text:
Why is it recommended to do a post-doc outside of the group you did your PhD in?
If it's possible to do a post-doc in the group you did your PhD in, which I assume should not be too hard if you have a good relationship with your advisor, why do researchers often choose to do postdocs at other departments?
If one does a post-doc at another lab, one has to face the cost of adjusting to a new environments and labmates and take the risk of working with an advisor he/she doesn't have good chemistry with. These costs are further augmented in light of how short a post-doc normally is.

The bigger cost is staying in one place for too long and therefore only being comfortable in one environment and having chemistry with a small number of people. Unless you are the kind of person who can create your own job wherever you want it, it is quite probable at some stage you will have to move somewhere new. It's quite useful if several people in your new job already know you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_inbreeding

why do researchers often choose to do postdocs at other departments?

A few reasons:

It's fundamental, especially at the beginning of one's career, to widen one's horizon and see how other groups around the world are used to work, how they are organized, and which kind of activities and ideas they have. I know a few researchers who have never tried to have experiences outside their "home" group, and I think that they have a limited view of the academic world, and have limited research ideas.
It helps to build connections that might become useful for one's future career.
It strengthens your curriculum.
It helps to keep boredom away: many people is positively affected by a temporary, or less temporary, change of environment.

one has to face the cost of adjusting to a new environments and labmates and take the risk of working with an advisor he/she doesn't have good chemistry with.

You might be faced, instead, with meeting amazing people, expand your experiences and knowledge, and visit other cities and countries. All this while being paid.

To add to this, there's probably a (weak) signaling justification there. Because it's otherwise desirable to do a postdoc elsewhere, but a good bargain for your PhD group if you stay on (minimal onboarding), staying on longer may be the default if you can't find a postdoc elsewhere, so if you do it, future employers may wonder why you couldn't find a postdoc elsewhere.


text:
What happens when a professor can't fund his/her own lab?
Given that funding rates are notoriously low, often in the single digits, what happens when a professor is unable to fund his or her own students? Given that TA positions are also limited, they may not always be able to get their students to be funded as a TA.
I am guessing that most of the time a professor only ever takes on a student if they think there is a good chance they can obtain sufficient funding to see them through. However, I am guessing the edge case of running out of funds has happened before.

If there is no money, then there is no money. What happens quite often is that some of her or his colleagues help out by hiring deserving students instead till extra funding has been found. This has the advantage that it diminished the risk everybody faces because of uncertain funding, but it requires quite a bit of trust and good will in the department. So the worst case scenario, that the professor has no money and nobody wants to help her or him out, can definitely happen.
This also depends on the contract you have. In my case I got a 5 year contract to do my dissertation and some teaching. In that case, my position was safe: if somehow the professor's funding somehow failed the university had to come up with the difference, since the contract was not between the professor's lab and me, but between the university and me. This is in line with @IanSudbery s comment that, however much professors think of "their" lab as her or his private kingdom, it is only part of the university and not a separate entitiy. The fact that the university is finally responsible for paying the wages meant that the university required my professor to have guarantees for the funding for those five years before agreeing on the contract.

I find it interesting that you hear of companies going bankrupt all the time. Yet I have never heard of professor's lab going bankrupt. And the chances of 'making it' as a professor is comparable to being a CEO funding a company.

'Going bankdrupt' implies that your liabilities exceed your assets to such an extent that it is, for practical purposes, impossible that you will ever be able to make good on these liabilities. Labs cannot 'go bankrupt' in this sense because legally they are not responsible for liabilities, the university is. Labs run out of money all the time, and profs are often forced by their institutions to lay off any employees that they are contractually allowed to, but lab funds can only go to zero, they can't go below that. I know of labs so poor they can't buy paper for their printers.

@IanSudbery wow, aren't there university/department-funded printers?

@user2562609 That's part of the charm of the job as professor - you have freedom and responsibility comparable to a CEO, but the job security of a public employee.

@Allure depends where you are - here the department provides the printer and the toner, but the prof provides the paper. But this wasn't actaully at this uni.

@silvado Not quite - A CEO can borrow money to invest in an idea they think will be successful, a prof can't do that, in the end the department holds the purse strings (even if its "your" grant), and will rarely let you spend money that you can't say where it is coming from. And outside the US, its entirely possible to loose your job for not being able to fund any research if it happens often, or for a long period.

Normally a professor should not hire students/postdocs at all if the funding is not secured (the admin persons will not let him anyway most likely).
In the labs I know positions are only advertised once a grant was obtained.
The only problem that could happen is that there might be funding for e.g. 2 years left from some big grant that was originally planned for something else and the professor decides to hire a student for those 2 years based on the left-over funding and the PhD takes 3-4 years minimum. In this case he might make a bet with himself that he will be able to get the remaining funding within those 2 years. Therefore it is always a wise decision for a prospective PhD student to ask if the full funding for all years is secure before starting a position.

Sometimes students get a position as a student with little or no funding, but it is expected that they get offers for short term (one semester) TA or RA positions which will help them fund themselves. I suspect that that is the system that OP is referring to. In that case a lab running out of funds would cause problems for PhD students.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is a reasonable number of grad schools to apply to for a PhD in computer science?
I'm applying straight out of undergrad, and I'm not sure how many schools I should apply to.

Where are you applying to? How strong candidate are you?

I applied to six.  (Got into four of them.)

