and Y2 and both pieces make contributions that could be described as X and Y. In other words, you would need to rephrase how your work is different by making comparisons on the specific details. Now, if the specific details are also the same (never seen this happen, personally), you can at least do a little bit more research to make it different.
To summarise, even if after doing an extensive literature search (which is necessary to make a contribution) you can always adjust how you sell your work (which is sufficient to make a contribution).

The only thing you can do to ensure that your contribution is original, i.e., nobody has done the same thing before, is extensive literature research.
Use Google Scholar or Scopus to search for keywords related to your field and try to find something similar. You will notice that there is only so much literature that is closely related to your topic. If you are thorough, you should be able to say if you have done something original.
Your advisor doesn't seem to be keen on talking to you regularly. In the case that you want to continue working for him, you should probably do the literature research, write the article, send it to your advisor for corrections and hand it in. I doubt your advisor will take much time to correct your article, so you should have more experienced colleagues read your article before sending it to him. If he agrees, submit it to a journal and wait for the outcome.

Tactic #1: Keep up with the literature
I once wrote a blog post on this topic; here is the summary:

Use search engines, especially Google Scholar
Link forward through the literature
Learn how to do effective keyword searches
Use review articles
Use RSS or email notifications for new journal issues
Check preprint servers (like arXiv) and key author websites

The details are in the post linked above.
Tactic #2: Talk to people
Talk to everybody you can about your research topic.  Ask them what they know about related research.  Do this at your university, but especially at conferences or when you visit other institutions.  When you have new results, email your close colleagues about them.  Once you know a few people, this approach becomes even more effective (and much more efficient) than #1, since you are leveraging your colleagues' collective knowledge of the literature.

[...] once I asked this question he answered, "we'll get the answer when conference reviewers send you the feedback."
  Isn't that too late?

Strictly speaking, the answer is no: you can always resubmit the paper to another conference.
However, arguably, this way of delegating your job of doing a proper literature research to the reviewers is both inefficient and harmful. Inefficient because there's a chance that the reviewers do not tell you all relevant references, and you will have the same issue when you resubmit the paper somewhere else. Harmful because you will communicate the impression that you didn't do your job properly. Based on this impression, you will have an even harder time getting the paper accepted when the same reviewers read the paper again for another conference.


text:
Am I harming myself by doing a PhD in a less prestigious university than where I did my MSc if I don't want to stay in academia?
I did an MSc in an extremely prestigious university, in mathematics and theoretical computer science. I got an offer to stay there for a PhD, but turned it down. Instead, I enrolled on an MRes + PhD programme at a good but far less prestigious university, in a subject I thought I was far more interested in. I will soon have finished the MRes year.
As much as I am enjoying it, I've realised I don't want to stay in academia. What I'd like to go into is probably quantitative finance. What I'm studying at the moment involves a lot of stochastic processes - which would certainly help with quantitative finance. My thinking is that it would be best to finish the PhD, get really good with stochastic processes, and then apply for the kind of job I want. My issue is that, after having read the answers to this question, the less prestigious university might actually harm my career prospects and overshadow the prestige of the university where I got my Master's.
To that extent, I'm wondering: is a MSc from a very prestigious uni + a PhD from a good but less prestigious uni worse than just an MSc from a very prestigious uni (and no PhD)? The jobs I've looked at don't strictly require PhDs.
I'm in the UK (just in case this makes any difference).

Edit: I ended up writing to a place I would've been very interested in working at. They replied saying that they were more interested in my ability to produce great research than in any league table, and that my MSc at a world-reknowned univeristy already proves my ability in the subject. As such, I will continue with my current programme, seeing as I am enjoying it very much and seeing as I find my supervisor to be extremely supportive.

Hiring in elite quant finance post-PhD level positions is highly selective, and yes, by switching to inferior reputation university (especially "far less prestigious"), you are harming your career. For e.g. just having a PhD in Math from say Harvard will certainly get you a interview at DE Shaw, but a PhD in Math from PennState, you have to show extra ordinary results for same chances.

@mystupid_acct would you say this is true, to the point that it might not even be worth starting the PhD?

In general, PhD from "far more prestigious" program is almost always a better bet. How about you look at 20 people who have the kind of job you want post-PhD, and see where (if anywhere) they did their PhD.

@mystupid_acct good point. I will mention, though, that my thesis advisor studied (and did his PhD) at that same far more prestigious university. Would this make a difference?

I don't think anyone will care, especially in industry, unless they are graduates of that more prestigious university and feel a superior attitude about it and let that overwhelm their interest for qualified candidates who can do the job they are hiring for (in which case you probably don't want to work for them anyways).
This all assumes that the lesser university is still a good research and learning environment and still lets you pursue your research goals. In the question you linked, that wasn't clear.
What might be important is that you have an answer to "why did you choose to get a PhD at this university?" which may or may not carry an additional implication of "...and why not at more fancy school?" You have an answer already (emphasis mine):

Instead, I enrolled on an MRes + PhD programme ... in a subject I thought I was far more interested in.

That said, the networking potential of a particularly well-known school can't be understated. Still, it seems you already made up your mind. I wouldn't worry too much about that decision now that you've made it. You may be able to tap into your old networks from the previous institution when needed for a job, assuming people from that institution also move toward the industry you are interested in.

"assumes that the lesser university is still a good research and learning environment and still lets you pursue your research goals"
yes, this is definitely the case. If anything, I feel like I might even be getting more support here than I was in my previous institution. Thanks for your answer

You can also include that in your reasoning. "I had experience at Jedi Master School and it was a great place to do research, but I knew PhD students who complained they got little support from their advisors there. I heard great things about the research experience at Dark Side university, though, and I feel like I learned a lot more from the closer advisory relationship there."

@BryanKrause The awkward thing about Dark Side university is finding out your director of studies is your father..

@MikeMiller It does complicate the letters of recommendation.

@BryanKrause just to clarify, I would still have the chance to leave my programme if I wanted to after the MRes year before starting the PhD. Hence my question

So do you think prestige matters in academia because it is full of people who"  are graduates of that more prestigious university and feel a superior attitude about it and let that overwhelm their interest for qualified candidates who can do the job they are hiring for". ?

@mystupid_acct Not always, but occasionally. I think it matters in academia because 1) there are way way too few positions for the number of new graduates, and it is very difficult to distinguish yourself sufficiently at an early career stage that "every little bit" doesn't count, and 2) university ranking systems are unfortunately somewhat recursive, such that the strength of programs are defined in part by the students and faculty they attract, including the institutions they come from.

@mystupid_acct As you point out in your comment on the original post, though, that high ranking university might be an important "in" with certain types of jobs in the professional world, too. In my area it doesn't matter at all.

@mystupid_acct having done a PhD at the best-ranked university in the first place would obviously have been the most impressive choice. However, given the choice I made would you say it's better to finish a programme that's still pretty good (with a very good advisor), or to leave this course, take a gap year, and then risk not even getting a place again at my previous institution? And even if I did end up getting a place there again, would it become hard to explain all the starting and quitting to employers?

These are all very specific questions, so I am unable to help or predict the future. As I said, look at profiles of people who have the job you want, and see where they got the Ph.D.

If you enjoy what you do, and you are good at what you do, then where you got this degree or that training is basically meaningless.  The only way you can "harm" yourself is to follow down a path for all the wrong reasons. Have faith in yourself and don't make it about what other people think.

As ridiculous as this may sound, I'm getting paid more at my current institution, and receive more money for travel than I would have if I had stayed at my previous one. I also find I am receiving far more support from my advisor. Overall, I believe it is a better learning environment. My only qualm is the university's reputation. I realise that might mean I'll have to climb uphill once I'm done, but perhaps the aforementioned reasons I've mentioned make up for it. Thanks for your reply


text:
How to apply to a prestigious American university as an international student?
I am planning to do a Ph.D. in theoretical physics in the US, more specifically California, and recently started looking into potential Universities that offer a good physics programme. A number of questions came up.

I understand that an American Ph.D. program is very different from a European one in that it usually takes around 5 years to complete and involves coursework. If a master's degree was already obtained, do American universities allow for a more European style Ph.D. completed in around 3 years? Does a Ph.D. necessarily involve paying the university's tuition fees?
Ph.D. students in Europe are employed by their university, receive a monthly salary and don't pay tuition. Does this model exist in the US, i.e. is there any way to avoid paying tuition fees as a Ph.D. student?

