text:
Dispute over order of authors
Consider this situation.
A research plan is formulated for a masters student (M) collectively by a professor (P) and a PhD student (G). M runs the experiments but has no idea how to extract knowledge from his experiments (he is not motivated enough to make the effort). P asks G to 'look into it'. G analyzes the data, studies the subject background, identifies some erroneous numbers and re-runs some experiments. G then  drafts a research manuscript for submission to a journal.
Even though the 'raw' data was acquired by M, it was G who made efforts to discuss the results and transform the data into a manuscript. M argues that since the research plan was a part of his masters dissertation, he should be the first author. To resolve the dispute, P keeps himself the first author, G the second, and M the third.
Who should be the first author in this case? (The first authorship matters in the field in question.)

To resolve the dispute, P keeps himself the first author -- very Solomonic!

Seems like, third guy gets the profit in fights between two :-(

Hmmm. Maybe P is telling you that you should have resolved this long ago and he doesn't want to deal with it anymore.

At this point just go in alphabetic order.

@Coder In most cases, the marginal benefit to a professor (particularly a senior one, if P is senior) of a single paper will be quite small (unless the paper is a really impactful one). It could be the case that P is doing this at least partly for selfish reasons, but it could equally be the case that P is just fed up with M and G arguing over credit, and wants to make the prisoner's dilemma point that if M and G can't find a way to play together nicely, they'll both lose out. That being said, my preferred solution in practice would be the one you propose in your answer below.

Several thoughts

Authorship order, responsibilities, and expectations should be a conversation had BEFORE the work begins.
The first author is commonly the person who wrote the paper, which generally implies the person most well versed and familiar with the study design and data.
In the case there are two (or more) people with equal contributions, they should share first authorship with asterisk note, which is fairly common and widely appreciated.
This may differ by field but at least in the biological sciences it is odd to see a PI take first author with students 2nd, 3rd outside of some book chapter or review.

My take on your predicament: G takes first author by virtue of significant theoretical and practical contributions. M is second, PI third
Incidentally, if your narrative is accurate, collecting the data is NOT sufficient grounds for first authorship or even authorship at all by APA guidelines. Contributions must be material outside of pure labor

Depending on the field, last author is sometimes desirable as it can stand for "supervision", in that case M,P,G could work, if G supervised M in some way.

There is a fair option available. The professor could have insisted that both M and G could be first author. I have seen in research follows like this:
M*, G*, P or G*, M*, P
* Both the authors contributed equally to this work.
Your present authorship order: P, G, M is really unfair for both of you (G and M).

What will be the in-text citation format of such a publication (M et al. or G et al.)?

@user3024069 still only "M et al" (or whoever comes first), even if on the paper, there is a note of shared first authorship. It's more relevant for CV's and applications, as the "2nd" author can still call it a first-author paper. But you are right, the 2nd is often seen as not equal to the first.

P asks G to 'look into it'. G analyzes the data, studies the subject background, identifies some erroneous numbers and re-runs some experiments. G then drafts a research manuscript for submission to a journal.

It's hard to tell from your short description, but it seems like you jumped the gun a bit here. As you advance in rank, it will be more and more important to help less-capable people on their projects, rather than just doing everything yourself. This is not an easy transition.
In this case, this was M's project, and the professor said "look into it," not "fix it." From this, I would have expected you to take a few hours to assess the situation, give the student some advice, and give the professor your assessment. If the professor then asked you continue supervising the work, or to take over, you should have negotiated authorship before agreeing to make this time commitment.
Since you didn't do this, there is a dispute:

From M's perspective, this is their project; they never asked for your help, and certainly didn't expect you to do more than give advice.
From your perspective, you did all the work and salvaged the project single-handedly

That said, you are where you are, and now a decision has to be made. Coder's solution of joint first authorship does seem like a better solution than listing P as the first author.

The order of authors is often a poor way of describing authors' relative contributions. Despite being the established norm in some areas (e.g. Physics, Chemistry, Engineering), it is not universal. For example in my area of Mathematics, it is more usual to put authors in alphabetic order and assume equal contributions.
In your situation, contributions are clearly not equal, but also it is not clear how to compare them, and different people may have different opinions on what is relatively more important: experiment, analysis, or general supervision. Since you three can't reach the agreement, it would be appropriate to put author alphabetically and state their exact contributions in a footnote or a special section:

The order of authors is alphabetical. The contributions are as follows: M set up experiment and collected the data; G performed analysis and discussed the results; P evaluates the results and provided general supervision. All authors contributed to writing and editing the manuscript.

The first author will be associated with the work and should be responsible for and capable of defending its contents.  From the little information we have it seems to me G should be first.
However... there might be various reasons to place M first.  Maybe M will have improved chances at a scholarship if he or she is first author.  Maybe G already has several first-author paper and another one will make a marginal impact in her or his transcript.  I’m sure there are variations on these too many to count.
I tend to agree with others that P first is unnecessary, although I can see how P might just want the bickering to end because neither M nor G are being reasonable.


text:
What merits acceptance for rapid publication in letter format?
Ive recently been asked to review for a letter format journal (articles less than 4 pages) for rapid publication. The same standard criteria of original content, novelty and relevant references as for other journal publications are required. Looking to the referee guide of the journal, it is stated that

When reviewing, reviewers should ask themselves 'Is this paper suitable for rapid publication?'

I am unable to find any discussion or guideline that clearly state what merits acceptance for rapid publication compared to the normal peer-review process for journal article submissions. Publishing as a IEEE letter vs article gives some input from the guidelines of IEEE JMEMS, where the author should argue why it is eligible for rapid publishing, although, Im not sure if this guideline is general for all journals.
I can understand that rapid publishing has benefits for authors and can be required by publishers due to competition. But I dont see what I, as a reviewer, am supposed to look for.
Since the letter format is short, not all aspects can be covered in the submission. Since the decision is binary (accept/reject), questions related to the submission cannot be answered or clarified by the authors through the review process. The situation arises that the submission can be original and novel, but may lack investigations or results. Should I still accept?

Have you asked the editor? That surely sounds like an unusual criterion.

@lighthousekeeper Ive sendt the question to the editorial board and awaiting a reply. However, the review deadline is less than 14 days and I dont know if they will answer in time.

When you don't receive the answer on time, submit the review with a note that you didn't comment on the criterion because you didn't understand it and you didn't receive clarification on time.

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/62913/20058

@MassimoOrtolano I find your definition of "immediate impact on the field" a good requirement and clarifying for me as a reviewer

From my understanding of the term, it seems to me that your job is to evaluate two things:

Is the manuscript in "good enough" shape to publish without a proper, more rigorous peer-review process? As you say, there's no opportunity for a back-and-forth with the authors, although presumably they would have an opportunity to incorporate your feedback. So you'd need to be confident that the manuscript will be publishable with just one round of revisions.
Is there a clear, urgent need for publication that warrants circumventing the traditional peer-review process? I think the editor is looking for your recommendation, given your knowledge of the field and your assessment of how timely and significant the contribution is, as to whether to publish the manuscript as a letter, rather than as a regular research article. I imagine the authors won't make an argument for rapid publication specifically in the manuscript (due to lack of space), but perhaps in an accompanying cover letter or something similar (as indicated in this answer).

Regarding your specific question about a submission that is "original and novel, but may lack investigations or results," I think it is your job to judge:

whether publishing the manuscript essentially "as is," without such investigations, will sufficiently spur further advances in the field such that it's worth not waiting for those results; and
whether there is significant risk of similar, cutting edge work being published elsewhere earlier if this manuscript is subjected to a full peer-review, that would undercut both these authors and the journal you're reviewing for.

I would guess that your point 2 is much more important here. An announcement that a long-sought result has been found/proven is a big deal, even if the details are sparse in the letter. But most would treat the note as tentative until a more complete version emerges. Point 1 would only seem (to me) to apply if the editor is a subject matter expert and can personally verify the results claimed. But the case here is that of a reviewer, not an editor. But you are correct, in essence here.

Thanks for this input. Your first point is clear, especially if combined with the comment from @buffy : is it good and important enough for the broader field. My challenge with your second point is how to evaluate the risk of someone else publishing the same thing somewhere else. The editor should be in a better position to do this based on the cover letter, no?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
communication after job offer and acceptance
I am a US-based researcher and was offered a position as a postdoctoral researcher at a Swedish institute. The offer came in December, and I have negotiated some terms, which the school accepted. All of this happened via email and very quick. As the school accepted the various terms exactly as I wanted, I decided to accept the offer and wrote back saying that I will be joining the team.
Now, this is where the issue comes in. I know I need to file some paper work to proceed, which exact steps I am not yet sure about. I have sent two emails inquiring about the issue to the professor in charge, but I have not gotten any response back.
I find it strange that my emails are being ignored and this is making me worried. Some acquaintances over in Stockholm has suggested that because many people take time off during the holidays, things can slow down considerably in December-January (I haven't been there and I have no idea how things work there), but it is almost end of January and I do need to get the paper work done soon to be able to relocate on time. What should I do?

The first email was sent approximately four weeks ago, and since I did not get a response, I sent another one to follow up two weeks ago.