My undergrad institution is an Ivy League, and my GPA is around 3.7. I've done research in three research groups, so my recommendations will come from research advisors. I'm working on my honors thesis that I hope to submit for publication at a workshop later in the year. Have not taken the GRE or thought about my SOP yet.

This has no best answer. Many people really focus on tailoring their application to only a few (2-5) Universities, while others apply to many 15+. It depends on whether you know what what you want to do, who you want to work with, and many many other factors.

If you can pull off a decent GRE, your application would be a shoe in at most tier-1 research universities (so, say, the top 50 universities in the US). So unless you plan on applying exclusively to Harvard, MIT, Berkeley and Columbia, and if you choose a few of the better public universities, then you shouldn't have to write a whole lot of applications. I'm not going to suggest any concrete number, but I'd think somewhere at fewer than 10 is probably safe nevertheless.

However many schools you find that have academics that you want to work with.
Research is like riding a bicycle.  You can obviously do it.  The application process for graduate school is mostly to vet applicants for those who can't ride the bicycle.  Therefore, the important next step for you is to find someone you will jive well with.  Applying to graduate schools should be more about that: find a professor that you'd be willing to enter into a serious personal relationship with.
With that being said, I have friends who applied to 9, 3 schools in 3 tiers: "dream schools", "realistic schools", and "satisfactory schools".
I applied to one.  I found a professor I really liked and started an email correspondence with him 3 months before I even applied.  When applications came around, there wasn't a question of where I would apply or whether I would get in.
Oh, and I'm a 4th year CS PhD candidate.

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


text:
Should I ask colleagues of my mentor for internship opportunity?
I have a mentor from an industrial research lab. I use the tool he has developed in my PhD research, and we have been working together for several months. We have some results that he likes very much, since my work is a new application of his tool. However, unfortunately our paper has been rejected two times.
About a month ago, I saw an ads of internship positions at his group, so I asked him about the position. He hadn't replied anything until some days ago, he replied that this year he is busy organizing a (top-tier) conference, so he was reluctant to get students.
The ads is still there, and I still want to apply. Should I ask his colleagues if they are accepting students? More specific questions:

Should I ask my mentor which his colleagues are accepting students?
Should I ask my mentor's colleagues, there are 4 of them, without notifying him?
If I contact my mentor's colleagues, should I mention his name.

My worries are about the reference that my mentor can give to me. My impression is that he likes my work, but since the paper is rejected two times, I don't know that if it is good. I also don't know if it is rude asking to work with others while working with him.
My mentor is an established researcher with great personality, he treats unknown students like me just like his friends or colleagues. I'm very happy working with him, and I don't want anything that may damage our collaboration.

There are a couple of relevant questions that I think need answers. Is your mentor your official PhD supervisor? Will these internships provide funding for your current PhD project, or do you want to change projects (and why)?

I think it would be perfectly reasonable for you to a) ask your mentor which of his colleagues might be accepting students and b) mention his name when contacting his colleagues, AFTER you've first made sure he's ok with this plan.
I don't think you need to be worried about a conflict: he's opened the door by saying that he's too busy to take on students this summer. As to whether he'd give you a good reference, that's quite hard to say, which is why it's best to ask him. Paper rejection in and of itself doesn't mean he doesn't like your work.

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


text:
Why do tenured professors at high-ranked universities move to lower-ranked universities?
I have seen some tenured professors at top ranked universities move to lower ranked universities. Why do professors do this? At lower ranked universities there are less resources and the graduate students are weaker.

I'd wager there's more than one reason, and that it'd generally be similar to things you'd find in the private sector - lower workload, better hours, etc., etc., etc.

Inability to attract funding, in addition to previously mentioned issues. That puts pressure on them to do more admin / outreach / teaching, which may not be their cup of tea.

Why do you assume that all people is interested in working in a top ranked university?

The classic small fish in a big pond or big fish in a small pond dilemma.

As a professor at a top-20 university once told me, "scientists are people too".

There are many reasons that people change institutions. I was tenured at an R1 institution and moved to a "high research" institution because I wanted to live in the area where the second institution is located. Although my current institution has a lower research ranking, it is the state's flagship school, where my former institution is not. So, I actually get more resources, better pay, and our students are more prepared when they start college, compared to my prior institution. So, your assumption that a higher ranked institution is better is not always true.

A very common robust pattern I see in engineering faculty (aspirational types):
Tenured at (say) Top 10 -> Move to Top 20 and become department head -> Move to top 30 and become Engineering Dean -> Move to top 50 and become president.

Where do the deans and presidents of Top 10s come from? ;)

They are extremely patient and hard-working people who are able to cope up with a lot of disturbing administrative stuff :)

@marts: Top 5 maybe?

Another reason to add to the list: A university that wants to grow a department (including in reputation) has to start somewhere.  That somewhere may be by headhunting talent.  They have considerable leeway in salary and more in other resources: promising a million gold pieces to set up your lab, 3 postdocs and no teaching for 5 years would be quite attractive.