I appreciate any helpful advice including to questions I did not ask but maybe should have.

This question is too broad. If they haven't been asked before, you should ask each of your questions individually. Additionally, the first two questions are likely to be to specific to you, and to Stanford. Try and make them more widely applicable.

I think that we already had the third question answered here at some point. The general answer was "no", part of the reason being that Bachelor degrees are typically 4 years in the US, so a German Bachelor+Master will not be equivalent to a US Bachelor+Master. But then again you also learn a lot in the first two years for your actual research, so they want you to take it as well.

Acceptance rates are low everywhere (and to me, 5% looks incredibly high!). Don't apply only to Stanford.

@MJeffryes Why would it be an issue if a question was specific to Stanford? Surely, Stanford is a sufficiently large institution to be of general interest. Also, I do describe my own academic situation here but that does not make an answer on my chances of being accepted irrelevant to others. Those others will know their own academic situation and can derive an estimate for their own chance of acceptance based on the feedback I receive and how their situation compares to mine.

@Casimir You are presenting your specific situation and then asking "can I aspire to attend Stanford". This is clearly a question which is too localised to you. Also bear in mind that it isn't clear there is anything special about applying to Stanford as opposed to any other prestigious American university, so confining the question to Stanford is also too specific. If there was something unusual about the Stanford admissions process you wanted to ask about, that would probably be acceptable.

@MJeffryes I rewrote the question to be more. It no longer contains any mention of Stanford and only very little about my specific academic situation.

The question is looking better to me, but it might still be considered too broad. You can flag for moderator attention to get your question reopened.

The post just contains too many questions which could be answered individually - some of which may be duplicates. #1 is addressed in many other questions, such as question 38237. #2a is addressed by question 41162 (generally no, though there is no universal strict rule). #2b (tuition) varies by program - common advice is beware of programs that don't offer full funding (they pay you to attend, you don't pay them). #3, you can not pay tuition by getting funding in the form of a fellowship, grant from the school, and/or "assistanceship" (RA/TA - like a job). So try to pick one main question.

Your specific question - applying at Stanford - is answered fairly well on their web page. If accepted, your tuition is covered; you'll need 145 units' worth of classes (some transfer of credits might be possible, which I would not ask about before being accepted); and you'll earn a living stipend as an RA or TA. Not covered, but safe to assume: you will not finish in 3 years - 4 or 5 should be possible; and your letters are arguably the key component of whether or not you'll be accepted.

Your first question is definitely too broad, there are entire books written on that subject (e.g., this one found via google search). The rest of it seems OK to me.

Readers should note the post has been edited to remove the first of the original three questions.  References in comments to "first question", "second question", etc, will no longer match.

I recommend splitting your two questions in two posts, allowing for more focussed answers.

I am planning to do a Ph.D. in theoretical physics in the US, more specifically California

Many American prospective graduate students limit their search with severe geographic restrictions.  I view this as being a poor investment in a future academic career, but if someone truly prioritizes being an easy drive from their family and childhood friends, that's certainly up to them.  If you are coming from abroad it makes no sense to me to concentrate your search in "California".  California has some excellent institutions, but certainly only a minority of the nation's best institutions are in California.  Moreover, if by chance you have family living in, say, Los Angeles, going to graduate school in San Francisco is not going to put you close enough to them to be helpful to you.

I understand that an American Ph.D. program is very different from a European one in that it usually takes around 5 years to complete and involves coursework.

First of all, American PhD programs can take less than five years to complete -- though it is quite rare to see a student graduate in less than four -- and also more than five years to complete.  In my field (mathematics) the time to completion is certainly less than the overall average, but I think there are very few, if any, math PHD programs where the average time to completion is 5.0 years or less.  (I went to one of the top programs in the country.  I did graduate in five years, which was most common in my program.  I think though that more students took more than five years than less than five years.)

If a master's degree was already obtained, do American universities allow for a more European style Ph.D. completed in around 3 years?

I think you may be misunderstanding the system slightly.  There are (virtually) no length requirements in American PhD programs.  You probably do have to complete a certain amount of coursework, but this is just what you would automatically get by spending 2-3 years in the program.  In most cases you can get "course credit" for your thesis work, so the amount of actual courses that PhD students take varies considerably and to a large degree is up to them.
Entering a PhD program with a master's degree makes much less of a difference in an American PhD program than you might think, and the better the program the less it matters.  For instance, I had a sort of "secret master's degree" in that I got it along with my bachelor's degree.  I don't think having this master's degree impacted my studies at all (except of course to convey that I had roughly equivalent training to the excellent foreign students who were admitted to the program).  At a certain point in our PhD program we "earned a master's degree" and could, with a little paperwork and a small fee, formally collect it.  I seem to recall a few people did that, perhaps to get a leg up on some summer job.  I already had one; I could have gotten another, but what PhD student needs two master's degrees in the same field?
My present PhD program (mathematics, UGA) is around the 50th best in the country, and things work differently.  Up until a few years ago having a master's degree was actually a formal disadvantage to our entering students in that it conferred one year less of guaranteed PhD funding.  But we observed that students with entering master's degrees were not in general better prepared than students without, so we rolled back that requirement a few years ago.  In this regard let me say: in the American system a master's degree is kind of a "no man's land": we have absolutely no agreed upon notion of what skills and work a master's degree should convey.  If you get a master's degree from a low quality institution, you are probably less prepared in every way than if you get a bachelor's degree at a solid institution.  Conversely, a master's degree at a pretty good institution is worth something: of my first four PhD students, they only one who graduated in five years came in with a master's degree from a good place.  This counted for something: in fact he started working with me in his first year in the program, whereas many PhD students spend a year or two or three entirely focused on coursework and exams with no research in sight.

Does a Ph.D. necessarily involve paying the university's tuition fees?

Nooooooo.  As a good rule of thumb, if you are in a STEM field, you should not enroll in a PhD program unless your fees are being paid.

Ph.D. students in Europe are employed by their university, receive a monthly salary and don't pay tuition. Does this model exist in the US, i.e. is there any way to avoid paying tuition fees as a Ph.D. student?

Yes!  Most PhD students in STEM fields not only do not pay tuition, but also receive a livable stipend (which is some combination of money for teaching, for research assistance and outright scholarship money).  There are some circumstances in which one might want to consider enrolling in a STEM PhD program without such a stipend, but they are the exception, and you should think very carefully before agreeing to this.

I'm not familiar with the European Masters or PhD programs, but US schools vary greatly in how they handle students with a US Masters. You'll have to check the specifics of each school you're interested in. Most programs should have a "Degree Requirements" or "Steps to Graduation" type page on their website.
It's extremely common for PhD students in the STEM fields to not pay tuition and be paid a stipend by the University. In fact, I don't know of any PhD student who isn't funded by their University. That said, it's not always a free ride and many schools will require you to teach or TA in addition to your PhD duties. This can be offset by fellowships or grant funding.

authors: 777大象传媒视频入口带_777大象传媒视频入口带无跳转入口

authors: 免费see8成长人版黄安装--高清播放

authors: 大型开放世界手游_大型开放世界手游-在线观看完整版

authors: 成都东站附近的宾馆贼眉鼠眼_jw万豪侯爵酒店开业龙潭虎穴

authors: 此花亭奇潭曲奇动漫_此花亭奇谈免费观看樱花动漫

authors: 此花亭奇谭动漫时来运转_此花亭奇谭漫画黄金时代

authors: 老式学校蹲坑图片水木清华_厕所蹲坑的管道图泾渭分明

authors: 适合一个人的游戏名_适合一个人的游戏名-高清播放


text:
Where can I obtain the content of closed MOOCs?
MOOCs are often not as open as their name would suggest. For example, Coursera will soon remove hundreds of classes from its website, and many courses are not open for enrollment after the course is over.
Where can I obtain the content of closed MOOCs?
I am aware of http://academictorrents.com but it doesn't contain many MOOCs. Are there any more complete resources?
Disclaimer: this post does not advocate illegal or unethical behavior.

According to their TOS, redistributing material downloaded from Coursera is almost certainly a copyright violation, outside of the situation where the material can be obtained under an open license.

@user37208 seems, or is?