There is definitely a Dec/Jan slowdown in Scandinavia, but here in Denmark folks are back in the office even though classes don't resume until February. I would suggest getting in touch with a department secretary or HR department person, as they'll inevitably handle all of your employment and moving details anyway (rather than a professor). Also, you should probably expect a formal contract letter, so if you don't have that, it may still be in process at the HR level.

Between 23 December and 6 January, as well as during the months of July and August, Sweden is closed.  Outside that period, you should be able to communicate with officials.

That's helpful. All I have is an email titled "formal offer" with the various terms laid out, so I guess I am waiting for an actual contract. Would that "formal contract letter" arrive via email or actual mail?

That I don't know.  Amazingly, I never signed any contract during my employment as a PhD student in Sweden, nor did the seniors sign anything.  I can't say I understand it, but I do know that the Swedish have long breaks and take those breaks seriously.

It's time to get the phone!
If you know some people working in your future institute, try to catch them by Skype. You can also look for some assistant or secretary telephone number in the institute. As long as you don't call by midnight, nobody will be annoyed by your call.
Yes, in Europe, things usually slow down in December / January, and mails accumulate or get trapped in spam filters. So, when in doubt, try and make a phone call.

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


text:
Thoughts on if it's possible to succeed in math @ PhD level w/o natural ability in quant reasoning?
As someone who has a relative deficit in quantitive reasoning (63%ile) vs. verbal (97%ile), but a strong interest in applied math, is it possible to be successful and competitive at the PhD level?
I am committed to putting in the effort, and I want to believe that this is possible - but it is very daunting.
EDIT1:
To flesh out the q:
I’ve taken Calc 1, Calc 2, Calc 3, Stat/ w Calc & Discrete Math. I got a B+ in the first 2, A in the third and 4th, and B in the 4th. Taking Linear Algebra/Real Analysis and expecting an A or a B. Calc 1&2 and Discrete math were taught at the liberal arts college I went to where I received a BA in the humanities. After my BA in the humanities I pursued ad-hoc post-bac in math so that I’d be able to apply to grad school. Calc III and Stats with Calc were taken at Columbia and LA/RA At Harvard.
I will say, I have improved dramatically since I first began taking math (w/ Calc I & II).
The test I took was WAIS-III full scale IQ test, designed to be taken with no preparation and administered at a world renown  neuropsych facility.
Regarding the GRE, I expect I’d be able to score in a percentile on par with other prospective applicants.
My plan is to apply to a terminal masters, ace that, and the go one to apply to PhD programs.
Lastly, I have significant adhd for which I was unmedicated in undergrad and may but may not account for relative split in grades before and after.
EDIT2:
I'm specifically interested in applied math. I want to pursue it because I find it challenging and interesting and immensely rewarding when I grasp a concept -- and I want to go into a field that helps people.

I'm not in math, but I've heard on this site that a typical pure math PhD student is expected to easily ace the math GRE. I'm not sure about applied math (or really even what it is, but I digress).

do the test makers disclose what mathematicians / math students usually get?

What is your current education level?  Have you taken college level math classes (in actual college, not high school)?  How did you do in those?  I would be hesitant to allow a standardized test to decide my life and career path, and there is nothing wrong with taking a few classes to "test the waters" prior to making a significant commitment.

Is “quantitative reasoning” assessment anything more than pseudoscience? This is a genuine question (despite, admittedly, scepticism on my part). I know that IQ tests are backed by solid evidence, but this concerns broad correlations to general intelligence not, as far as I know, specific (and somewhat arbitrary) subsets.

Tests don't mean anything.  I mean, ask yourself how motivated you were to do well on that test.  How much effort did you put into understanding the types of questions it was going to ask and why?  All it tells you is that you're probably not that interested in quantitative reasoning tests or the types of problems they throw at you.  But maybe there are applied math problems that get you excited, and you'll see your aptitudes change dramatically when you're driven by passion to stay up until 11PM scratching equations onto paper.  If you have that passion, then do it.

I really like this comment. Thank you.

I don't have the exact quote, but I remember reading Paul Halmos (perhaps somewhere in his autobiography) where he said that in his experience the verbal score was a better predictor of success in pure mathematics than the mathematics score.

well that is heartening

@JohnColeman I've heard several people say things like this, but what was probably meant is that quantitative scores don't carry a lot of useful information since nearly everyone who goes into mathematics does well on quantitative tests.

Why do you want to pursue graduate studies in math?  I think this is a huge missing piece of your question.  Is it something that you've gotten more interested in the more you learn about it?  If you could add that to your question I think you might get higher quality answers (although @Buffy does somewhat hint at it in theirs).

I want to pursue it because its challenging and interesting and I want to understand.

@azorahai It's important to distinguish between the math section of the general GRE and the GRE math subject test, which is significantly more difficult.

"I want to go into a field that helps people" - then a PhD in Applied Maths is a huge distraction. Take up medicine or engineering.

@little True, I forgot the subject text exists

To know whether you can do an applied math PhD, the question to ask is: did you succeed in difficult math, science, and computer science courses in undergrad, and do you have professors in relevant fields willing to write you a strong recommendation? General aptitude tests are dramatically less informative. This is not to say that, if you’re correct that you have average quantitative reasoning ability, a math PhD might not be the wrong choice for you. It’s just that you have other, much more refined and relevant, information available to judge by.
EDIT: Based on your edits, I’d say an A in Calc III at Columbia is more informative than the IQ test. That said, you have few advanced courses-only one, once you finish real analysis. So there’s not much evidence yet of your prospects. You’re in a plausible position to apply to master’s programs, and if you get into a good one, you’ll a get a much clearer idea of yourself there.

General aptitude tests are dramatically less informative --- Especially since we are given no information about the test. Also, the comment under the answer by @Allure doesn't really help much. What age are you, what is your math background, how well did you do in various math courses, etc.? For example, among other such things, saying something like "one of the top 3 students in a class of 28 students taking an honors level course in beginning calculus using Spivak's book at an Ivy League school" would be an example of what might be specific enough to begin trying to answer your question.

Thanks for the input. I refined the question.

Looking at example questions in the quantitative reasoning section of the GRE, the questions are genuinely easy, and I would expect good high school students to be able to do well. A math PhD student scoring in the 63rd percentile is therefore very strange.
I've never worked in math PhD admissions, but my reactions would be 1) why did you do so poorly? (63rd percentile is not poor in general, but for a math PhD student it appears to be very poor), and 2) are you sure you have the background to study math at PhD level? Surely a math PhD student should have no problems solving the linear equation 3x-2 = 2x+5 for x - in fact, I'd expect a math PhD student to be able to solve quadratic equations easily. If the score genuinely reflects your ability, I would double check your transcript to see how much math you've done.
This doesn't mean that you cannot do a math PhD, but I'd make doubly sure that you do indeed have the basic skills needed to attempt it.
Edit: the question makes clear now that the scores weren't the GRE quantitative & verbal tests, but rather some kind of general IQ test. In that case it's a much, much weaker sign (if it is a sign at all) of inability to succeed at PhD level. If IQ implied mathematical ability, then it'd show up in your transcript, but it's the transcript that matters more than your IQ. If you score very well in your undergraduate courses, then what your IQ is is unimportant ... conversely, if your IQ is very high but you don't score well in your undergraduate courses, it would still be a red flag.

I believe the "63rd percentile" figure that the OP mentions is regarding the IQ test mentioned in the fifth paragraph, since they later say "[r]egarding the GRE, I expect I’d be able to score in a percentile on par with other prospective applicants", which implies they haven't taken the GRE yet.

Note that there is a big difference between the math section of the general GRE (which tests high school level math) and the specialized GRE math (which tests all the calculus sequence and a little more). Nevertheless there is a nontrivial proportion of pure math phds who score 100% perfect on the GRE math but this is by no means necessary and it is not true that the rest scores just slightly below that. A lot of math phds are very good at things tested in GRE math, some are not. Both can get very good and successful math phds.

@quarague I don’t think that’s very accurate. 167/170 is the average math GRE score for admitted MIT engineering PhD students; I think it is very close to true that “the rest score slightly below that” for top programs. I would say the math phds who aren’t very good-to the moderate standard of the GRE-at high school math are few and far between, and the majority of the latter could become very good by reviewing the boring basics for a few hours.

@KevinCarlson You are aware that MIT is one of the very top universities in the US? I could also image that engineering has a bigger emphasis on the GRE than pure math, because engineers need to actually calculate a lot more than mathematicians and that is essentially what the GRE math tests. Whether you are good at understanding and proving things is not part of the GRE math, a lot harder to test and a more important for a math phd than being able to calculate well.

@quarague If someone’s going for a PhD, I assume they’re going for the top programs. In pure math weaker programs have a rather poor career outlook. I suppose someone might get an applied PhD at a weaker program to qualify for a government or industry job, but my sense is that even outside of academia most PhD-level positions are so competitive that if one can’t get into a top program, it’s likely not worth it on career grounds-assuming that’s the basis of the decision, of course. In the same way, I advise people who can’t get into a top-14 law school not to go to law school.

@quarague The rest of your comment is fine, but the point is that the calculations on the general GRE are very easy. Math PhDs are almost always pretty good at all of math.