Please link to schools offering a million gold pieces -- I would like to begin preparing my application today, 30 years in advance ;)

@tonysdg It was that or "galactic credits" -- I wanted a generic currency, deliberately vague.  But it might not be as valuable as you think: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/61840/how-much-is-a-gold-piece-really-worth

@tonysdg Texas Tech was offering startup packages of up to $2 million USD for strategic hires when I was a grad student there. Not gold, but still a nice startup package ;)

Another relatively common reason to move is the working culture of the University, which is not completely correlated to any ranking system.
Some departments of top institutions have a rather solitary culture, while others are outright toxic and dysfunctional to a shocking extent (some stays because they thrive on the terribleness, or the prestige is just so valuable to them that they endure anyway).
A different version is a culture of "busyness", where everyone is constantly laser-focused on amassing massive piles of publications to the extent that absolutely nothing else can matter if you are going to keep up. And the pace is continual and eternal, with some institutions making a point to show how even their post-tenure professors late in their careers still produce massive volumes of research each and every year. Some people thrive on the constant workload, while others are happy to do their few years and get the heck out, ranking-be-damned. I've talked with people who've chosen to stay and chosen to get out, and I can see how it's ultimately a difficult personal value judgement either way.
One final example: many institutions are so proud of their prestige that they consider the opportunity to be there payment enough, and actually support their faculty and students less than other institutions. I've seen very prestigious institutions actually offer lower pay, smaller startup packages, more meager student stipends, and less administrative support than supposedly lower-ranked institutions (usually the other places were still R1).
In short: don't assume that being on top of the pile is automatically a nicer place to be!

While I'm a student, not a professor, I can give you my reasons for choosing the university I did rather than one of the "top-ranked" ones I could have attended.
1) I'm 20 minutes from great skiing, hiking, mountain biking, &c.
2) I can afford a house with large garden, and a place to keep my horse.
3) When I drive to school, I am almost never stuck in traffic moving less than the speed limit.

"a place to keep my horse" is not a concern for most students :P

@thomas which just goes to show how inanely broad this question is.

Do you ever ride your horse to the university?

@Jeffrey Bosboom: No, I much prefer riding in the mountains than on pavement with traffic.  And for Thomas, I agree that most students don't have horses (and likely don't realize what they're missing :-)), but it could very well apply to professors, especially if you replace horse with sailboat, airplane, or whatever.

I downvoted this answer, not because of any flaw, but because it fundamentally cannot be an answer to the question; the motivations and considerations of students are completely different from those of faculty. But I hope you won't take this as any discouragement to participate in general.

I'm surprised no one mentioned that: even a highly ranked university need not have a strong research group in every area (in fact, it seems rather implausible).
I imagine people can often choose their university based on where there is a group that does research they are themselves interested in. I suppose this is can be particularly pronounced when your research interests shift.
A friend of mine (a PhD student like me) spent about a year on an internship in a different university. The money he got was significantly better, and the institute he was at is much stronger in general, but he complained to me all the time about having no one there who does model theory.
It may be a trade-off, but there are always trade-offs, lots of them.


text:
Are PhD students allowed to use funding for a custom office setup?
For example, can they use grant money to have a dual monitor setup or ergonomic office appliances (chair/keyboard) to increase productivity? Or do they just have to buy these items themselves?

This depends greatly on the source of the grant money. Most federal research grants would not pay for these items; these would be considered part of the infrastructure to be provided by the university (e.g. out of the 50-75% overhead the university charges along with the direct costs of the grant).

Also, ask your supervisor. He may be willing to pay for it if it is reasonable.

Sometimes the university must supply those. At my institution, there are people that go in an 'evaluate' your office space to see if they meet the current standards of workplace. It is under human resources as having something that might give you back pain is counter productive.

@ChrisC That's true, but typically only for very basic things and with a clear medical indication. I can't imagine the ergo staff to, for instance, argue for a Dual-Monitor setup, or that you need a faster laptop.

@xLeitix: Clear medical indication ... sometimes, merely stating that one has experienced pain in the back seems to be sufficient to receive a height-adjustable desk instead of a (much cheaper) standard one.

@O.R.Mapper Hmm, the Swiss seem to be a bit more ... formal ... about those things.

As the comments already say, this is to a large extent dependent on the terms of the grant. Most grants have a lump sum (the "overhead") which they directly pay to the university to cover office supply, equipment, etc., so that they actual grant cannot be used for these items. However, there are certainly grants that are more flexible in their terms.
Generally, your best bet when it comes to productivity-increasing office supply would be your advisor. (S)he will usually have a hardware budget that he may use for things like a dual-screen setup for students or a fancy keyboard, and (s)he has a strong interest in you being productive. One should also keep in mind that even objectively overpriced single items of equipment (e.g., those vastly overpriced Apple mice) are just a small dot in the lab hardware budget, so many advisors really are quite happy to dole out for them if they think it will make the student more happy (even if they are personally not seeing the point at all).
One specific comments regarding the dual-monitor setup: most labs have an abundance of abandoned screens from previous lab members sitting in some equipment storage. If you don't insist on getting a new screen, nobody will take issue when you ask to get one of the old screen as a secondary display.

Only from an implicit "overhead"? The (not too many, admittedly) grants that I have seen clearly partitioned the money into expenses for travels, expenses for staff cost, expenses for subcontracts, and expenses for lab equipment, where money from the latter item would routinely be used at least for the dual monitor setup part of the OP's requests (with leeway to shift up to 15% or so between those items without the need to request permission from the funding agency).

@O.R.Mapper That's why I said "most" :) sure there are grants that have an explicit budget item for equipment, but (I think) most don't. Generally, the overhead is the budget item that needs to cover everything for which there isn't another explicit budget item.