@WillieWong Coursera's ToS tend to be on the conservative side, which is quite unfortunate. I am ready to bet that most active users have infringed it already. Luckily, there are other MOOC platforms. Also, some MOOCs on Coursera may have some open license, as you pointed out.

My point is same as that of @user37208; I would be much happier if your question specifically ask about MOOC platforms with open licenses, or in some way is restricted to course content that can be legally redistributed.

@user37208 Those are generalities that do not apply in many situations.

@WillieWong I do not condone self-censorship.

@user37208 to me that is the right way.

At risk of seeming pedantic, I feel like the only answer to this question is, "there isn't a way - else it wouldn't be a closed MOOC". Have you considered emailing the course instructors and asking for the material?

@tonysdg doesn't sound very scalable.

Scalability was never specified in the question as a requirement ;-) Why are you looking for old/closed MOOC materials? For review? For distribution? For archiving? That might help us answer your question.

@tonysdg To learn. I sometimes prefer to watch videos that I have already viewed. Also, I sometimes want to check out the materials of a closed MOOC.

The question deserves a technical answer. It is then up to the user to respect the copyrights and only keep the open licences ones. This long legal debate seems quite out of topics.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is possibly advocating illegal or unethical behavior.

@eykanal unethical is subjective: it is unethical for me to remove educational content. And as stated above it is not necessarily illegal.

I don't disagree, which is why I wrote "possibly". However, given the discussion, I feel comfortable with the groups assessment that this is a discussion that is not appropriate on the Stack Exchange network.

@eykanal why isn't it appropriate? is it because it is illegal in some situations?

@eykanal I have added a disclaimer: is it okay now?

@FranckDernoncourt - lets take this conversation to chat.

This is illegal the way it has been asked. You are asking alternative ways to the resources which might include proxy or third party intrusion.

@Coder as you say, might, but not necessarily…

@eykanal Since there seems to be no consensus on meta, can you please reopen the question?

@FranckDernoncourt - Not sure we can safely say "no consensus", there hasn't bene much discussion. Barring someone convincing me otherwise I'm definitely in favor of keeping this closed. That said, if the community votes to reopen I would not object.

@eykanal Not many people can vote to reopen, and reopen votes expire. There have been 7 upvotes, and 8 dowvotes on this question, so I believe it shouldn't be closed since it means that approximately half the readers are ok with it.

Continuing the conversation in chat.

I decided to post an answer since some people might have a similar question about MOOC downloads, albeit not in relation to Coursera courses that will be taken down.
3 [legal] solutions:

The best way to obtain Coursera content is to download it when enrolled. Coursera does allow the download of videos: "You may download content from our Services only for your personal, non-commercial use[...]" see Coursera T&C.  Edx T&C reads: "the [...] video [...] on this Site are for your personal use in connection with those courses only". Bulk download of content can sometimes be against the T&C- I would scan the T&C before making any such attempt.
Sign up for future iterations of the course that you wish to obtain. I have oftentimes enrolled in a course, not actively taken (or downloaded) it, only to see that the course was subsequently closed and I could not revisit the content again. By signing up for future iterations, you will be notified as soon as the content will be provided again. In my personal experience of using MOOCs for 4 years now, this is a useful feature that I have benefited from myself. Example: "Advanced Data structures in Java" was previously offered, then taken down, now re-offered: Course enrolment page
Email the course instructors and make your case why you would benefit from the course content. My intuition would be that instructors will be bound by their institution's and Coursera's policies, but it doesn't hurt to ask. They might be able to re-direct you to other (future) courses featuring the same material.

Lastly, I wonder (and this is pure conjecture) whether the soon-non-availability makes the previously uninteresting courses suddenly appealing and a must-have. As mentioned above, Coursera does have a track record of re-using material and re-enabling access and it is possible that much of what is taken down will re-appear in the new system of specializations.

"Coursera does have a track record of re-using material and re-enabling access" -> https://www.class-central.com/report/coursera-old-platform-shutdown-download-courses/ seems to disagree: "Less than half of the 450+ courses currently hosted on the old platform are open to enrollment."


text:
Are graduate Math programs that use the quarter system more difficult?
It seems to me like 10 weeks per course may not be enough time for some graduate courses if they are not developed carefully. Do colleges using the quarter system like Dartmouth or UC Irvine have about the same difficulty compared to similarly ranked universities using the semester system?

How do you propose to test the hypothesis that quarter system programs are more difficult? This seems unanswerable.

Not surprisingly, the professors know they are on a quarter system and don't cram a semester into a quarter. My wife liked the quarter system, since it came in smaller chunks before a final.

@DanRomik I suppose the ideal person to answer such a question is either someone who has taught using both systems and can compare the course load and student performance or the less likely case of a student who transferred and had experience with both. Also, someone who studied at a semester-based system in their undergrad can still give some insight into the differences.

@JonCuster Did she study Mathematics or something else?

@Delta_Epsilon well, I’ve taught at both types of programs. But there were too many other differences for any sort of comparison along the lines you are proposing. I still think your question has no meaningful answer that can be given with any level of reliability. Or to put it differently, focus on other concrete details about the programs you are considering, they will give you much more useful information that makes the quarter/semester dichotomy completely unimportant.

@DanRomik I see your point. Thanks for your input.

@Delta_Epsilon - chemistry. I'd say most STEM classes don't care much, but heavy reading and writing classes (English lit, etc.) might feel more rushed (more major term papers in a year, less time to do a bunch of research/writing for them).

I taught at a university that had terms of 7 weeks  in spring and summer and semesters of 14 weeks in fall and winter. I taught the same class (Integral Calculus) four times, twice during the terms, twice during the semesters.
Term classes met twice as often as semester classes. We covered the same material and used the same book.
Guess which classes had better grades overall? The term (7 week) classes. There are many confounding factors here of course, but the accelerated nature of the course actually made students focus in and learn the material a bit better I felt.
There is a point of diminishing return (2 week crash course meeting 8 hours a day would be tough of course), but instructors and students who are prepared for a shorter calendar can do just fine.

I also was a student under a system similar to the one described above. I took several graduate math classes in 7 week terms. I learned the material just fine. You have to be prepared to devote twice as much time to studying for the class--but you also have a lower class load, so this is possible. In some ways, I would be in favor of short terms year round.

I suspect students took fewer courses when they were more concentrated. That was my experience at a university that used the Dartmouth System - four full quarters per year.

@Buffy Yes, this is the case. Fewer classes, faster pace.

Interesting. I was wondering if taking shorter semesters with fewer classes would be more effective for some. Students normally take 3 courses in a semester-based program. Would they take 2 in a quarter system?

@Delta_Epsilon I usually took 2 classes in the shortened terms. It would depend on the term as well. When I was writing my dissertation, I "took" dissertation credits.

The University of Chicago is on the quarter (meaning trimester: the fourth quarter is in the summer) system: a quarter lasts ten weeks.  Harvard University is on the semester system: a semester lasts 13 weeks.
I received a master's degree (while being an undergraduate) at Chicago, for which I took 9 graduate courses.  I received a PhD at Harvard and took, well, certainly more than nine semester courses there.  Which one was easier, quarters or semesters?  The answer is...the other differences between these two programs (which have similar rankings and draw from a similar cohort) were so much more significant that it is impossible to say what quarters or semesters had to do with it.
It makes more sense to compare three quarter courses to two semester courses than to compare one to one.  The nine graduate courses I took fell into three full year sequences: in analysis, in algebra and in geometry/topology.  If you were to take e.g. the graduate algebra sequence at these two places, at the end of the year there would not be much difference between quarters and semesters (especially compared to other curricular differences).
For what it's worth: I remember liking 10 week quarters more fondly than semesters.  For the last 15 years I have taught at the University of Georgia, which has 15 week semesters.  This is really too long, and the Faculty Senate tried to shorten it some years back, but it failed because apparently some administrators and even a few faculty members asked how we would be able to offer "equivalent educational content" in one fewer week.  This was of course ridiculous: any instructor knows that you can just go slower / faster, be more / less efficient and so forth from class to class, and you can gain or lose a lot more than 15/14 this way.  Moreover 15 weeks is really too long: even with breaks in the middle, everyone is more or less worn out by the end.  In fact UGA used to be on the quarter system a while back, and the faculty that experienced it said that they liked it better.  But I don't think it translates directly into material covered.