@KevinCarlson So you are advising that say 90% of all pure math phd students or law students actually made a bad career decision? That sounds a bit harsh.

@quarague I cannot speak for Math, but there is good evidence that at least the majority of Law students have made a poor decision.

@quarague Yes, I am, although I don’t know if I’d endorse the 90% number precisely. It may lessen the harshness that I don’t put all the blame on the students. Even in top math programs, the great majority of students do not go on to pure math careers.

@KevinCarlson well, I guess I would have to ask you to produce the data to support your claim.

@cdela There certainly exist people who outperform their department. In math, it’s very difficult to do research that speaks for itself in this way without being constantly exposed to the mathematicians who are doing leading research-everything is not in books. I don’t know anything about physics, but I would point out that your friend has apparently lived in three states and two continents over four consecutive temporary and underpaid positions-and indeed is probably outperforming most of her peers! If that’s what she wanted, more power to her, but many people find such a life unfulfilling.

@Cdela Which claim, precisely?

@mai the question's been edited since I wrote this answer - it was originally just the first two paragraphs, which I (incorrectly) assumed meant the GRE verbal & quantitative scores.

I'm surprised how many people in this thread seem to be unaware of how much universities are turning away from admissions testing these days.  Sure, they might hold in general cases regarding a specific type of student but it's become more and more widely recognized that they only measure a particular set of skills.  For instance: https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2019/10/07/brown-follows-princeton-letting-departments-make-choice-gre

@KevinCarlson We seem to have different opinions on how to measure a successful math phd. You said that only very few end up with a pure maths career, why I interpret as becoming a professor with some strong research focus. It is true that only very few succeed in that and that a phd from one of the strongest universities is the most viable path there. But you can also have a very satisfying career as a math lecturer at a liberal arts college or do some math heavy industry job. In both cases a math phd from a mid tier university will open job opportunities you wouldn't have without a phd.

I certainly wouldn't give up hope. The reason is that "number" per se is a very small part of mathematics. Quantitative reasoning helps in many things, of course, but there are lots of areas where it is less important than, say logical reasoning and a geometric sense (among other things).
Mathematics is largely about abstraction and relationships, much more so than about "quantity". Most people get their feet wet in quantitative studies and Real Analysis is grounded in numeracy. But even Complex Analysis has many important results that are non-intuitive to a novice.
So, just assume that there are still large segments of both pure and applied math that you may be well suited for. I suggest you explore rather than give up.

Note: I have a doctorate in Mathematics. Real Analysis specialty but a strong interest and some accomplishment in Topology. Computer Science, which most of my career was involved with draws on the same ability of abstraction and composition. They aren't exactly the same, but intersect in many ways.

First of all, I don't think anyone knows if "quantitative reasoning" WAIS subscores are indicative of talent in higher mathematics. It's possible that you would make a lousy accountant but a good mathematician. You probably already know whether you're "good with numbers," and you surely already know that what you do in advanced mathematics doesn't have a lot to do with what you're asked to do on a WAIS. It's unfortunate that even people who should know better tend to conflate quantitative or computational fluency with mathematical talent.
Speaking from my own experience, I reliably score around the 30th percentile for "arithmetic fluency," although there is nothing wrong with my ability to reason mathematically. But I'm not the person you should ask to do your taxes.
Secondly, ADHD often shows up as irregular profiles in skills and aptitude testing. Whatever the WAIS-III is worth, it needs to be interpreted carefully and in context. You can't really conclude much from a single subscore.

I just want to point out one example, it is a somewhat of a common story but I couldn't find any decent sources. Garry Kasparov is a titan of chess. He is one of the very bests if not the best. He had been the world champion for many years. Apperantly people used to estimate his IQ was between 180 and 190. He allegedly took an IQ test in the 80s and scored 135. Now, 135 is quite low considering his extreme success. Above 130 IQ seem to be estimated to be 2% of world population. Which might still sound high but there are billions of people.

IQ scores follow roughly a Gaussian distribution. There are roughly 17% above 115, 2% above 130 and 0.1% above 145. Anything above that is essentially just guesswork. These few lucky people are by now means all the same but the difference cannot be easily squeezed into a x point IQ difference. Estimating the IQ of anyone at 180 or 190 just shows that whoever did the estimate has no clue what these numbers mean. The fact that Kasparov plays better chess than any other random grand master does not imply that he has a higher IQ.

@JohnDoucette wut? The abstract says the disparity between 20 and 70 is "as much as 2.3" sd, "at least 85%" of which is due to the Flynn effect. Since 1 sd = 15 points, that would mean any decline is at most 0.34 sd = 5 points. All of which is irrelevant anyway, since the post says Kasparov supposedly took the test in the 80s, not his 80s. I think Kasparov is in his 50s.

@JohnDoucette, again dubious sources claim the test was taken in 87 or 88, Kasparov would 24 or 25 years old at that time. He became a world champion in 85 at the age of 22.

@BoatyMcboatface Ah, I misunderstood, and thought this was in his 80's, not the 1980's. I'll remove my comments.

As someone who has a relative deficit in quantitive reasoning vs. verbal, but a strong interest in applied math, is it possible to be successful and competitive at the PhD level?

You could succeed in fields like topological algebra or mathematical logic.

I'm specifically interested in applied math.

Consider also computer science. You should view it as some applied mathematics. Look into π-calculus for a good example. And the job opportunities could be better (e.g. around artificial intelligence, semantics, static program analysis, machine learning, cybersecurity, etc...). See these slides on the future of mathematics.
Consider also computer programming and software development. It is tightly related to math, and I tend to believe you'll need some of it during your math PhD.  I know several persons (Roberto Di Cosmo, Xavier Leroy, or Roberto Bagnara, or the late Jacques Pitrat, or Emmanuel Haucourt to name a few) who had an exceptional academic career while being expert in both math and programming.
Look also into economics, bioinformatics, computational chemistry, and theoretical physics (as science with a lot of math, so much that you might view them as applied math).
PS. I got a PhD in 1990 but not in math, just in AI. I am French, so your GRE things make no sense at all for me. In France, some equivalent could be the baccalauréat. I graduated from ENS Cachan which probably has no real US equivalent.

I would say with quite strong confidence that the score on a test is insufficient to determine your ability in such a vast field as maths.
Consider the following:

All tests are imperfect. Some very intelligent people score badly and some very "average" people score highly
A single sub-test bares little resemblance to most you will be doing in a PhD. E.g. reading papers, communicating with colleagues, writing eloquently, researching questions, doing formal maths, programming, etc. I would particularly stress some underappreciated skills such as communicating with colleagues

I did a PhD in Applied Maths and spend most of my time in a laboratory doing fluid dynamics experiments, setting up cameras, writing code to do image analysis, build experimental apparatuses etc.
Finally, I have done quite a bit of maths at University and I found that maths doesn't come easily. In my first semester as a under-grad I was studying for my first exam and read all the lecture notes, attempted all the examples and understood zero. At that point I was a little bit panicking. Next day, I came back and tried it all again. Again, I felt I understood nothing. Not knowing what else to do, seriously worried, I came back on the third day. Finally I understood a little bit. On the fourth day, suddenly everything fell into place in a couple of hours. I've repeated this experience for every lecture course. A period of incomphresnshion that eventually gives way to understand by repeatatly reading the same notes an examples.
This is of course a personal story and your experience will vary but I think determination can go a long way, particularly in a field like math.

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


text:
PhD supervisor wants me to quit after break
I have been studying for a PhD and unfortunately had been suffering from depression during the first year and on medication, so I didn't make much progress at all. My supervisor seemed understanding, telling me I was 'one of the strongest students' he'd taught, and not to worry as sometimes life gets in the way, and I should take a study break if necessary.
I therefore took an official study break for one year, and came off the medication. Just before I was considering returning, I sent an email to the supervisor just asking about what we should do next. His reply was to say how terrible my performance had been so far and that he strongly advises I should quit. I felt devastated to say the least. Is he right after all and should I really quit? I thought he was so supportive to begin with and actually suggested the break. Or is the blunt truth correct? Doing a PhD was my dream and now it is shattered.
Edit: I have been advised to add that I did not tell the supervisor in advance that I was going to be on break for a year, just that I was taking a break as he advised. I did not know in advance how long a break would last. Neither was I in communication during this time. When I was depressed, nothing else mattered.
Edit 2: Clarification that the break was officially sanctioned by the university. Please note technically I am still "on break" as the supervisor has not allowed me to return.
Update: The supervisor has ignored my last email so I guess I will be quitting or moving on. Thanks to everyone who answered and commented.

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

Is there any medical centre attached to your university, student support centre, i.e. a neutral 3rd party that might be wise in these matters, who might known about appeals or at least could recommend the best thing to do within the framework of your university?

While your main question is surely looming large for you, I wanted to congratulate you for making the difficult decision to take that break and take care of your mental health. It takes strength to acknowledge and face difficult health decisions like that. I very much hope that your life and career start to go the way you want; but even if they don't, your commitment to self-care is even more important than a PhD.

Thank you for the edits, but can you please also clarify whether the word "terrible" is what your supervisor said, or your interpretation? "Unlikely to succeed" is not the same as "terrible" -- I am not saying the supervisor's judgment is correct, btw.