@O.R.Mapper, NSF and similar grants in the US have the line items that you describe, but they also have the "indirect costs" category that is typically computed at ~50% of the overall grant budget less purchases on equipment and other capital. Equipment purchased under these grants on the equipment line (like a microscope or reagents) typically must be used 100% for the purpose of the grant and nothing else, whereas your university may spend the indirect costs/overhead on almost anything: utilities, admin salaries, libraries, etc.

@BillBarth: Interesting. The German grants I came in touch with always included a statement like "Any of the equipment acquired must be used for the project being funded and will remain in the possession of the recipient of the funding (i.e. the department) after the end of the project." (with the implicit understanding that practically, as long as project goals are met, the equipment can be used for whatever the department wants to use it, already during the runtime of the project). Unspecified additional costs were never part of such grants, though.

@O.R.Mapper, yeah, indirect costs are an explicit thing in most US grant funding systems. The rate is prenegotiated with the federal government by each institution and is around ~50%. This is done because these agencies recognize that there are costs associated with doing research that should not necessarily be borne by the students through tuition or the state for public institutions since the work is done on behalf of the federal government.

@O.R.Mapper "Unspecified additional costs were never part of such grants, though." That would surprise me. In Austria and Switzerland, all grants have a certain "overhead" part, as do European grants. However, this part can be rather opaque for the individual researcher, as this goes directly to the university as a lump sum and does not need to be accounted for.

@xLeitix: Ok, possible. I only ever got in touch with the funding tables sent by the funding organisations to notify us about how much money was available for equipment and staff, etc., and had to compile reports for the funding organisations to explain how many researchers were paid at what times to perform what tasks from that money (and likewise, what equipment was acquired and so on), to justify the expenses. If those are extra sums that do not need to be accounted for, they may not have been mentioned in any such letters to the university.


text:
Establishing authority in the classroom
What is the best way to establish your authority as the instructor in a classroom?
I am asking from the perspective of a graduate student who will be TA-ing a large class for the first time. But I think similar advice could be said for new assistant professors who still look like students.

Highly recommended: Stephen Krantz, How to Teach Mathematics (AMS).

Make sure you're comfortable using the blackboard or whatever you're going to use.  You could practice, by putting a friend in the middle of an empty classroom, or at the back.  Have your friend give you a signal if it's hard to hear you. // If you want the students to respond to something you say, make sure you clearly state a question.

A tuxedo would definitely get the point across!

@DanielR.Collins: In particular, the appendix by Ed Dubinsky is available online; he mentions the subject of authority at the very end (the final paragraph).

You should try and figure out what authority you actually have before worrying about how to establish it. Can you throw students out of class for serious misbehavior? Are you more knowledgeable than the vast majority of your students (on this topic)? Is this class a mere requirement that many of the students already have mastered as far as they care to (do they really need this class)? How much of the grading is your decision? How much of the syllabus is your decision? Knowing the limits of your authority is a good first step towards establishing it. (not assuming you don't already know this)

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/aa/aaa9053346fd4b42154e88e29c55ad1b14c0fbf5420d3bdac530d41a1fc24a32.jpg

This sounds like an XY problem. Authority is just a means to an end, not your actual goal. What are the particular problems you're hoping to avoid by establishing authority?

The position of TA automatically comes with a certain amount of authority, which is referred to as legitimate power. Having said that, you can increase your perceived amount of authority by demonstrating expertise in the subject area (expert power). Expertise needs to be combined with the ability to actually communicate the complex material as well. It is much harder to communicate complex information than it is to be an expert in complex information.
In addition to these skills, authority can be further enhanced through softer skills such as demonstrating care for the students and providing additional support when necessary (referent power).

And confidence. Be confident not just in the subject matter, but in your presentation and manner.  Know how to use whatever technology is being used - connecting a laptop to a projector, using whatever LMS, etc.

"you can increase your perceived amount of authority by demonstrating expertise in the subject area (expert power)" - but be careful. Don't try to rest on your "expertise" as a crutch for dismissing student concerns or failing to acknowledge mistakes. Students have a right to be critical to a certain degree of the information they are receiving, in fact, as part of the learning process, they need it. Potential objections and counterobjections need to be addressed respectfully, and not drowned out by force of authority, so that students can fully engage with the material and (cont'd.)

(cont'd) ... understand all of its intricacies and nuances. Otherwise, they are left with nagging doubts, confusion and misunderstanding.

@silvascientist Thinking back to my undergraduate days, I think the quickest path toward losing respect for an instructor would have been their failure to understand the legitimate criticism/confusion of a classmate, even if it originated from the student's misunderstanding. Enforcing your authority as an expert can be self-defeating and makes it seem like your expertise derives not from mastery of the subject but from memorization of the flow of the lecture plans.

For the large majority of students who are in the class because they want to learn, you don't need to "establish" your authority. You already have it at the start of the course, simply because you are the TA. The thing you have to do is to avoid losing that established authority.
There are two important ways not to lose it. The first (which may only be obvious to you after somebody has stated the obvious!) is to be aware that you already have it, in exactly the same way that if somebody walks into a room wearing a police uniform, they already have authority simply because of "that badge." Of course TA's don't usually wear any distinctive uniform, but it should be clear enough to most people that you are the TA, and not just another student taking the course!
The second way is basically common sense: don't ask the students to do stupid stuff, and don't behave in generally unpredictable or irrational ways.
If you are the person "in charge", other people will expect you to take charge, and tell them what you want them to do - they aren't mind readers! If you have progressed through the education system as far as becoming a TA, you already have a lot of experience of other teachers and lecturers demonstrating that type of behavior (some more competently than others, of course). The only unfamiliar part of the scenario is that you are now the person in charge, not somebody else!