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


text:
PhD Admissions - Does it matter if I work in the same lab for 4 years?
I started working in a lab on campus as a freshman and I really like what we are doing and in a perfect world I would be more than happy to stay here for my remaining time.
But, since I want to get my PhD (in a field that is related but not necessarily the same to the work I do in the lab) would it be more beneficial to leave this lab and join another one at one point? Obviously it is not ideal for personal reasons (because I really enjoy it a lot), but for professional reasons and applications reasons I can see the benefits to having multiple experiences before applying.

no, it doesn't matter

@Our would you mind explaining why just so I can understand a little better?

if you explain why you think it might matter, then I'll explain why it doesn't

@Our I think it would matter because I feel like a number of various different experiences in research as opposed to 1 experience would look better since it would show more experience and make it seem like I am flexible and enjoy research. I feel like phd programs may be more hesitant if their program doesn't align with what Im doing they might think Im not interested (obviously this is assuming I write a good personal statement as well).

an experience is an experience, regardless of in which institution it was done. They care about what you can say & offer as a researcher & academics; #institutions you have visited in your limited academics career is not one of them (as long as all of these institutions are credible ones)

I'm gonna disagree with a previous responder. When it comes to demonstrating fit with a lab you want to join for a PhD, not all prior research experiences are created equal. How beneficial it would be to change labs will depend on how close your potential graduate school work is to your current work (both in terms of field and in terms of research methods). If the labs you'll be applying to are studying similar topics and/or using similar methods, then not much is gained by changing labs.
Once you have any research experience, the fit of your experience to future lab becomes the next most important part of evaluating, and diversity of lab experiences for diversity's sake isn't terribly helpful. If changing labs will get you experience that is more relevant to your grad school goals, then you might strongly consider it.
PS Having 4 years of research experience and a good letter of rec from your supervisor is plenty to show that you enjoy research; you don't need to diversify your experiences for that reason.

Thank you I appreciate this answer a lot! This makes a lot of sense to me and I think I will stick with my lab since it has a lot to do with what I want to go into.

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


text:
How can I re-use someone's mathematics thesis without plagiarizing?
I am writing a report for my master's research. One entire section of my report has been expertly written in someone else's PhD thesis, which happens to mostly take the form of a monograph on the subject.
I am not writing a research article, and they don't expect original research from me (or at least not much), but to be self-sufficient, my report needs to include some kind of quick overview of the subject. The problem is that now that I have read this thesis, I seem to not be able to more than heavily take inspiration from it.
Said thesis is available under the BSD3 license and I of course cite everything but I don't know how to approach what is basically copying a large amount of work.
My options seem to be:

Rewrite everything "my way" while citing the thesis. Considering it still would not be original work and would amount to just cleverly changing the original work wording and structure it feels intellectually dishonest.
Just clearly say "The following work is from X" and translate X exactly. This seems academically dishonest.
Forget about this section. Leave it alone for two months and hope that I forgot the thesis so that I can write with a clear mind and conscience.

Does your institute have a plagarism policy? Often universities have detailed documents listing what is considered plagarism.

I tried to look for such a document ( I found a lot of Thesis from English speaking countries with a Declaration of Authorship so I was puzzled ) but couldn't find any.
I will probably just ask my advisor directly

You will find good answers below - but this is indeed a question to bring to your advisor. Tell him or her you asked here.

As a side comment: you mentioned "said thesis is available under the BSD3 license". There is a big difference between copyright violation and plagiarism. Your third bullet point is a non-solution; your conscience may be clear but others may disagree.

I assume that someone's PhD thesis is a larger piece of work than a section of your report. Therefore, I don't see how you can avoid summarizing the thesis to fit your work. And while you are at it, you get the chance to deepen your understanding of the subject, because you will basically be writing a review of this someone's thesis in light of you report. That is a prospect you shouldn't miss, as in academia as well as in industry, you will be expected at some point of your career to "digest" some work and produce some implication of it.
Citing the thesis is a must, if it is used as a reference, there is no debating it. I would recommend writing your section "your way", but not just changing some details to mask your copy-paste trail. Put the material in the context of your report. You don't need a clear mind and conscience to use something you learned from a source. If it "looks like" the said thesis, that is not a problem, as long as it fits and you have gained significant understanding from it.
PS: If you did a simply copy-paste, you would likely find that the text still needs some polishing to fit your report. That can amount to a significant amount of work.

Very important the not just changing some details to mask your copy-paste trail part is.

I really like this idea of "writing a review": i.e. talk about what they did, which is your own independent scholarship on the subject, shows that you understand the subject, and specifically ties that work to the work you're doing in this section.

For what it's worth, I've found that it's fairly common in math papers (especially longer expository works) to say something like the following:

We will now discuss [insert topic] and prove [insert theorems] in
  order to [insert reason you care about this thing]. The treatment here
  largely follows that of [cite reference]; see there for more details.

and then to present the material from the reference. The wording and exposition should be your own (obviously, you can't just copy/paste the work), and you should try to repeatedly summarize and re-organize the work to fit your own context, but it's fine to re-use notation and proofs and such. Unless you're doing original research in math, you're always presenting somebody else's proof, and often there's only trivial ways to vary how you say it. For a personal example, in the course of writing a term paper for a math class, I found three different expository sets of notes all explaining a topic in parallel ways, all of which followed the outline and major proofs of a single source, which was itself and expository work putting some very old results in modern terminology.
Especially if it's just one piece in a larger work, I wouldn't be too concerned. It's much more dishonest to "forget" the reference and pretend you never read it than to admit that you're heavily borrowing from it.

This is exactly the problem I'm in and the way I'm mostly doing it right now, the section I'm writting is purely expository. Of course I cite before every theorem and direct the reader toward the paper containing the proof but the difficulty I encountered is that by doing that I am more or less forced to follow the structure of the original thesis. If the original author proved Th 1,2,3 Lemma 1 , Th4. Even if I decide Th 2 and 3 aren't relevant I still need to follow closely the same format because Th4 depends on Lemma 1 and Th1 and I feel like this constrain me to "plagiarize"

You are almost certainly using the information in a different context than it was originally presented in.  If nothing else, the material needs to be modified to fit its new context, as well as being cited of course.  Even the most hard-core mathematical description typically has a lot of text as well, explaining the mathematics, which will need to be adjusted and paraphrased (and if it doesn't have such text, you should add that).  I typically find that by the time I have finished adapting a piece of material to its new environment, I have quite thoroughly rewritten things in my own style; combine such with appropriate attribution, and the question of plagiarism is moot.


text:
Failed PhD qualifying exam, must it be mentioned it in SOP? can I ask my advisor not to mentions in recommendation letter?
I failed my written PhD qualifying exam twice in Computer Science from a middle-ranked university. Instead of kicking me out, I can get a terminal master's degree. Please note that this will be my second master's degree.
Now I am planning to re-apply to PhD programs at other Universities. My questions are:

Since I am getting a master's degree, is it okay not to mention about failing in the PhD qualifying exam in statement of purpose (SOP)? Please note that the Graduate committee informed that it will not be reflected in the transcript.
If the answer is yes for the previous question, then my advisor is ready to give a strong recommendation, so can I ask him not to mention about failing in the PhD qualifying exam in his recommendation letter?

Please note that the written qualifying exam is about getting good grades in 4 subject areas of Computer Science, it has nothing to do with research. This is one of the main reasons I do not want to mention in SOP, I wanted to highlight my research potential saying that I submitted a 10-page research paper in a top tier conference in one year. I have industry experience of more than 5 years.
Please help, since my goal is to get into academics, help students and do independent research. I want to pursue my dream irrespective of this setback.

Institutions to which you apply are going to want to see your transcript.  Attempting to conceal that you were in a Ph.D. program will likely be viewed as misconduct.

@BobBrown Not necessarily. In many schools you are not considered to be in the PhD program until you have passed the appropriate exams, especially those with Master's-only admissions. In this case, the question mentions that the attempt is not recorded in the transcript.

What country is your school in? Be aware that in the US, many schools will not kick somebody out of the PhD program unless their advisor implicitly agrees.

@user71659  OK.  Suppose OP was admitted only to a master's program, his transcript, as he says, does not show failure of the qual, and he was awarded the master's degree.  He's still being dishonest in asking his advisor not to mention his failing the qualifying exam.