"Unlikely to succeed" is too genteel and does not get across the bluntness of this person. I did not say terrible was a quote but is closer to the spirit of the communication.

My supervisor seemed understanding, telling me I was 'one of the strongest students' he'd taught, and not to worry as sometimes life gets in the way, and I should take a study break if necessary.

Taking a break seems a great idea, I think your supervisor said good things here.

I therefore took a year off, and came off the medication.

It is great to know that you got better and came off the medication! Congratulations!

I did not tell the supervisor in advance that I was going to be on break for a year, just that I was taking a break as he advised. I did not know in advance how long a break would last.

No one could know how long the break would last. Knowing that is simply impossible. So don't worry about it.

Neither was I in communication during this time. When I was depressed, nothing else mattered.

Agreed. Again, don't worry about it. The fact that other things matter now is another evidence that you are better :)

Just before I was considering returning, I sent an email to the supervisor just asking about what we should do next.

Good! However, just keep in mind that in written communication it is hard to express emotions, tone, and such. So this form of communication has a few drawbacks and can lead to misunderstandings. But overall, it is fine.

His reply was to say how terrible my performance had been so far [...]

He certainly could have chosen better words. But let's make an effort to put emotions aside for a moment. It is true that you made no meaningful progress in the last two years. But you, more than anyone, already knew that. And more importantly, it is utterly completely extremely okay that you made no meaningful progress. You were tremendously sick after all! Who can make any progress being extremely sick?

[...] and that he strongly advises I should quit.

Hmmm... I don't know what is the right thing to do (no one does), but I know that if your advisor no longer wants to advise you, then he should stop being your advisor, it's a win for both of you. But please note that leaving an advisor is just leaving an advisor. You can find a new advisor, why not? People change advisors. It won't be the first time someone changes advisors.

I felt devastated to say the least.

Good... Feeling devastated over devastating things is what should happen. If you didn't feel devastated I would be worried. It means you're human.

Is he right after all [...]

No one will ever know whether or not he is right. The good news is that it doesn't matter. What matters is simply what you will decide to do.

and should I really quit?

Hmmm... As I said earlier, I think it would probably be good for you to look for a different advisor, since your history with this advisor got messy. People change advisors. It's normal. No need to make a fuss about it, things just turned out in a way that seemed that you two won't work very well anymore.

I thought he was so supportive to begin with and actually suggested the break.

From what you said, apparently he was indeed! And it's great that you accepted the suggestion, and got better! You getting better is the most important thing in this story.
Now, one year has passed and your supervisor said something different... Well, advisors are humans too, right? One year ago he thought you should take a break, now he thinks something else! People change their minds. And this may be for one million different reasons. Thankfully the reason doesn't matter.

Or is the blunt truth correct?

I am not sure what you mean by "the blunt truth"... You seem to be implying something... And although this is written communication, I am going to guess you are saying this in a pessimistic tone. Perhaps implying that you're not worthy of a PhD? Perhaps implying that you're not good enough? Or something like that?
Stop it right there. These are astronomically absurd conclusions. Firstly, there is no "the" here. Using "the" makes it look like everything boils down to one little fact. Life is immensely more complex than that. Secondly, the words of your advisor may have been blunt, but there is no "truth" and especially no "blunt truth" anywhere here.
Whenever you see yourself taking drastic conclusions about something, take a step back!

Doing a PhD was my dream and now it is shattered.

???????
No it's not shattered.
You just took a sudden drastic conclusion again.
To me, it looks like doing a PhD is your dream. Where did that past tense come from? If it wasn't your dream, would you be here asking this question? The fact that you got devastated after reading that email is yet another evidence. We humans only get devastated about things that really matter to us.
An advisor saying (although with a bad choice of words) that you should no longer be advised by him, because you made little to no progress in two years (which is obvious because you are a human and you were super sick, as I said):

Simply becomes someone that should no longer be your advisor;
And is astronomically far from "shattering a dream".

You will be fine!!

Thanks for your encouraging answer @Pedro

@user50229 You're welcome. Thanks for reading it :)

If your advisor is suggesting that you quit, it is likely that you will have a hard time carrying on with the same advisor.
You maybe need to have a discussion with them about why your performance was bad, and why you needed a break. As it currently stands, it sounds like you had one year in the program without any progress, and then another year where you took a break and also made no progress, so it is two years since you were admitted to the program and you are essentially a new student. From your advisor's point of view, suggesting you quit is good advice as they feel it is unlikely that you will finish your degree. If you want to work with them, you need to convince them that this is not the case.
If you want to continue to pursue a PhD, and you are unable to reach a point in discussion where your advisor is empathetic to your situation and enthusiastic about working with you (not just grudgingly willing to work with you), you probably should either 1: change advisor at the same university, 2: leave your current program and apply to other programs.

This is a brutal interpretation of the question as posted.  According to the question the supervisor suggested taking a break and of course no progress was made during the break.  This does not justify the supervisor's behaviour, which superficially, seems inconsistent, and dispassionate, if not unprofessional and perhaps malign.  I would agree that it strongly seems this supervisor is not the right person to carry on with.  Having seen some bad supervisors and how important it is to have a good one I would, as you've suggested, not treat this lightly.

@Morgan Rodgers He already knew why my performance was bad, the disability office had been in touch and this resulted in the more sympathetic email I mentioned with the option to take a break.

@user50229 Regardless of why his attitude has changed, it has changed, and I would be wary of trying to develop a positive working relationship with him. (I say develop, not continue, because given your first-year issues and the subsequent break, you really don't seem to have a real working relationship yet.) The answer may seem blunt, but I think the advice is solid.

@AJP If the supervisor's suggestion was intended to mean "take a week off to sort yourself out" and the OP was then absent for a year, it's hardly surprising if the supervisor's opinion has changed.

@alephzero That was not the case, a study break is a specific thing where you officially notify the department that you are interrupting your studies for at least one term/semester. Also you can't "sort yourself out" from depression in one week.

@MorganRodgers I think you are right unfortunately.

@MorganRodgers If the OP happens to be in the UK and this is a maths PhD then there are various bureaucratic/structural issues why this can be harder to do than (I guess) it might be in a North American grad school program(me)

@user50229 I feel uneasy about this reaction since I cannot imagine that any supervisor suffering from depression and withdrawing from work for one year should be asked by his line manager to quit. Especially on the grounds that he/she will be a drag for the environment. A softer re-entry should be possible with much care for avoiding a self-fulfilling prophecy: asking someone coming out of a depression to be enthusiastic is quite a demand. Consider that a person coming out of a depression can be much wiser, conscientious and alert than a happy-go-lucky. A better researcher then.

@MorganRodgers I acknowledge my misinterpretation of the point you mention and thanks for pointing this out. I would hold concerns for the developments of a delicate situation in which enthusiasm rather than empathy is the beacon to the way onwards and upwards; in this respect I realize that the empathic supervisor is key and I would not want to get myself into known troubles with a distrusting supervisor, which is in the lines of what you mention.

@user50229: can you add to the question that the break was officially granted? As it stands, it was not very clear to me if you had an official break, or if you just "disappeared" during one year.

I would like to add that, depending on the jusrisdiction, the supervisors may well have a duty to continue to supervise. Doesn't mean they will be a great supervisor, but there is probably a minimum they are mandated to provide by the university policys/funding body requirements/law. If we want to get rid of a student is takes at least a year of bureaucracy and explainations of how the performance was substandard and depression would almost always count as mitigating circumstances.

@Ian True, but as the answer says, do I really want to carry on with someone who is forced to be there. I imagine life could be made very difficult by him while remaining technically compliant.

I would like to add my perspective as a supervisor having a PhD student suffering from a depression. She has been absent for about two years now and not yet returned. Neither me nor she herself have anticipated that it would take so long. The year might have been a surprise for your supervisor, too. I have been supportive over all this time and will keep that up if possible when she returns. She is four years in her PhD work so only needs a few small steps to complete. However, her progress might become state of the art someday also without her thesis, and then it might be difficult to give her the degree. This is something you should take into account, too: After a while with no progress, it will become more and more likely that your topic becomes obsolete.
The situation is not easy for me either. Of course I wonder how big the share of the PhD work and my supervision is for this situation. And I am competent in giving advice in the research, but not sure how to handle somebody with a depression. Your supervisor probably is in a similar situation, so also her/his actions need some understanding. I try my best, but it might not be the best.
As a supervisor, it is your duty to give the PhD students feedback on their progress, and part of that is to tell them whether they will probably make it or not. I have seen many PhD students not suffering from a depression having a hard time during their work. A PhD student usually needs all the power to succeed. In the example described above, I might have advised her to think about quitting too if she was only in the beginning of her thesis. This might be good advice, and you should consider it if your supervisor says so. Discuss it openly with all people involved.

+1 for "As a supervisor, it is your duty to give the PhD students feedback on their progress, and part of that is to tell them whether they will probably make it or not." Of course, a supervisor may easily be wrong about the potential of the research project, wrong either way, in a case like this, so there's no point in being devastated after consulting a suddenly skeptical supervisor - but finding a supervisor who truly believes in their student's eventual success is always the first step of resuming the project.