This is the answer. As a TA, you already have the authority, unless you do something to lose it.

Acting is a big part of teaching. Thus, I strongly recommend the following book

Keith Johnstone, Impro: Improvisation and the Theatre, Routledge, November 2012.

which contains gems such as these:

We've all observed different kinds of teachers, so if I describe three
types of status players commonly found in the teaching profession  you
may find that you already know exactly what I mean.
I remember one teacher, whom we liked but who couldn't keep
discipline. The Headmaster made it obvious that he wanted to fire
him, and we decided we'd better behave. Next lesson we sat in a
spooky silence for about five minutes, and then one by one we began to
fool about — boys jumping from table to table, acetylene-gas exploding
in the sink, and so on. Finally, our teacher was given an excellent
reference just to get rid of him, and he landed a headmastership at
the  other end of the county. We were left with the paradox that our
behaviour had nothing to do with our conscious intention.
Another teacher, who was generally disliked, never punished and  yet exerted a
ruthless discipline. In the street he walked with fixity of purpose,
striding along and stabbing people with his eyes. Without  punishing,
or making threats, he filled us with terror. We discussed with awe
how terrible life must be for his own children.
A third teacher, who was much loved, never punished but kept
excellent discipline, while remaining very human. He would joke with
us, and then impose a mysterious stillness. In the street he looked
upright, but relaxed, and he smiled easily.
I thought about these teachers a lot, but I couldn't understand the
forces operating on us. I would now say that the incompetent teacher
was a low-status player: he twitched, he made many unnecessary
movements, he went red at the slightest annoyance, and he always seemed like an intruder in the classroom. The one who filled us with terror was a compulsive high-status player. The third was a status expert,
raising and lowering his status with great skill. The pleasure
attached to misbehaving comes partly from the status changes you make
in your teacher. All those jokes on teacher are to make him drop in
status. The third teacher could cope easily with any situation by
changing his status first.

Again I change my behaviour and become authoritative. I ask them  what
I've done to create this change in my relation with them, and
whatever they guess to be the reason — 'You're holding eye contact',
'You're sitting straighter' — I stop doing, yet the effect continues.
Finally I explain that I'm keeping my head still whenever I speak, and
that this produces great changes in the way I perceive myself and am
perceived by others. I suggest you try it now with anyone you're with.
Some people find it impossible to speak with a still head, and more
curiously, some students maintain that it's still while they're
actually  jerking it about. I let such students practise in front of a
mirror, or I  use videotape. Actors needing authority — tragic heroes
and so on —  have to learn this still head trick. You can talk and
waggle your head  about if you play the gravedigger, but not if you
play Hamlet. Officers  are trained not to move the head while issuing
commands.

I believe that authority can be established, as I believe the question was directed more at the onset of authority in a single class type setting (eg: right before class begins, chaotic scene/ everyone talking amongst themselves) quickly by the instructor/teacher noticeably raising his/her voice louder than the conversational volume, and addressing then group in a louder, deeper, authoritative tone.
Not certain if I remember correctly reading the works of the Lakov, which defines the common audio boundaries we have and set, makes for very interesting reading nonetheless.

Don't allow people to interrupt you when you are being instructive. Other than that, being good at explaining things helps a lot. While the students might not seem like it, they do want to learn the material. At least insofar as is necessary for the assignments.

Know how the class was taught in the past and what students may be expecting. If the class has been taught in a specific way in the past, there will be expectations about how it will run and be taught. These may be good (if the class was taught well and run well) or they may be bad (if the class was not previously taught or run very well). Taking into account what the students expect or hope for will help to establish you as an effective (and thus authoritative) teacher.
Also, as others have mentioned: know how to use the teaching materials. If you use a whiteboard/blackboard: start at one side, use it however you want but then erase the whole thing or a panel at a time and continue on. Dont empty a small space in the middle and continue writing in the small space...
This is an unusual example, but it was the downfall of one of my professors:
We had a 2-semester project as part of the final degree requirement and there was a class that went along with this. In the first semester it was only actually held about once a month and only for about 15-30 minutes out of its hour slot. This was sufficient for the instructor to communicate what was needed for the project deadlines and to answer questions. In the second semester we had a new professor teaching it and he really tried so hard but due to the expectation that it would be an infrequent and short class... he failed hard and no one really put effort into the things he assigned past getting the "tick marks" to get the grade. Students felt as if the extended classes were not useful and wasteful of their project-time... I feel bad for him as students were actually quite rude to him in communicating this.
(The relevance of this is that he was NOT respected by the students in this class because the students felt as if the class was wasting their time.)

I can give you some (humorous but valid) advice on what not to do, based on our teaching workshops.  These are from decades ago, but they have stuck with me:

If you are short in stature, do not jump to erase writing on the higher bits of the board.  It "undermines your authority".
Always erase using vertical (up and down) strokes.  Horizontal strokes "make your butt wiggle".


text:
What typically incentivizes a professor to change jobs to a lower ranking university?
In my field of computer science it is not uncommon to see professors who, after many years at a highly ranked university, choose to take on a position at a lower ranked (though generally still good) university. I see this happen even if the professor does not get a promotion or endowed chair. What might incentivize a professor to do this?