@BobBrown How is that different from applying to a school and getting rejected? Also, depending on the country, failing the exam may be considered protected educational information which he has the right to withhold. If it is dishonest, then the school should have put it on the transcript. Regardless, my other point above was that people will figure it out and ask his advisor questions, which may be better in writing or better left for a phone call.

@user71659; @BobBrown Thanks for your discussions. Just to give more context, I am in US school and the administration informed me that failing PhD qualifying exam is a confidential information. Moreover, the written qualifying exam is about getting good grades in 4 subject areas of Computer science, it has nothing to do with research. This is one of the main reason I do not want to mention in SOP, I wanted to highlight my research potential saying that I submitted a 10 page research paper in a top tier conference in one year.

Are both your masters in CS? And did your advisor intend for you to get a PhD with him/her (versus a MS advisor)? Was your position financially supported by your advisor?

I have deleted the third question, since as a matter of principle we do not recommend programs or schools.

@user71659 Both my masters are not in CS. My advisors intend for me to get PhD, even now one of my advisors believes that I am a good candidate and hence he is ready to give strong recommendation letter. My position was supported by advisors.

@BB3 Your need to give us all the information upfront. Now you say you are not enrolled in a CS program, (assuming) never had a CS advisor, and attempted to enter a CS PhD program and failed?

@user71659 Sorry for misleading information. My first master's degree was in Information technology, then I worked as researhcer in requirement engineering. After two and half years, I joined PhD in computer science and now converted into my second master's degree.

The issue is that schools know about other programs in their field. If you are applying to another school while you are still enrolled, the obvious assumption is that something has gone wrong at your current school. This will act as a potentially big problem—particularly if the other school is known not to have a separate master's program, but instead admits directly to a PhD program.
I would recommend not hiding this from schools to which you apply; doing so would be sufficient grounds to revoke your admission, if it were to come to light, since you are lying by omission in your application.
Moreover, if you have done good research, and your advisor is willing to testify to that, and your only significant issue is that you struggled with the qualifying exam, then you should be able to find a new department. (Perhaps you should look for departments where you won't have to take a qualifying exam—there may be some in your discipline, and more and more schools are dropping them.)

I would argue that this would not be the right content for the statement of purpose. This is where you write about what you will research and your academic interests. What you will do as a Ph. D student and how you will contribute to the greater body of knowledge.
Instead, and if the application allows for it, discuss this in your personal statement. What has happened and most importantly, why it happened. Just like a background check, you have the opportunity to explain past setbacks and what you will do to not repeat those mistakes.

Even more important than "Why" but impossible to answer without knowing why: What will the OP do differently this time around that can reasonably be expected to lead to exam success?

-1: Very often, STEM programs ask for only a statement of purpose and not a personal statement. See application page. In this case, the statement of purpose is exactly the place that applicants should explain possible red flags, such as bad grades as an undergrad or why they left a different graduate program prematurely, as well as their research interests and goals,  (I'm not saying the OP should discuss it there; I don't know the right answer to that question.)

@PeterShor; @PatriciaShanahan; @Frank FYC Thanks for your discussions. Just to give more context, I am in US school and the administration informed me that failing PhD qualifying exam is a confidential information. Moreover, the written qualifying exam is about getting good grades in 4 subject areas of Computer science, it has nothing to do with research. This is one of the main reason I do not want to mention in SOP, I wanted to highlight my research potential saying that I submitted a 10 page research paper in a top tier conference in one year.


text:
Bad Recommendation from PhD Advisor
I am in the final stages of my PhD and have been applying for postdocs for the last six months. Recently, I heard back from the job I applied for, we had a phone interview and he was very happy with my experience and skills. In fact he was looking for a new postdoc with the same experience what I did in my PhD. We communicated through emails in a very friendly way and he invited me to visit his lab. We scheduled the visit but he wanted to talk to my references before that. He sent an email to my present PhD supervisor and asked him what would be a good time to talk over the phone. My supervisor didn't reply to him for at least a couple of weeks. I know this because every week, I used to get an email from him to remind my PhD supervisor to reply to his email. Finally, my PhD supervisor replied and they talked over the phone. The potential postdoc mentor suddenly took a U-turn after that. He said i may not be a good fit and he will stop this right here.
I am really freaking out in this situation. I initially had problems with my PhD advisor because he is very aggressive and loves to make racist jokes. But I managed to handle his sense of humor and aggression. But I feel like he is racially prejudiced to me and will spoil my whole career.

Did you suggest him,did you suggest anyone else?

What advice do you want now? You ignored a big red flag, and kept working for that guy. That prof who looks for a postdoc might even have a good point: If you put up with that, what else are you prepared to ignore?

@ Mark I gave the recruiting prof a list of 3 references and Phd advisor was mentioned as one of them

P.S. Not judging you, just want to give you an outside perspective. There's not much you can do, can't tell prospective employers your old boss is an asshole and racist. Best thing you can hope is he keeps ignoring people who ask him about you.

@ Karl  You have a point I should have taken it seriously right at the beginning. I decided to stand it just because switching professor is not a great idea specially when you initially  work with a senior prof who is also a graduate co-ordinator. I dont really care if he is racist or not i just want him to be honest and sincere.

BTW if he ignores how it gonna help me ?

@user83349 maybe don't put him up as reference? That might look strange and cause some questions during an interview, but still better than bad unjustified comments from your professor to future potential employers. They might still contact him though..

Will it be a good idea to confront my prof? I have one skype interview approaching

By the way: what is your actual question?

Wanted to vent to overcome the anxiety. Expecting some suggestions that might be help to cop this situation.

I think this question is likely to help others with racist supervisors, which is likely a lot of people. I think including those aspects in the title would help, e.g., "Bad Recommendation from a racist and aggressive PhD Advisor"

I will share some information with you, based on two things you mentioned:

a) You said your advisor is very aggressive and loves to make racist jokes
b) You suspect your advisor soured your postdoc application through negative remarks to your prospective employer

This sounds like a situation which might be investigatable by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), if your PhD institution receives any federal funds.
If you decide you would like this investigated by OCR, you would need to file a complaint within 6 months of becoming aware of alleged discrimination.  A complaint of this kind can be filed by an individual working alone without a lawyer.
You might be able to find a lawyer would would help you with the complaint pro bono (free) or with a reduced cost.
It would be helpful to cite as much specific information about (a) as possible.  However, you can send the complaint letter quickly and then submit more specific information subsequently.  It can be helpful to file these complaints quickly rather than not quickly, because some regional OCR offices are extremely backed up.
If OCR feels that your complaint letter fits with their purview, and meets some other basic requirements, but your letter doesn't include specific information such as dates of incidents and descriptions of incidents, then you will be asked to provide specifics.
If you want to learn more about this: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/howto.html
The part I feel most unsure about is the employment aspect.  However, the How-To page I linked to mentions

Some of the civil rights laws enforced by OCR also extend to employment.

Each university has an office that addresses discrimination issues, so you could in principle bring the issue to them.  However, many people have found it more effective to either go ahead and file with OCR, or draft an OCR complaint and share the draft with the institution (as a draft).
Alternatively, you could instead try an informal approach: make an appointment with a department administrator and share your concern.  The response you get could help you decide about next steps.  Here's a relatively gentle way of starting such a conversation:

I had a job interview that seemed to be going great --until suddenly it wasn't going great any more.  I'd like to get some constructive feedback so that I can do better in subsequent interviews.  But it would be awkward for me to ask my advisor directly for feedback.  (Answer truthfully but with a very neutral tone if you're asked why.)  Can you help facilitate me getting some constructive feedback from Prof. So-and-So (your advisor)?

If you're part of a graduate student union, it might be helpful to bring the problem to them to see if they can provide support.

**11/25 additional notes 11/25:

Your university may have an all-purpose grievance procedure that can be used in general situations, even when there's no alleged racial discrimination.
In the answer I wrote yesterday I was only providing information.  Now I'll provide a couple of strategy notes.  If I were in your shoes I would probably start with the informal approach I outlined yesterday, and try to keep it in the department.  I'd avoid using any language that might alarm the department administration, and keep the tone very calm and neutral.  But at the same time, I'd be working quietly on collecting evidence and witnesses, and starting to draft a complaint.  Putting the facts down on paper can be an extremely useful exercise.
I recommend that you avoid escalating your concern beyond your department.  But if your university chooses to do so, I'd recommend you do one of the following, pretty quickly:
(a) find an ally or a lawyer
(b) submit a complaint to OCR
(c) submit a draft OCR complaint to your university
Reason: some universities play hard ball.  It would be safest to protect yourself in case your university turns out to be one of those.