It is hard to know how to advise you in particular because there are many aspects of the situation that are not covered in your posting. However, here are some ideas that may be helpful.

You should not do this by email. Email is not a good medium for important discussions such as this. You should request an in-person meeting with your advisor. Before you go to that meeting, you should have an agenda of what you wish to accomplish. For example, you may wish to bring old emails and ask your advisor how is it possible that you could have been told that you were one of the advisor’s “strongest students” and now there is a very different assessment of your first year’s work.
You don’t make it clear if you are still depressed or not. You may be misreading your advisor’s emails. So again, I recommend printing out representative emails from before and from now and showing them to a neutral third party.
It is possible that your supervisor is depressed as well, or is going through their own life issues. Therefore, you may wish to show the emails to a dean or the ombuds office at your school, if you have one.

Leaving a Ph.D. program now does not mean that you will be giving up on your dream of getting a Ph.D. You may find another program in a few years. You may switch fields. There are many people who have started in one Ph.D. program and completed another after a period of time. The critical issue is what you accomplish when you are not in the program: if you are academically active, if you are writing, if you are participating in research-like activities, then you should be able to land a position in another program.
Why do you want a Ph.D.? If you have a love of research, you may find that there is a corporate research lab that you can join for a few years. You may find another lab, either at the same school or another, that is happy to have you as a part-time, unpaid lab member.
There are many possibilities. It’s a big world. There are many people who have completed a Ph.D. while depressed. There are many advisors who have a toxic relationship with some of their advisees, and end up making their advisees depressed. There are some advisees who are toxic to their advisors. The Ph.D.-advisee relationship is a charged one. This may not be the best pairing for you or for your advisor. But it may be that either you or your advisor are not objectively evaluating the situation. That’s why it’s useful to write things down, print things out, and to involve other people.

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

This is a big area to cover in "an answer" which will be more like 5 questions to begin of a conversation :) but you've done the right thing in asking for opinions.
Firstly I'd say I disagree with most of the answers.

If your advisor is suggesting that you quit, it is likely that you will have a hard time carrying on with the same advisor.

Maybe, but you haven't shown the situation is as clear cut as this.  It sounds like you sent them one email and received one response.
Have any other communications gone back and forth?  How long did the supervisor take to respond (was it in minutes i.e. rash, perhaps caught them at a bad time and ill thought out)?  Was their email polite but firm?  What was the agreement you left on; did they expect you to leave for a year?
What is your subject in?  How long do you have funding for?  Is it your supervisors funding or did you bring it to the table?  If it's their funding and you didn't agree to a year off I can understand they might be very annoyed... but if so, why did they not contact you before now?
A little background from me:  I was doing a PhD in biotech / chemeng.  I quit it after 2 years as I felt it was a waste of time.  I've known and helped several people through depressive episodes.  Well done for navigating your way back out.
Then on to where I would have liked to start this answer: Why do you want to do a PhD.  If it's personal challenge, personal glory / ego, commercial, fun, curiosity?  Do you know and have accepted that PhD's can be very isolating (by their nature).
** Edit **
I talked "briefly" with a friend for 20 minutes about your question and the other "answers".  We came up with 10 to 20 potential main and sub scenarios of how to interpret the information you've given here and potential advice to give.  This would need a few one hour conversations to fully explore.  With that in mind I would suggest you get a good counselor / friend who will listen and ask the "right" questions.  There are some useful pointers and advice in the other questions.  But I'm surprised by how they seem to lack a lot of nuance and jump to conclusions given such complex personal, and interpersonal dynamics plus the additional v important information you've surfaced later regarding other emails, department interaction, timeline, the financial situation, your motivations, your desires, your supervisor's group situation, including the "other previously depressed" student etc etc.
Best wishes.

I was wary of giving away too many details in case I am recognised, but it is mathematics and I fund it enirely myself. After the first email I sent a reply indicating I was quite shocked, which was followed by another lengthy reply from him, outlining how his current students in a similar situation to me are failing. Even though I insist I was previously ill, he won't let go that I will be the same in the future and so the PhD is not worth doing. This is after two more emails of my trying to convince him I would be better and would like to continue.

I am doing it for interest and as a challenge. I don't need it for an academic career; although I work in an environment where 95% of the hires are PhDs, I managed to get there without because I had a desirable undergraduate degree and took a very low starting salary. I should point out that above the "similar situation" is having a job simultaneously.

@user50229 One general rule which I would recommend to follow: Do not use email communication to settle conflicts. It leaves too much room for (over)interpreting things in a way they were not meant (on both sides). Talking in person or at least on the phone is much better.

@Snijderfrey I would tend to agree, but the supervisor himself made it quite final via email. It sounds strongly like he will not be convinced by, or even agree to, a meeting. It is now a waste of his time.

I think this is sound advice from AJP but I would also encourage people to read some of the further details/clarifications in the comments to the main question

In my opinion your confusion is understandable, your supervisor owes you at least a clear explanation, if only for you to make an informed decision about what to do next. If for some reason your supervisor doesn't give you this explanation, I'd suggest you try to discuss this with somebody else who can give you a reasonably objective evaluation: maybe there is another researcher in your department that you would feel confident to talk to? Even if you have the discussion with your supervisor, it might be worth getting a second opinion.
In any case you should probably also have a meeting with the director of studies (or whoever is in charge of the PhD program) to discuss the situation and your options. Don't hesitate to contact them as soon as possible even if things are not clear for you yet: it's part of their role to advise you and the sooner they are in the loop the more helpful they can be.

Concur. Not to mention that there should be a HR department in the university and attending legal obligations as to preserving and restoring the health of employees. Just to say: it is not just about advising, it is also about duties and obligation: not just things that ought (not) to happen, but also things that must (not) happen.

You should really reflect on it, and probably talk to your physician or other professional about it. If the PhD, although it is your dream, was causing your suffering you might be better off not returning to it.
Now, if you actually want to keep going, you might try to convince your advisor, if that does not work, it does not mean that you have to quit the program, you will still be able to look for a different advisor and mindfully explain the situation. Or yet, if there is no one in the same area of research you want, go for a different university.

Assuming what you said is entirely true. Some key points to think about are:
1) Did you suffer from depression prior to being admitted to the PhD program? If yes, you should consider this as your mis-judgement of the suitability of the PhD program to you at the beginning. Learn from it.
2) Were you paid by stipend during the break?
If yes, I would say your supervisor or whoever is behind your funding are already very generous if they are not the ones who caused your depression.
3) Did your supervisor suggest you to take a year-long break? Or you decided to take the break however long it is on your own without much communication to your supervisor? <- you need to clarify on that.
4) It seems that you were shocked because the supervisor had a "sudden" and drastic change of attitude. However, that was a year apart. From your shock, it hints to me that you communicated very rarely with your supervisor during the break, you need to clarify on that. If you really did not take much effort to communicate with your supervisor (anything e.g. about updates of your recovery process, future plan for the research to be conducted), it is indeed a little irresponsible to think that you can jump in and out on your wish.
Finally, imagine how bad your supervisor impression about you would have to be for him/her to say such thing to you. If you think you don't deserve it, is it still worth to work for him/her? You may want to consider talk to someone in the university who has the power to independently investigate this situation .
Learn from it and good luck.

Nonsense I say - the supervisor / adviser knew of the reason for the break - else he most likely wouldn't have even suggested it. Now depression is a very complex matter - I know people who have suffered (and still do) for 5+x years - with different medications .... So it was obvious that OP wouldn't return right away from the break - And suddenly nag about the performance in hindsight ... is poor rationale.

IMO, it is a common mistake to assume someone else would know XYZ. How do you know if the supervisor has dealt with depression/students with depression before? The take home message is always remember to communicate clearly without leaving room for possibilities for things to go uncertain

Your supervisor has acted with hipocrisy, has no interpersonal skills and should resign himself right away to supervise you. This might be just a supervisor's strategy to avoid problems in their publication goals and an attempt of gaslighting you and the department managers. Take your work with you (if any), estimate whether you should ask for a supervisor change based on supervisor's email or wait for him to resign, and then file a complaint or communication to the department managers or dean in order to inform about your case.

Most depressions during a PhD stem from an unreasonable supervisor that puts people in uncomfortable if not threatening situations of pressure. There is almost no checks and balances in academia and a PhD ultimately depends solely on the opinion of your supervisor. Considering the reply of your supervisor, you should rethink twice if you want to work with him/her again. If you even come to the conclusion that your depression is somehow related to your work, you should report it to your faculty, move on and maybe find a different supervisor.

Yes, this may be the sad but realistic conclusion. I don't think I can work with someone who has no faith in me, no matter what was said before. He seems to be contradictory at best. I just wish I found out his true feeling sooner.

@image, I think that some depression in a PhD may stem from this, but it may also stem from familial obligations, or financial issues, or strict biochemical ones. Saying "most" is likely to be not strictly true.

Can you provide data to support your first sentence?

I think this doesn't account for differences between situational depression and clinical depression.