This is a stupidly long list, really.  It's basically the same list you get for "Why does anyone ever do anything?", the answers to which can be glibly summarized as "Because they feel like it."

@zibadawatimmy: I don't think it's a "stupidly long list".

Please do not post answers as comments.

have you asked them? If you are generally nice person, they might be more than willing to share their story. That is something people rarely get to talk about with their peers, IMHO. You can start with "Hi i wanna be in academia and not sure how to choose next step. Why did you move from X to Y"

@aaaaaa I think the answer is yes, and this question is the form that asking is taking.

A key term here is "choose".  There is a whole other set of possible reasons why a professor might be forced out of their job at a high-ranking university, and take a job at a lower-ranking one instead.

Who cares about a university's ranking? If it's a good environment for your research (or a bunch of other factors like... I dunno, better weather, or school for your kids or whatever), then why not?

Perhaps your spouse was offered a brilliant job there...

@einpoklum I agree with that. Professors, unlike students or newly graduates, are more "they" than "their school". So if a good researcher goes to a not-so-good school, it's not like the school is going to make them not-so-good but probably the other way around.

The most important reasons I can think of are private reasons. People do not live to work, but work to live.
What good does a job at a highly ranked university do, if your family/your friends can not live there or are unhappy to live there?
What good does a job at a highly ranked university do, if it is in a place you find boring or don’t like?
I would suggest you to change your mindset from highly ranked university to high quality of life (which is subjective and also includes a little bit the rank of the university, if you value this).

“People do not live to work, but work to live” – I would say that's not always true at all. Especially for scientists, work is often a huge part, perhaps the most important, of life quality. They certainly don't do it only to earn money for affording their private life.

True, but work can also be weighed down by rank, for example at the new place they might get someone to help with grants, they might not have to have to attend as many conferences or the new department administration might be more lenient when it comes to research freedom.

"People do not live to work, but work to live." Are you sure academics know this? /s

Adding to the family and personal reasons mentioned, I would like to point out some professional reasons as well;

High rank universities tend to be bigger, which means they might be busier, impersonal and more stressful.
A smaller university, (probably of a lower rank), would have a smaller load of students which means the relationship and interaction between professor and students is more direct, more personal and surely fore some, more fun.
Being part of a lower rank institution can be a challenge for the professor to add significant value to it and try to improve its reputation.
And finally yes, there can be tons of other reason such as contributing to a particular local community, living in a smaller and more quiet town, more nature closeby etc. etc.

Other professional reasons: Some people might end up not being good at research or finding they don't enjoy it, so decide, or are forced, to find a teaching only position elsewhere. Also, sometimes people are given the choice to resign when facing legal issues (such as sexual harassment accusations) at their university, forcing them to find work elsewhere. Other major universities will recognize something is wrong and avoid the person, whereas smaller teaching schools might be more open to hiring the person

@anjama: or they end up not being good at teaching or finding they don't enjoy it, so decide, or are forced, to find a research only position elsewhere.

A professional reason to go to a lower ranked university could also be that there might be less pressure and a more easy-going environment when it comes to producing research results.

Also, many times one moves to a lower ranked university it is to get a higher ranked position, e.g., for promotion or a chair/dean/etc. position.  The case of promotion is particularly common in certain countries, though I believe not so common in the US.

Another one.  Higher ranked universities can attract students that almost no professors would want.  The ones that got in because of $$$, but otherwise should not be there.  I've spoke with enough professors to know that these students are a nightmare to deal with.

The question seems to imply that university ranking is the most important component or aspect of a university career. I think many would disagree with that. In fact, there isn't any single feature of academia that is of primary concern to everyone. You can't in general list the various positive and negative aspects of academia on a linear scale that works for anyone but yourself.
Sadly, a lot of questions here seem to make the same sort of assumption. Students want to go to the top university in their country, when it might be better just to want an excellent education.
However, such things as the ranking of a university come with both good and bad aspects. You can brag to your mom, of course, that you are teaching at Harvard or Cambridge. But your life will be pretty hectic and there will be quite a few things that you are expected to do that may not appeal to you. The ranking, of course, is there because everyone is working very hard all the time and take few personal breaks with pressure all the time to do even more. The rankings don't just happen.
So, the title of the question is a bit off. There is no "typical" here, other than perhaps that people desire a change of some sort. But what sort of change is a personal thing. Some want to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond. Some want to take on admin responsibilities not open to them where they are. Some want to move to Montana because of the fishing. Or maybe to Florida.
Your academic career will be a mix of things. Some good and some not so good. If the good outweighs the bad you will probably stick with it. Unless you get a desire for a change.

At least for me, it took time to understand that there are other things in life than working at a great university. I suspect that your second paragraph simply reflects that when one is 25, one hasn't fully understood what life is about.

The quality of your research is up to you, but also influenced by the people you are able to collaborate with. I think the size of the university, rather than its ranking may have more influence. At a big place you work with a lot of people. Harder, but not impossible, at a small place.

@staff it is possible.  For example, you may have connections to research groups in high ranking universities.  In my opinion, quality is up to you.  What is different is the volume -- this could mean more quality outputs or poor quality outputs if you cannot produce at that level.