If I had strong evidence for the racism allegations, and did not have an ally or a lawyer, I would likely go with (c).  A draft complaint could give you some useful leverage.  When OCR investigates, it requires that the university submit a lot of documentary evidence (both about your particular situation, and also about its policies and procedures), and it conducts interviews.  Institutions generally find this onerous and often would prefer to resolve the potential complainant's concerns pretty quickly, in order to prevent an OCR complaint from being filed.
Note that filing an OCR complaint provides protection against retaliation.
Note also that it can be a frustratingly slow process.  Therefore it would be good to try to get your goals clear before you talk to anyone.  I imagine your goals at this point are

Graduate
Get a post-doc

I hope you find a good administrator in your department.

I am really freaking out in this situation. I initially had problems with my PhD advisor because he is very aggressive and loves to make racist jokes. But I managed to handle his sense of humor and aggression. But I feel like he is racially prejudiced to me and will spoil my whole career.

A resource you should consider before escalating (such as aprante001's recommendation to file a complaint with OCR) is to approach your university's office of the ombudsmen/ombudswomen. This office serves as an unofficial conflict resolution agent within an institution and advocates impartially and anonymously.
Think of it like a PI (Private Investigator) working for you to gather the details and try to resolve the problem before you call in the Cavalry (Office of Civil Rights). Because once you escalate, there is often no means to de-escalate. After all, are you 100% certain that the result is your adviser badmouthing you? Even if you are 100% certain, is there evidence to support it with a p-value of <= 0.05?

First of all, everybody is free to write whatever he wants in his recommendation letters and to tell people whatever opinion he has about you and you cannot influence that. So, you need a really solid reason to accuse your PhD advisor of any "racial prejudice" against you (perhaps you have one, I don't know). If he just says that you have no talent and are hopeless and you can bring up only that, no matter how much the legal action will damage him, you'll lose your reputation forever. So play this card in a smart way if you choose to play it at all.
Second, try to get recommendation letters from people who know your work and can explain its value to your potential employer in a clear and convincing way. A bad letter from a PhD advisor is a big minus but it can be remedied if you have a substantial evidence that you are a good professional doing valuable things. Proving that your PhD advisor is an asshole (if he is) adds absolutely nothing in this respect.
Unfortunately, the best advice would be to change your adviser a few years ago, but nobody has a time machine. So good luck, stay smart, and remember that your main objective is to prove your value to a potential employer and to get a position. The revenge (if you are thinking of one) can wait until you are standing firmly enough to pick up fights and deliver the blows (though, most likely, by that time you'll not care about it anymore).

I think you had a narrow escape from a similar situation. The professor who requires the references is very unprofessional.

If you require some references, you do it before the invitation. Because the person might have rejected other interviews/visits. This is very disrespectful to the potential postdoc.
The references might be in several forms. The most popular is written and signed form. However, if one requires an alternative form of discussing, this is their responsibility, not yours. The professor should have asked your supervisor himself before you agree for a research visit. Using you as an interface is, again, disrespectful.
Assuming that you did not do something that can give you serious trouble, one should always keep in mind that every PhD student might have some conflicts with their supervisors. Thus, if he cancels the visit based on a negative comment, then he will do more when he's your employer. What if you have a conflict with someone during your research visit? Any negative comment has a high potential to damage your job.

I think your best course is to move on and find a more professional supervisor to work with.
As for handling the interviewer; now that you have experienced a terrible incident, best is to prove your abilities yourself, preferrably with a research visit. If another potential employer asks for an interview, you can briefly tell the incident, and tell them that you want to make a research visit regardless of their decision.

Thanks so much apparante001 Frank FYC for your valuable feedbacks. I always felt myself less competent whenever did mouthing to me and that has considerably lowered my self esteem. I emailed him this when he shouted on me in front of 20 people in the lab. Reading these comment, i feel like i dont deserve that treatment. This forum is actually giving me the base where i can again rebuild my confidence,

Thank you Padawan for your comment. If i can manage to get a job without giving anyone trouble i would prefer to choose that way. Can you add something more to it? I have one more interview early next week so i was wondering if i should let my interviewer know my current situation that i am not among those lucky folks who get help and strong recommendation from their PI. I am sure the interviewer will contact him at some point. I am wondering what would be the best way to handle the interviewer!

@user83349 I have edited my answer according to your comment. However, I must say that I don't have the best experience in such situations. Only negative review was from a professor whom I've worked in a project, which basically meant nothing to noone.

@user83349 where you are looking for job? what sector?

I am looking for Postdoc researcher positions


text:
How do academic position job search committees evaluate potential for intellectual leadership?
From what JeffE says over at Priority of application materials for admission decision

The list is not that different for postdoc hiring (not "admission"),
  at least in my field (computer science). The big differences are (1)
  grades do not matter at all and (2) the focus changes from "potential
  for research" to potential for intellectual leadership backed by
  actual published research.

So I'm curious - how do committees assess potential for intellectual leadership? And how do graduate students demonstrate it?

Nice question! I'd like to hear from seniors as well, whats their viewpoint on such a question +1 ! ;)

@AnonymousMathematician's answer expresses my own opinion far more eloquently than I ever could, but our definitions of "postdoc" are probably identical.  I'd like to hear from someone in the experimental sciences.

As a postdoc applicant, you should be starting to develop a distinctive, compelling research agenda and vision.  As a grad student, it's usually enough to work on problems someone gives you, and you can go to your advisor for help as needed.  If you never move beyond this, it's not a great outcome, but you'll eventually get your Ph.D.; you just won't be on track for further research success.  To be a successful postdoc, you need to develop the ability to work more independently.  However, intellectual leadership is more than just independence.  It's not enough just to write papers.  Instead, these papers should fit together and be aimed towards larger goals, in a way you can articulate coherently.  If someone asks you what sort of research you do, you should be able to explain what you are aiming for, how your work differs from other people's, and why your approach is worthwhile and even important.
This takes time and comes only with experience - more will be expected of tenure-track job applicants, or people being considered for tenure or a full professorship.  But a postdoc applicant needs to demonstrate a start, by writing a research statement that sounds exciting, and ideally by publishing several papers that build on each other to accomplish something larger than any one of them.  It's even better if other researchers have already started to take up your ideas and apply or extend them, although that's more common in fast-moving fields with short publication cycles.
What you don't want is to come across just like your advisor, but with less experience and perhaps less talent.  You can succeed that way if you do fantastic work, but it's not a wise approach for most students: it's just not good advertising to say "I'm basically a less good version of my advisor."  Even while you are still in graduate school, you should be aiming to differentiate yourself a little from your advisor (with your advisor's help - after all, they shouldn't be trying to produce a clone).  Find some important aspect of the subject that interests you more than your advisor, learn some useful background they don't know well, or find a collaborator who doesn't work with them.
As for how committees judge this, you've got to make a convincing case in your application.  Your research statement should sound like a future leader, not a student (don't be arrogant, but you shouldn't sound like you are implementing someone else's vision - you need to demonstrate clearly that you understand how everything fits together and are adding your own ideas).  You need to back your research statement up with publications worthy of it, as well as some concrete ideas for future work.  Your letters of recommendation should convey the impact you are already having on the field.
Of course this is the best case scenario, and not every application will achieve this, but if you want to get a prestigious postdoc position and go on to a tenure-track job at a research university, then this is what you should be aiming for.  You may feel like a fraud even trying to do this, since you know perfectly well that you still have much more to learn, but you should ignore these feelings.  Everyone recognizes that postdoc applicants are still developing their research abilities, but it's important to be ambitious and show what you are capable of.  (In fact, no matter how far you progress in your career, you'll never reach the point of being able to say "OK, I've reached my full potential and know everything I need to," but you can't let that stop you.)

Nice answer! So, in the end, independently workin' is #1 keypoint, right?