Thanks for the very interesting question. Here is my two cents.
1) I fully agree with Erwan that " your supervisor owes you at least a clear explanation, if only for you to make an informed decision about what to do next."
2) Getting a PhD is supposed to be tough and rightly so. Advising PhD students is hard work.  One of a  supervisor's tasks is to help you, but his resources (time, focus, commitment etc.) are limited, since he is human, as we all are. Beside helping you the advisor has also the heavy responsibility of setting and enforcing standards for your work. If he has lost confidence in your ability to carry through demanding work at the required level, you may try to convince him otherwise, but at the end of the day it is up to him to decide.
3) Since you have not even begun your work, it is difficult to see why you should insist on pressing on after an unauspicious non-start. If your commitment is serious, as it should be, I suggest you try a fresh start with someone else.
4) Nobody is "a priori" entitled to a PhD. A PhD is something you achieve by overcoming considerable challenges. Finding a good advisor and mantaining a productive relationship with him is one of them. In any case, after you start work, it usually gets much worse before it eventually gets better.

I don't see why he had confidence in my ability before the break he suggested, but not afterwards. Nothing (rightly) happened during the break. 4) Nowhere did I say I am entitled to a PhD.

Why shouldn't I at least ask? I paid fees for the course and I did nothing wrong. Sorry I was ill.

Pal, the basic question is, what do you want to achieve? Blaming your advisor, even if he is indeed to blame, won't get you anywhere. You are entitled to an explanation, but that will not answer the basic question. If you want to get a PhD, go for it and be aware that is hard and messy. That's all.

@user50229 "Sorry I was ill".  Never say that.  You deserve better than that.  You need to start treating yourself with a respect (and kindness).  You didn't choose to get ill.

@AndreaAlciato I don't recall blaming the advisor either, I asked the question is he right. You set up a lot of strawmen.


text:
How many full-time instructor positions to apply for as a Masters-holder?
I am leaving graduate school in May with a Master of Science in Mathematics.  For the past few weeks, I have been applying to full-time instructor/lecturer positions (mostly 2-year with a few 4-year).  I started with a list of ~40 and after whittling it down, have completed applications for 18.
The past few days I've been reading application blog posts and how-tos and the writers talk about applying to dozens of schools (even hundreds with little success).  And these are PhD holders with a lot more experience, which is making me worried.
There's a lot of information for PhD required professor positions so I wanted to ask-just how competitive is the teaching only scene?  I know that "applying to more places equals higher probability of getting a job" but I've more or less applied to everywhere I'd like to go.  However, I don't want to regret not lowering my standards and being unemployed for an entire year.

You should take a look at the qualifications of other instructors at the institution you're applying to.  If they've all got PhD's, then it's likely that you won't have much of chance of being hired even if the advertisement says something like "Master's required, PhD preferred."  At this point, many 4-year institutions basically only hire PhD's as instructors and some community colleges are also hiring lots of instructors with PhD's.

How many is required and how competitive the job market is varies by time and by place. You are competing for many of the positions with people that hold doctorates. So, start with your current list but expand it as necessary. And don't apply to just institutions within a narrow range of perceived quality if you really need a job.
I'd also recommend that you have someone else review your application materials, such as your CV and SoP so that you have some assurance that you present yourself well. Make sure the skills you present in your applications match the needs of the institutions you apply to.
When I finished a doctorate half a century ago, a few hundred were needed. There were many more recent graduates than available positions. That was just academic economics at its worst.
If you are finding it hard to get a job, you can also work to obtain complementary skills, say in CS, that might make you more attractive some places.
Research is very important at a few hundred institutions in the US, out of a few thousand. But a doctorate is required for those in very nearly every case. Research is also needed at other institutions, but teaching may be more highly valued. There are some secondary schools, actually, that are highly regarded and the stress there is almost entirely on teaching.

The sad reality is that even for limited-term appointments there are several 10s of candidates with PhDs willing to apply.  PhD holders are now starting to apply for sessional positions, somehow cobbling together these appointments to eke out a living.  Finally, a position might be advertised as teaching-only, but the possibility of continuing or participating in research or supervising students is often an unstated expectation.
I’m sorry if this sounds grim, but in the current fiscal climate the ability to teach is secondary to the ability to raise revenues through research grants.  I’m sure there are exceptions and niche markets, but overall the odds of getting a stable position with an MSc degree are rather slim.

A bit too grim, I think. True enough at R1 and R2 universities, but there are a lot of others where teaching is really valued. In fact some top universities have a special track for teaching. CMU, Duke, Stanford, and others have "professors of the practice" whose duties are quite different from tenure track folks. But those are largely populated with people with doctorates also. Not completely, but the competition is fierce there too.

@Buffy yes regrettably very fierce...


text:
Is there any particular date when math postdoc results are typically announced?
The application for math postdoc at United States is the end  of every year. Want to know when it usually releases the results?
Has someone already got an offer or some shortlist notifications?

It depends on the program. There is no uniform date.

But many of them never send out reject letter. So it is hard to wait. Do you know what is the appropriate time we should ask them

maybe phd application timeline can give you an idea. They finalize applications around end of december and reply around mid march.

@SeanRoberson, this is about half-true.  The AMS coordinated deadline is Feb 3 2020 and so no programs on that list (which are the vast majority of research universities) will make offers significantly before then; similarly, many departments will make offers with a response date of exactly Feb 3.

Here at U. Michigan, our first round of offers went out in mid-January. As those offers got declined, we have made offers to replace them, trickling out a few at a time. Many of our first round offers have now learned that they received NSF postdocs's somewhere else, so we made several offers following the NSF announcement. Our first offers had a deadline of February 3, in accord with the uniform deadline. After Feb 3, we will most likely get more declines and make more offers. We aren't sending out rejections because it is possible that this process may go on for a long time, but most likely it will end sometime in February.
Contrary to what other answers say, we started two weeks before the NSF made their announcements, and many of our offers did not involve prior telephone contacts. I think our actions are typical of a large University.

Seems most positions should have a shortlist for interview within this week (probably 1 week before the NSF announcement and 2 weeks before the Coordinance). You should send an email to each position you are interested in to ask for the progress. At least half of them will give you a clear answer and for the rest, you should never think about them again.


text:
How to leave a postdoc after just few months without compromising my future career opportunities in academia?
I started my postdoc 5 mounts ago and I am totally unsatisfied about it. To be honest, since the first weeks I understood that I was going to be unhappy here and I had immediately the temptation to leave. When I came here nothing was as expected.
I hate the working environment. My boss creates a very toxic environment. Even if it is a woman, she is sexist and deliberately ignore the needs of her female postdocs treating them like secretaries. She periodically select one male postdoc to rely on that gets credits (and name on publications) for everything doing existentially nothing, beside chatting with her. She does not listen to the girls, she does not meet them (in five months I got just 1 face to face meeting), she does not reply to their emails, she behaves in a very unprofessional way, she does not lead the group professionally.
I am enrolled in a specific project and I have to tolerate that her favorite guy has to do the intermediate between me and her (I asked to be "included" in issues related to my project but she keeps talking just with him) and getting name on my publication for doing nothing even if he is not formally in that project.
She already put his name in 3 publications of my colleagues where he did absolutely nothing.
From my colleague experiences, I have got that she behaved liked that for her entire career and I don't think that it is going to change. Many postdocs left because of this situation. The favorite guy is younger, less experienced than me and other postdocs and he is very dangerous since he enjoys to get the credit from someone else work and making the other colleagues looking lame. Recently, one colleague that he dislikes did not get the contract renewed and we all think it is because of his influence.
I also hate the life out of work. People are very racist, sexist, not speaking in English and it is very difficult to be integrated. Bureaucracy is slow and sanitary system is terrible (you can literally die before they take care of you). I don't like even the city that it quite but incredibility boring.
My boss is well known, and even if she is horrible inside, she is excellent in external relationships and from outside she looks great. This implies that I am really afraid of leaving in bad terms and have bad references. I like doing research. I left my boyfriend, my family, my life and I refused permanent positions to come here and pursue the academic career. Now I feel in trap.
I discussed with my phd supervisor and he suggested me to stay here at least one year to have something done and leave with solid reasons. I honestly fear for my mental health. Plus because of the dysfunctions of the system here (slow bureaucracy, limited access to the facilities, etc...), I am learning new things very slowly compared to what I could do somewhere else. In the end, I don'think that I will gain so much valuable experience here, beside the fact that I should stay in a toxic environment.
How can I leave soon and in good terms? Should I start to apply somewhere else or wait as suggested by my previous supervisor? Should I tell to my current boss that I want to leave or wait until I have an offer? Should I gave fake reasons (e.g. personal reasons for moving)? How can I manage the situation without destroying my future career chances?

Thank you both for your suggestion. I actually considered a professional help and contacted a psychologist a few time ago but I cannot effort the prices.
I have been living from almost 5 years far from my family and lived also abroad elsewhere for short time (6 mounts) but I have never felt like that. I passed trough all difficulties earlier because I was very happy about my professional life and very proud of my achievements. I had to face a lot of problems and difficulties but I was willing to do that because I was seeing a reward for it. Here, being invisible at the eye of my boss and seeing my work not appreciated is leading me crazy.
Plus, it has been relatively easier in other places building social relationships and having a life after work. Here, I have an unpleasant life both at work and after work.
I believe I am not exasperating the situation at work because many postdoc left because of the boss behavior (actually I know three of them  that got clinical depression during their postdoc). Maybe I am complaining too much about the life after work and I can work on that but difficulties withing the working environment are concrete. The point is that I don't want that this experience burns my future chances, so I want to find the best way to leave as soon as possible in good terms.