Money
It may not be the only driving factor, but I am surprised to see a lack of people mentioning that just because they are going to a lower ranking university doesn't mean they are being paid less.
I would be willing to be a reasonable percentage of professors moving institutions have been offered a better salary. It is quite common across all career paths these days that in order to get the best salary you need to change employers.
Particularly if you have been working at one institution for a long time the raises you receive may not be inline with the actual increase in your value due to your experience.

Malo hic esse primus quam Romae secundus
"Better to be first here than second in Rome."  Julius C. Caesar (according to Plutarch).
In many way, prestige, influence, freedom to choose research lines and implementation times, workload level, collaborators, quality of life, sunshine hours per year ...

The answers about personal reasons are excellent and worth a read.
But also remember that metrics are never neutral: any ranking system inherently makes choices about what is important in order to turn a school into a single aggregate number.
Many rankings prioritize things like funding, selectivity rates, peer evaluations, publicity, etc. Some professors may have different weightings, such as:

Teaching over research (not everyone becomes a professor to write grants!)
Access to specific collaborators within their subfield (lower ranked school, but strong in one specific area)
Joint appointments with nearby facilities (national labs, industry collaborators, etc) that boost the attractiveness of the offer
A desire to support certain student populations that are, uh, not well represented at some big programs
Ability to find a good job in the same area as their spouse (who may or may not be in the same field, much less work at a university at all)
Specific terms of the offer that their original host is unwilling or unable to match (more space, director of a new program, etc)

There is an old census joke that "the average family has 1.9 children, but all the families we checked only had whole integers". Faculty are the same way: the average "best" ranking is not a good way to describe an individual.

Absolutely! I love being a professor at a minority-serving women's college. How many other CS professors have mostly female students and colleagues? My work is aligned with my values and it's great to see the difference I make.

Among the academics I've known who have done that, the most common reason is that they are going from a university that is good all-round to one which is doing interesting work in their particular sub-field of interest even if it is lousy in everything else.
Those who like teaching also tend to like smaller cohorts, because they can be personally involved. Apart from the really top-end sandstone institutions, the higher ranked universities tend to have rather low academic staff-student ratios and education can become an afterthought. The smaller universities also tend to end up with more senior staff actively involved in research, which is generally considered a lot more fun than administration.
I also know one who switched because he was in love with a postdoc at that lower-ranked uni.
Aside from that, wages matter, and not just headline cash sums. A nicer town/city or a lower cost of living, better opportunities for one's spouse, and so on can all make somewhere else more attractive.

Here is an example of a black mathematician who was a full professor at Purdue, but he recently left for Pomona because he felt racially isolated and excluded.

Turn the question around: what are the benefits of the highly-ranked school? Maybe those don't apply (anymore).
For example, ease of gaining grant money and attracting good graduate students. But if a professor has had a reasonably long and successful career, they may be able to do these things from anywhere.
A second point is that professors often care more about colleagues in their research area than overall prestige and ranking.

Adding to the other answers here: It might very well be that a professor does not give any value to such rankings, maybe because they know on what data the ranking is based on. From my time as a student representative in Germany (Fachschaftsrat/Fakultätsrat), I remember rankings where the data for some universities consisted of around 10 survey returns...
Therefore, they might base their decision on personal reasons, on the faculty-to-student ratio, on the staffing and research facilities they are offered or maybe even on an upcoming research project. Or maybe they want to conclude their career on a chair at the same university they currently are at -- at least here in Germany, climbing the professoral career ladder is harder if you don't switch to another university (in my universities' senate, which I was part of for a while, such "Hausbewerbungen" (applications from researchers of the same university) warrant a very sceptical look onto the candidate list).

Yet another possible reason: they might have been head-hunted.
A somewhat singular example of this, dating back to 1964, before the quantified ranking of universities emerged, was at the nascent University of Warwick. Had universities been ranked then, Warwick—as a complete unknown—would have been assigned a pretty poor score. [Sir] Christopher Zeeman, charged with setting up Warwick's mathematics department, invited six distinguished researchers to fill the initial positions, the lure for each being that the other five (plus Zeeman) would be there. The bluff worked, and the department went on to be a cornerstone of what is now a highly ranked university.

I think an observation I made while applying to both high and low ranked universities could go a little way to explain this phenomenon; I have found that low ranked universities treat students and staff very well in order to encourage good academics and students to remain there and Improve the uni’s ranking. While high ranked unis don’t have to try so hard as there is always a surplus of student and quality staff applications.

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


text:
What types of questions should I ask in a cold-email to a professor?
I'm applying to a PhD program in computer science. My friends and advisors all recommend that I cold-email the professors I'm most interested in working with and have a conversation with them about their research. However, I feel like just asking something like "What type of research do you do?" would just come off as lazy since most professors already have information on their website.
So that leads me to wonder, what are some productive questions that I could actually ask professors in the context of a cold-email or scheduled phone call?

Well, think about it like this: why do you want to contact these professors in the first place? It's because you want to work with them, right? So your emails should be crafted to help convince them that they would also want to work with you, and asking questions isn't necessarily the best way to do that.

then what's the best way to do that?

duplicate of each of three existing questions: How to approach potential PhD advisors . And Details an applicant should include/exclude in an introductory letter to a prospective grad school adviser?. And etiquette for establishing contact with multiple professors for PhD guidance

However, I feel like just asking something like "What type of research do you do?" would just come off as lazy since most professors already have information on their website.