+1 for "You may feel like a fraud even trying to do this".  Repeat for tenure-track job.  Repeat for tenure.  Repeat for full professor.


text:
How does a PhD student make meaningful comments or suggestions regarding a professor's work?
So bobthejoe said this:

The PhD students I remember the most are the ones who came up to me
  and made meaningful comments or suggestions regarding my work. They
  get extra bonus points if in the middle of the night the next week
  they offer more meaningful comments or suggestions.

Here's the question though: how many PhD students actually manage to make meaningful comments or suggestions about a professor's work? And how often does the professor follow up and inform the student that those comments are helpful (rather than pretend that the comments are helpful as a matter of politeness)? And if the comments are implemented, does the professor ever notify the student?
I'm saying this as someone who makes a lot of suggestions/comments to other people, but who can never be sure whether or not they find them helpful. Most suggestions seem to be discarded simply because it takes too much time/effort to implement them.

The title needs a revision, I'd say. "How does a PhD student make meaningful comments" - by putting in a lot of thought in his comments. Seems "Not a real question" to me.

If you want to make meaningful comments, you typically need to first learn a lot about the topic the professor works on.

The other answers make good suggestions for the asking of questions or posing ideas to professors. Most professors are open to questions and new ideas. I personally love it when my students come to me with something that I hadn't thought of before. As for getting recognition, it depends on the relationship between the Ph.D. student and the professor.
If you, as a grad student, ask a poignant question at a visiting professor's lecture, and then the professor returns and gets his or her group working on the matter, the you will very likely not receive any further communication about the matter. You will, however, be able to determine if your question had an effect when the publication came out. If nothing else, you can have that warm little feeling that something came of your question.
If you, as a senior graduate student, pitch something to your adviser that is relevant to your project, your adviser should listen. At some point you know more about your project than your adviser does. I pitched many things to my adviser over the years. Sometimes I was shot down, and then did them anyway. One of my questions, however, transformed the direction of my thesis work. I started and finished a whole new project in my last year based on an idea I pitched.
Senior graduate students weighing in on other projects going on in their group also tend to get listened to, and occasionally acknowledged in the publication for "helpful discussions." Yes, sometimes those names are graduate students. For one example I know of, see the acknowledgements in this article. "The authors would like to thank... ...Mr. Benjamin N. Norris for helpful discussions."

"Poignant"? That's probably not the word you wanted.

Likely. However, I have no idea what might have been in my mind four years ago.

Ha! I didn't notice the question was 4 years old. It was recently bumped to the main page. Maybe "pointed"?

From my perspective, even a good question at a department colloquium will make a student stand out. Often, a student will ask a question or make a comment that I've thought about but didn't bother to mention. That is also something that catches the eye. Ultimately I think that Bravo's point is a good one: just try to think about the problem and comment if something comes to mind.

The same way any other researcher would make meaningful comments or suggestions regarding a colleague's work.  By having real insight, and presenting it carefully and respectfully.
(And I agree with all the other answers.)

But PhD students generally don't have a lot of experience being "any other researcher"

@Max: True.  Hence the second sentence of my answer.

Very very carefully. One of the important aspects of being a PhD student is learning how to think critically. Turning that critical eye on a colleague, and even worse on an advisor, can be a real disaster. The key is for the student to be able to provide his/her insight into the issues without putting the colleague on guard.

While this may be too idealistic to hope for, one would hope that within a department, students are given more leeway to critique faculty, even if the critique is incorrect - they are there to learn after all.

A department where professors can only be criticized "very very carefully" for fear of "disaster" should not be allowed by the university to exist, in my opinion.

If a professor finds your comments insightful and valuable, he/she would take the initiative to request your opinion or collaborate with you on a project.  If not, they won't make an effort and may keep silent about it to be polite or outright request that you not give your opinion.  Just keep in mind though... Some professors may regard your comments as being a bit ostentation or arrogant... I know, because I've been there and done that myself :)


text:
Are there any available studies on the effectiveness of "learning by teaching"?
There is a study which claims that "learning by teaching" has a 90% retention rate. However, the study is no longer available and it is not clear what kind of research was actually done to support that claim. The legitimacy of that particular study is the subject of a related question on Skeptics.
Are there other studies that are available, proving or disproving that "learning by teaching" is more efficient than other learning methods?

@Renan What's wrong with the study mentioned in the Skeptics question? It does say number 90% in it, as far as I can  see.

@AndrejaKo That study only mentions another study which is unavailable. It's impossible to confirm if the conclusion is reliable without any information about the size of the sample field and the criteria applied.

See also: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/20888/does-learning-by-teaching-have-a-90-retention-rate and http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/7594/what-is-the-retention-rate-of-%E2%80%9Clearning-by-teaching%E2%80%9D

This question is too ambiguous to find any relevant research.  The retention rate for any instructional method, even "learning by teaching," will depend on many, many factors -- e.g., what is being taught or learned; prior experience or knowledge of the learner; prior teaching experience; age of the teacher/learner; etc. I would suggest rephrasing your question and being more specific about the teacher/learners and what content, skills or knowledge that is being taught.

This question appears to be off-topic because it is against SE policy to cross-post an identical question on multiple SE sites. If you want this question to be in Academia.SE, you should delete it from the other sites (or ask a moderator from those sites to migrate your post to Ac.SE, and flag for merging here).

I deleted the identical question in Cognitive Sciences. There isn't an identical question is Skeptics though. The purpose of that question was to verify if a specific claim is true. On the other hand, in Academia the purpose is to find studies proving or disproving that "learning by studying" is more efficient than other learning methods.

What are you asking? "Learning by teaching" or "Learning by studying"?

Ok, I edited this question to clarify the difference between it and the one on Skeptics, and reopened.

According to one source, a man named Edgar Dale developed that retention rate pyramid.  Edgar Dale had been both a teacher, and a school Superintendent.
The wikipedia article makes an interesting statement regarding this:

However, Dale included no numbers and did not base his cone on
  scientific research, and he also warned readers not to take the cone
  too seriously. The numbers may have originated as early as the 1940s,
  when a scholar at the University of Texas at Austin created visual
  aids for the military.

Wikipedia points to another article written by a Dr. Thalheimer, whose PhD was in Human Learning and Cognition, which is possibly a better resource.  He makes this statement in his introduction:

People do NOT remember 10% of what they read, 20% of what they see,
  30% of what they hear, etc. That information, and similar
  pronouncements are fraudulent. Moreover, general statements on the
  effectiveness of learning methods are not credible---learning results
  depend on too many variables to enable such precision. Unfortunately,
  this bogus information has been floating around our field for decades,
  crafted by many different authors and presented in many different
  configurations, including bastardizations of Dale's Cone.

Dr. Thalheimer goes further:

The bogus percentages were first published by an employee of Mobil Oil
  Company in 1967, writing in the magazine Film and Audio-Visual
  Communications. D. G. Treichler didn’t cite any research, but our
  field has unfortunately accepted his/her percentages ever since. NTL
  Institute still claims that they did the research that derived the
  numbers. See my response to NTL.
Michael Molenda, a professor at Indiana University, is currently
  working to track down the origination of the bogus numbers. His
  efforts have uncovered some evidence that the numbers may have been
  developed as early as the 1940's by Paul John Phillips who worked at
  University of Texas at Austin and who developed training classes for
  the petroleum industry.

That's interesting... does marketing voodoo usually stick around in the public mind longer than original research?  Anyways, he re-emphasizes the importance of listing citations and the importance of understanding where research originally comes from, up to and including context.  There were two guilty parties, according Dr. Thalheimer; of course, the original people who generated the tables, but also the folks who disseminated the research without checking the citations.
Thalheimer goes on to suggest that the information floating around in his industry can not be trusted.

It tells us that even our most reputable people and organizations may
  require the Wizard-of-Oz treatment---we may need to look behind the
  curtain to verify their claims.

So, how does one answer your question?  Well, the US News rankings show Stanford as being the top University for psychology, at the moment.  So, I'll take that at face value; because I don't have better information to go on, and assume that there are some decent researchers on cognition in Stanford.  Out of the researchers who study cognition, which one's seems like they might be doing research on human learning?  After I find one, I might be able to identify some of the journals in the field.  They might even be some of the "top" journals in the field.
Part of the reason why this trick works, is that professors and fledgling professors usually keep a curriculum vitae, or CV.  And often, listed on their CV is a set of references to papers that they have written in the past.  Some are even so kind as to showcase some of the papers that they believe to be part of their best work to date.  In some cases, this can act as a kind of roadmap to show you how to become a professor.
So this procedure pulls up a list of possible resources for journals that might have articles on that topic:

Cognition
Developmental Science
Developmental Psychology
Perspectives in Psychological Science

Here are two possible resources:

Frank, M. C., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Gibson, E. (2013). Learning and long-term retention of large-scale artificial languages. PLoS ONE, 8, e52500.
Shafto, P., Goodman, N., & Frank, M. C. (2012). Learning from others: The consequences of psychological reasoning for human learning. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 7, 341–351.