Can you disclose which country or more? It would be beneficial to disclose some general aspects(country or city, if possible) to help people in avoiding such places in the future.

Alghough my saying would being rude and rutheless, but this is off-topic. This is more like a mental/psychological problem rather than an academic problem. Should be flagged closed.

Hi Nathan, the question here is living in good terms without compromising my future research chances after working here for a such small period. I don't see it off topic. I gave the whole context (psychological, cultural, etc...) and the reasons because I badly want to leave but I would like to heard about similar experiences and suggestions about the best way to leave without having bad references. Anyway if you believe being off-topic just close it ;).  Nikey, I don't feel comfortable giving more details, sorry.

I am no professional, but after reading your post, I think that you should get professional help as soon as possible.
You basically complain about every single aspect of your life. The issue is not only with your head. You also dislike the environment you are in: the city, your colleagues, bureaucracy, and even the health care system.
In my experience, this is a dangerous situation and can lead to severe depression. And thus, the need for professional help.

Clearly there are two sides to your problem:

The toxic professional environment
The fact that you resent every aspect of your life where you are currently, from being away from your loved ones to not speaking the local language.

Everything tells you that this is not what you want, it's just a bad fit. You've been there for only a few months so no regrets, just move on. You can indeed say that you leave for personal reasons in order to make things smoother, that's half of the real reason anyway.


text:
Severe regrets because I lied in my PhD application
I am an international Physics PhD student who is currently finishing his second year successfully, with one publication and others in preparation. However, I have a problem that has not let me sleep properly since day 1 and I need to vent it out with you.
When I applied, for some stupid reason I mentioned on my CV that I was a teaching assistant for two terms (in an area I am pretty good at) when in reality I was not. I won't go too much into details but I attribute this behavior to extreme low self-esteem and mental health issues that I have had since I was a teenager due to a very traumatic period in my life and more than lying with ill intentions to the admission committee in order to get an advantage I was lying to myself. I did not even realize what a horrendous mistake I had made at the time, and it also did not help that nobody from my former lab checked my CV before I sent it. As a result I have been in therapy since 1 year ago to understand the causes and threat my compulsive lying and me and my therapist believe that I have made important progress.
I don't think the lie was important for my acceptance (the PhD is 100% research based without coursework and teaching duties) and scholarship and every other part of my application was 100% truthful (1 publication at the time, top 5% of my cohort, outstanding letters of recommendation, internships, academic awards, etc) but I still can't get over what I did as I feel extremely bad as a person and also fear every day that I will somehow be caught and get expelled or get my degree revoked in the future. My supervisors are the most competent, intelligent but also the most kind and loving persons I have ever met, so while I have wanted to come clean for a long time I don't want to disappoint them. Besides, I have improved immensely as a person while living abroad in this beautiful country and have never been as happy in my life; I honestly think that getting expelled would have horrible consequences for my mental health, future dreams and finances and God knows how long it would take me to recover completely if ever.
What do you recommend me to do in this case?

A bit related to https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/143422/realized-a-co-author-inserted-plagiarism-into-our-paper-8-years-ago-what-to-do/143460#143460 although with a different kind of mistake.

I appreciate the question.
I think we can all agree that you should not have lied on your graduate application.  It is to your credit that you recognize this.  That said, as a frequent thesis advisor and the recent head of Graduate Studies in my department, I feel that the main victim of this lie is...you.  If a student of mine told me they had done that, I would thank them for telling me, confirm that they should not have done it, make sure they understand that they must never falsify any academic documents again...and then get on with business.
Cutting the funding of a successful student for this kind of indiscretion that occurred before their arrival is, for me, just not a reasonable thing to do.  It is an interesting thought experiment to wonder what percentage of the graduate students in my department had an undergraduate indiscretion as bad or worse than this.  Rough guess: somewhere between one third and one half?  It is all but impossible to know and also very subjective.
You have to deal with your bad behavior in the past.  An unfortunate fact of the matter is that it is often not possible or not optimal to directly fix past bad behavior.  That can be an unsettling thought -- for me too, by the way.  Based on the sleepless nights you describe, I am really glad that you are talking to a therapist about this and figuring out what you can do indirectly to move on with your life.
Here's an idea: you say you are doing very well in the program.  That's great.  Is there some optional service task you could take on in the program (or the department or the school or the profession)?  I think that could be beneficial, both in reality and in your own mind.  That way, when you think about the bad thing you did two years ago, you can also think "Yeah, I feel bad about that, but I feel good about X that I am doing now."  By the way, if you do it, you certainly should put it in your CV, but if (and only if) it seems helpful for you to be a bit modest/understated about it, you could pitch it that way.
Good luck.

This is a great answer.

Two things.
You are correct to talk to a personal counselor about this issue and your feelings.
Second, forget about the past as long as you don't need to lie again to go forward. If you are questioned about it, you should be honest and apologetic, but there is no need, really, to bring it up and complicate your life. If you have proven yourself worthy after a couple of years, the past will be held less against you even if it does become public.
Many people have things in their past that they are ashamed of. If they can learn to avoid past errors and also feel good about their own self-worth, they have made progress.
An alternative is to talk to a trusted faculty member about it and ask for advice. I don't think that it is essential to do this, but if there is someone in your circle who knows how you behave now and how hard you are working to improve, then such a person might be able to offer help and also to stand up for you if questions arise in the future.

Talking to a faculty member at this institution, even a "trusted" one, could put them in an awkward position.  They may have an obligation to report academic dishonesty, including application fraud, to the institution.  So they may not be able to promise to keep your conversation in confidence, or if they do, it may be at some professional risk to themselves.


text:
How to name and cite different versions of Microsoft Kinect?
There are at least two types of Kinect cameras, one is called Kinect for Xbox 360 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinect#/media/File:Xbox-360-Kinect-Standalone.png)
and another one is called Kinect for Xbox One (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinect#/media/File:Xbox-One-Kinect.jpg).
First, do they have shorter names (eg. Kinect v1 and Kinect v2) widely accepted in the research community? Moreover, how would you cite them in a scientific paper?
I'm now sure if this question is more appropriate for UX stackexchange or for the academica stackexchange. Kindly let me know in the comments. Thank!

yeah, it is called Kinect V1 and V2. In the research community, it is widely accepted, just because it is their name, example here.

@GautierC. Thanks. As far as I can tell though, Kinect V1 and V2 are not official names. Even though Microsoft sometimes refer to the now discontinued Kinect for Windows V2 as Kinect V2, Kinect for Xbox One seems to be the official name for the current sensor. But if they are recognized as Kinect v1 and v2 in the research community, guess I will be using them as well.

For what I know, I always saw Kinect v1 (or Kinect V1) etc... No it is not the official name, but the common one. Maybe highlight it somewhere at the beginning of your article, then spoke about it with V1 and V2.

@GautierC Thanks. Please write your comments as an answer so that I can accept it.

I checked a bit more, and as I though, it is commonly accepted :)

If you really want to get into the nitty-gritty, you could always try to find the hardware revision numbers too.

It is commonly called Kinect V1 and V2. In the research community, it is widely accepted, just because it is their name, example here.
Note that it is not the true name, as you stated. The best thing I could think of, is to highlight at the beginning of your article (or in the part you spoke about Kinect) that Kinect V1 refers to Kinect for XBox 360 and Kinect V2 refers to Kinect for XBox One (note there is a standalone version for Windows).

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


text:
Diagram of education in the Netherlands
How would the dutch educational system be represented in a diagram? Or put differently, what are the different roads that lead to the academic world in the Netherlands?
PS. This question ("What are the different roads to get into academics in the Netherlands?") came up in chat awhile ago, so I drew a diagram and it was suggested I share it as a self answered post as well, because it's a neat resource. Didn't do it back then as some parts lacked, but somebody asked me the same question more generally again so looked up the diagram, finished it and wanted to share it publicly now after all.

This question appears to be off-topic because it is not about academia.

@DavidRicherby: This falls directly in a category that has been defined as on topic, namely: "Requirements and expectations of academicians". Specifically in this case 'requirements of academicians in the Netherlands'. Or considered in a different way, preparations for a non-academic career are explicitly off topic, thus implicitly making preparations for an academic career on topic.

And for that matter, how is this too localized. As I pointed out I have received multiple questions for this and searching for "Diagram of education in the United States" will result in similar diagrams which have helped me a lot in understanding the US system. Some existed for the Dutch system as well already, but the semi-good ones were dutch and all the english ones were downright incorrect or sorely lacked detail.

For that matter, if somebody feels up to drawing more of these for their own country: I for one would love seeing them and would definitely give them an upvote. Even the US ones I have seen are extremely confusing, for example: according to the few that include community colleges it would be possible to enroll in the middle of an undergraduate program (or 1-year under graduate program) after you finish (which as far as I know isn't true).

@DavidMulder: Actually, it's relatively common in the U.S. to receive a two-year degree from a community college and then complete a four-year undergraduate degree with two more years of study at a university.