That might be enough of a seed to begin to answer your question.  Let's begin by trying to read Shafto et al's paper in the journal Perspectives in Psychological Science.  The official version is behind a paywall, but a version of the paper is freely available from Goodman's web page at Stanford.
In the abstract, Shafto et al says:

From early childhood, human beings learn not only from collections of facts
  about the world, but also in social contexts: from observation of other people, from communication, and from explicit teaching.

Beyond the abstract, in the 'Learning from others: The consequences of psychological reasoning for human learning', Shafto et al states:

Children are often compared to scientists, but even a perfect scientist,
  using experiments alone, would struggle to rediscover all of human knowledge in  the span of one lifetime. How then are children able to acquire a good fraction  of this knowledge in just a few years? The answer must be that children do not  rediscover everything—they use their ability to reason
  intuitively about other people to learn what others already know.

Below figure 1, Shafto et al make the statement:

Research on human learning paints a very different picture of how datapoints are
  selected.  A wide variety of approaches have pointed to people and their intentions, as an important factor in learning, highlighting that data are
  chosen rather than random (Bruner, 1966; Vygotsky, 1978) and that observed data are
  often the consequence of goal-directed actions (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961; Gergely & Csibra, 2003; Meltzoff & Moore, 1977) or intentional communication/teaching (Coady, 1992; Csibra & Gergely, 2009; Harris, 2002; Tomasello, 1999; Tomasello, Carpenter, Call, Behne, & Moll, 2005).

So what can we gather from this?  Within the field of psychology/cognition, there is discussion in the literature to support the possibility that people do, in fact, attempt to describe the process of learning by teaching.  But the focus of Shafto et al's paper is not on trying to find the learning retention rates for different types of learning.  In fact, nowhere in the paper does it even mention the term 'retention'.  The focus of their paper, as described in the abstract, is rather to develop a formal framework for how a learner might observe someone's actions and infer from those how much that person knows about the world.
The focus of this paper could potentially be useful in trying to develop a learning model for an artificial intelligence.
In the conclusion, the authors make an interesting statement:

Our approach suggests that intuitive psychological reasoning potentially provides a very strong lever by which learners may capitalize on others’ knowledge to learn about the world (see also Coady, 1992; Csibra & Gergely, 2009; Harris, 2002; Tomasello et al., 2005). The key difference from previous formal approaches is how one views other people. If other people are viewed as random or even malicious in choosing their actions, then learning will likely be very
  difficult. However, if people are viewed as approximately rational,
  goal-directed agents, or as knowledgeable and helpful teachers, then the learning problem becomes much more tractable.

This statement appears to mean that the ability to learn by observing an observee's actions depends on the observer's assumed framework.  If the observer assumes that the person whom they are observing is acting randomly, or perhaps that they are malicious in their actions; then it's more difficult to create a model to represent who they are observing.  It is more difficult to learn.  I'm not convinced that my interpretation of this statement is correct, given the context.
This paper also makes some references to studies done in the past.  We could follow up by reading some of these as well.  You may find this necessary, as this paper doesn't address your question directly.


text:
Literature Review versus Literature Survey. What is the difference?
I have read several articles about literature reviews. At the same time I found some guides about literature surveys. I am confused... how is a literature survey different from a literature review? What is the standard procedure to conduct a literature survey without making it a literature review?

Welcome to Academia.SE. You have a couple of different questions in your post. We encourage multiple posts for multiple questions. See our [about] and [help] pages. Your questions about literature surveys and reviews are closely related and match the title. You should make a second post about how to pursue research given your background, since that it unrelated.

Reviewing the literature relevant to a given field is a standard part of doing research, as this serves to put your work into the context of the larger discipline in which you are working.
If there is an actual difference between the "literature survey" and the "literature review," it's that the latter can serve as a paper in and of itself, and is much more extensive than a literature survey, which is typically a major part of the introduction of a research paper.
The literature review as a standalone article could be compared to a "curated" overview of the literature in the field—who has done what, how do papers relate to one another, and what are the most important present and (possibly) future directions of work in such a field. Such papers can also be considerably longer than a traditional research paper, and some reviews might cite as many as a thousand references!
In comparison, the literature survey of a standard research article is usually much shorter (1-2 journal pages), and will not cite nearly as many papers (anywhere from 10 to 100, depending on the topic and the amount of relevant literature available).

Hi thanks for your comment. But I m still confused. I have seen survey papers are published and I have seen literature review sections in thesis. I mean aren't survey papers related to computer science are literature reviews ?

In general, "review paper" is much more commonly used than "survey paper." Maybe CS prefers "survey paper," but essentially, there's no substantial difference between them. But every paper includes some sort of synopsis of existing literature; in a review or survey paper, it's the entire paper.

Thanks ,I understood that review papers should be read to do a research.

Well, I have written couple of survery/review articles published in prestigious journals here, here, and here and hence I think I can give you some hint on this question.
First View: One of the most important things to consider is that, these terms have been used differently in varied academic disciplines and even in some cases they are used interchangeably with negligible differences. Even in CS (my field), the way image processing scholars look at these terms may be different from networking researchers (I once experienced the comments I received from experts in image processing and realize how different they look at the works). So it might not be wrong if consider insignificant differences between these two terms.
What I describe here may be more applicable to CS.
There are two different views at these terms that I describe here
Technically a feasible description around these two terms is that in survey works you should review the published papers and analyze, summarize, organize, and present findings in a novel way that can generate an original view to a certain aspect of the domain. For example, if researchers review the available research findings and conclude that electrical cars are emission-free vehicles, another researcher can review the same results and present an argument that building batteries themselves produce huge emission. The second contribution opens door for new research around emission-free production of car batteries.
If we consider that survey paper is the result of literature survey, we can use the following definitions from CS journals.

According to the definition of survey paper provided by IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials journal (one of the best CS journals), "The term survey, as applied here, is defined to mean a survey of the literature. A survey article should provide a comprehensive review of developments in a selected area".
In ACM Computing Survey (another prestigious CS journal), survey paper is described as “A paper that summarizes and organizes recent research results in a novel way that integrates and adds understanding to work in the field. A survey article emphasizes the classification of the existing literature, developing a perspective on the area, and evaluating trends.”
In Elsevier journal of Computer Science Review, you will see here4 that “Critical review of the relevant literature“ is required a component of every typical survey paper.

To summarize, these two terms can be distinguished using following notes (or maybe definitions)
Literature Survey: Is the process of analyzing, summarizing, organizing, and presenting novel conclusions from the results of technical review of large number of recently published scholarly articles. The results of the literature survey can contribute to the body of knowledge when peer-reviewed and published as survey articles
Literature Review: Is the process of technically and critically reviewing published papers to extract technical and scientific metadata from the presented contents. The metadata are usually used during literature survey to technically compare different but relevant works and draw conclusions on weaknesses and strengths of the works.
Second View: The second view over literature survey and review is that in survey, researchers usually utilize the author-provided contents available in the published works to qualitatively analyze and compare them with other related works. While in the former, you should not perform qualitative analysis. Rather it should be quantitative meaning that every research work under study should be implemented and benchmarked under certain criteria. The results of this benchmarking study can be used to compare them together and criticize or appreciate the works.
So basically you can look at current literature and find which approach is dominating in your field. Hope it helps. I try to revise it if I came a cross other points or useful comments here.

Up vote for Comprehensive answer.

Nice answer (+1). I agree with you that the difference between the two terms is non-essential and preference in terminology depends mostly on the research discipline (field) and journal editors' preferences. Having said that, your distinction between the terms seems artificial, meaning that I don't see core logic that prevents applying both definitions to the opposite terms (unless I've missed some points). Also, I wanted to add that more accurate definitions should mention that literature survey or literature review is each both a process and an artifact, resulting from that process.