PS. I have only been part of the Dutch system for the first 8 years, but I know it pretty well as I know a lot of Dutch people, still I might have made mistakes. If so: apologies.

This is very nicely done. I'm just curious about the three-year masters. I've never heard of those. Which fields are those in?

@Ana The only two I know of are medicine and a combination master of theology and pastoral care at Groningen. I am sure there must be more, though the rule of thumb is 2 years for research masters an 1 year for more vocational/humanity like masters.

Can you explain what the numbers are on the right? I assume they're age, but it's not too clear.

Is "Continued Scientific Education" the right name?  Presumably not all education is vocational or scientific.

@AnonymousMathematician: Well, depends on which definition of scientific you follow. But yeah, pre-bologna University was strictly academic/scientific whereas HBO wasn't even a lower level but strictly vocational. For example, the Netherlands only had a handful of universities, but every single one of them ranked top 200. In contrast to for example the UK where all old polytechnics are universities now as well and as an outsider you have no idea about the quality.

@Compass Typical starting age indeed.

I just mean that in English "scientific" would be specific to the sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, etc.), while for example "academic" would be much broader (including history, literature, etc.).

@AnonymousMathematician Well, even in English the word 'sciences' can be used more broadly than those 3. After all, you do have terms like 'human sciences' as well. Or in the words of Wikipedia Collaborators "In an older and closely related meaning, 'science' also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied.". But I do know the confusion that the word can cause, even the word academic is used in surprisingly many different ways.

VWO means voorbereidend wetenschappelijk onderwijs, not voortgezet, so it should be "Preparational Scientific Education", not "Continued". It's supposed to prepare for university.

@RemcoGerlich You're absolutely right... I always thought that the V in HAVO was the same as in VWO. Shame on me. And right now I don't have access to a full fledged computer to edit the image. If anybody has a graphics editor and could copy the word "Preparatory" from VMBO and throw it into the VWO box on top of "Continued" that would be really great! And otherwise I will do it... in the future at some point.

"PhD students aren't students". Yes and no, this needs clarifications. They're a bit like trainees, so I wouldn't say they are not students and tend to have tight social connections with 'other students (non-PhD)'

Oh and 2 year master is mostly normal, at least for STEM. 1 year is normal for humanities

And, due to recent regulations, a few of the horizontal arrows (regrettably) have been either removed or thinned. But a nice graphic, I think I'll improve and use this for an answer 'soon'. Oh and the arrows do go both ways, you know

There are similar diagrams and descriptions of educational systems for the Netherlands and other European countries here:
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/

Oh! I have seen some of those diagrams before, didn't know where they were from. Can't say I think they are all that clear or good, but the sheer quantity makes it an extremely worthwhile resource :D .


text:
Ph.D. in a ghost town. Worth it or not?
I have been living in this town for 16 months, but I am in this Ph.D. position only for 4 months. For the other 12 months, I had been working as an employee in the same research group.
I really like the research, the project, the prof., the colleagues and also the stipend. The only thing I hate about this place is the town where I am living. It is becoming more and more difficult to stay sane. It is only a few thousand "old" people and things close at 6:30 in the evening. I have been used to the life of a city (in and out of my home country). This small town is driving me crazy. I am trying to be strong, but I am not sure if I can keep it up for 4 years.

How far remote is the next big town? Maybe you could build a social life there.

About one and a half hours by train. Each train journey costs like 30 EUR.

I know people in a similar situation who prefer to live in the next larger city, the commute may take up some time but it may be worth it. Often you can get cheaper tickets if you're commuting to your workplace.

About the money, take into account that you probably have significant savings for rent. I recently lived in the middle of a major European city and paid 1250 Euros for a one-room apartment.

Also, the public transport system might provide significant discounts for regular users. In Germany, the BahnCard 50 reduces the fee of each train ticket by 50%, for 230 Euro per year.

In many (northern) European countries, 18:30 closures are quite normal.  Where I did my PhD, shops mostly closed at 17:00 or before on weekdays, 14:00 on weekends (one interesting shop I never managed to visit even once, as they were open only Mo-Fr 12–16 and 10 km from my workplace).  Rent was dirt cheap (some rooms were less than 150 €/month).  World city nightlife may imply rents out of reach for a PhD student in many countries.

It is rare to find a PhD position that you enjoy the research, colleagues, supervisor and you are being paid enough! The trick is to find leisure activities that don't rely on shops being open. You could move to a larger town (wherever students live), join some university student groups, take up a musical instrument, join a choir... If you do something one or two evenings a week that involves interaction, then you may feel more positive about the town. What do your colleagues do for fun?

@lighthousekeeper I exactly want that. I want to live in a larger German city, maybe in a student dorm with single separate room and a shared kitchen. Not a small Swiss town with cheaper rent and non-existent diversity.

Don't commit to anything until you know your options. If you can find a more "suitable" position then you can decide at that time.
But evaluate all the aspects, including the support you get, and the support you might get. Not just financial support.
One advantage of your current situation is that you aren't going to spend more time on the degree than needed and you aren't going to be distracted by nightlife and such.


text:
Research Director not responding to email - should I call him?
I'm posting this question because normally he is a very punctual person, often responding within a matter of hours if our time zones match up. However, I sent an email last week and a follow-up one on Sunday, and he has yet to read it (according to my email-tracking software).
I don't think his university has started break yet, so should I wait a little bit and leave a message?
Edit: Question should not be considered a duplicate because I am inquiring as to whether I should call him now that email seems to be "exhausted" so to speak, but I'm not sure if calling is appropriate.

Assume that the prof is busy.

Your email tracking software doesn't work. Like many others, I have disabled the sending of acknowledgements of receipt, because I find those requests highly intrusive.

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/101950/professors-teachers-only-replying-to-part-of-my-email

Before you call him, email the department receptionists and ask if the Research Director is around. It's possible he's on holiday, he's on bereavement leave or paternity leave, he's attending a conference, and so on. The department receptionists are likely to be more familiar with his schedule than most. If they say he's around, you can also ask them to pass a message to the Research Director.


text:
h-index and patent citation
This question arises because I noticed in the past the patent articles in my Google scholar was cited and included in the rank for h-indexing.
Since last year, these citations were removed, only to find out that they are included back.
My question, should citation on the patent article be included for h-indexing ?
Note: They can influence a lot with inclusion and without.

That depends on whether including patents improves your h-index more than it improves your competitors' h-indices.  (Ha ha only serious.)

I just feel it can skew a lot as in my case without the patent citation is h-2 but when included it is h-6. It does not matter to me, just curious.

Why not?  Patent article is also your work published so it should be included in h-index and all other indices for that matter.
That being said, this is my opinion, not an expert advice (Thanks to @iayork for pointing it out).  Discussion in the comments.  But the fact that Google Scholar list patents in your profile and their citations are used to calculate h-index, I say it is okay to have patent citations in your h-index.

Is this your opinion, or do you have a reference that indicates that patents are expected to be included in h-indexes?  As far as I can see, none of the documentation on h-index says clearly whether patents should be included, but several imply that they should not.

It is just my opinion.  Although it was originally devised for scientific publications, I think if something is published (or available) in public domain and is citable, then it should be in the h-index.

Is there a reason your opinion should be given particular weight? Is that what the people who review the CV of the original poster will think? Is that what the people who invented and who maintain the h-index think?

Nope. It is subjective. An opinion is an opinion, and it is up to the reader if they want to weigh it. If I am reviewing OP's CV, I will definitely consider a patent citation, maybe you won't (or maybe you do).  h-index has lot of other serious criticism than if we should include patent citation or not. Bottom line is, h-index was devised to keep track author productivity as h number of publications with at least h citations, and I believe regardless of type of publication, it should be counted. Many patents will never have a scientific publication, but it is still a measure of productivity.

I suggest, then, that you edit your answer to indicate that this is simply your opinion. As it is, you seem to be making an authoritative statement. Since other people may be basing job applications or other important goals on this, they may like to know that this is just a guess from someone with no particular knowledge of the subject.

Since there are no sincere guidelines on this matter, it came from my experience of sitting in few interview panels. I/we always considered a patent as a proof of productivity, which was also the purpose of h-index anyway. If a person is coming from an industry rather than academia, their patents generally were not accompanied by the scientific publications, so any citations to their patents should be considered in their h-index.

Can you specify what field you're in?

I am in genetics/genomics/bioinformatics

@iayork Is that what the people who review the CV of the original poster will think?  — The subset of people who review OP's CV who also care about h-indices will presumably be comparing OP's h-index with other people in the same field.  And then it matters far less whether patents are included or not (or whether citations are counted by Google Scholar or SCI or something else) than that the criteria are transparent and applied consistently. — Is that what the people who invented and who maintain the h-index think? — Who cares?

could you please share an article or two that talks about what should and shouldn’t be included in h-index Two seconds Five seconds 15 seconds

@jeffe Did you read my comment? All I suggested is that the answer included the point that this is just my opinion.  Now that's in the answer, I'll remove my downvote.

@iayork thanks for those links. As I expected, they all talk about the impact of h-index and how it is probably better than other measures.  Nowhere I found (or I missed it) about what to include or not.  So I think patents are no exception.

@JeffE I believe iayork thought that the answer was vandalizing, not you.