Yes, don't ask anything you could reasonably learn from their web site, their publications, textbooks in this area, web searches, or Q&A sites.  It's incredibly annoying when people write to ask me to put work into explaining something to them, when they show no sign of having put any work into this themselves first.  (The worst question of all is "how can I apply to your department?", since that one can be answered in a few minutes by anyone with internet access.)
Also, don't volunteer your services for the professor's projects or propose a collaboration in a cold e-mail.  This might be appropriate later, after you have established a serious research connection, but until that point it's awkward.  Nobody is going to say yes based on very limited information, and the choice of no vs. maybe puts people in a difficult position: if they say no based on very limited information, it may come across as insulting, while if they say maybe it can come across as overly encouraging.

So that leads me to wonder, what are some productive questions that I could actually ask professors in the context of a cold-email or scheduled phone call?

From my perspective, the only really productive approach is to engage seriously with the professor's research area.  If you can propose new ideas or questions and start a conversation with genuine intellectual content, then that's great.  It will be a worthwhile discussion for both of you, regardless of whether it helps you get admitted, and you may end up impressing the professor.  But this is a high bar, and you shouldn't expect to be able to send substantive messages to many people.  If you can't think of anything genuinely interesting to say, then it's better not to say anything at this stage (you can think a little more about this area before e-mailing the professor).
The focus should be on the subject matter.  When random strangers write to me, I'm not particularly interested in telling them about myself (to the extent I want to tell the world about myself, it's far more efficient to do so publicly, rather than telling one person at a time).  I'm even less interested in hearing an infinite series of random people tell me about themselves.  Most of them want to be admitted to grad school in my department but aren't going to be, and it's just not a good use of time to read a lot of e-mails in which applicants tell me more or less the same things they are going to say in their actual applications.  On the other hand, I'm always pleased when I get an e-mail that starts a genuinely interesting research discussion.

Within the content of a cold-email, the primary intent is to impress the professor whom you are a complete stranger to. First show how well her/his area of research superimposes with yours. Then show how much you are interested with the work he/she has done (and make sure you are specific). The most pleasing question that could be asked to a professor in a cold-email to ask what sort of project that she/he is working on currently and how willing you will be to assist him/her in it.
I suppose the general guidelines for a cold-email provided in this link would benefit you.

what are some reasonable questions to ask a professor if they agree to have say a 15 minute phone call with me, that would increase my chances of admission?

Well, the same goes for the phone call too. In fact this is where you can truly show your interest by the way you talk. If after the mail, if the professor did call you it means that the he/she acknowledged your abilities. Your next task is to stage your interest. You could ask something like, "May I know what project you are currently working on, Ma'am (Sir)? It would be great if I could gain experience from it too." On a phone call, it would be best not to be too formal as in the email.


text:
Importance of PhD pedigree when applying for tenure-track jobs
How much weight does a department's hiring committee give to the prestige of a candidate's PhD program when looking to hire tenure-track professors?
Does someone coming from a top 5 university with a short publication record have a better chance than someone from a ranked ~50 school with a better record?

Possible duplicate: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/90/university-rank-stature-how-much-does-it-affect-ones-career-post-ph-d

The quality of your work is more important than the institution or the length of the publication list.

Also relevant: Do universities hire graduates from lesser universities

I think we'd need to say "how much better pedigree" and "how much better record" -- both are pretty nebulous.

I haven't been on a tenure-track hiring committee, but while I was on the searching end, I was told that pedigree was a factor (not necessarily a big one), because people in other subfields had trouble judging how good a candidate's work was, even given their publication history, but could evaluate their pedigree.
This effect may be more pronounced in fields like math, where there are big variations across subfields in how much people publish.

In math it's much EASIER to evaluate the quality of people's work: you can just read their papers.

@TomChurch  I don't want to impugn your abilities, but I don't know many mathematicians who can read, understand and appreciate the relative importance of work in other subfields for dozens of candidates in the time they can reasonably allow for a search.  I think people are more likely to look at publication venues or letters than Ph.D. pedigree, but everyone has to use some shortcuts.

I've been on search committees several times (in math at a large state university in the US) and different people look at different things, but I personally give almost no weight to where someone got their PhD, and I think this is mostly true for most of my colleagues.  (Note: in math, you essentially have to do about 3 or so years of postdocs before getting a tenure-track research position, so we have more data about applicant than fields that hire tenure-tracks straight out of PhD.)  What I give the most weight are publications and letters of recommendation.
That said, being at better institutions tends to expose you to more ideas and current research, good collaboration opportunities, and can often make it easier for you to get stronger letters.  See the posts linked in the comments for more about advantages of "prestige schools."


text:
As a lab assistant, how many hours per week am I expected to be helping out?
I am in my third year of computer engineering studies, and was offered a position as lab assistant in the electronics lab. I am oriented towards software, so I'm not exactly interested in the subject itself, but to my understanding, being a lab assistant is quite a good thing for the CV, plus it's good to be a familiar face to a professor or two, and I like the work, so I'd generally like to continue.
What makes me skeptical is the fact that I am in the lab for two hours on Monday evening (I miss the first hour due to an overlapping class), three hours on Thursday evening, and six hours on Friday from 3pm up to 9 o'clock, which brings the total time up to 14 hours. While I can probably cope with that, I was also asked to grade some reports (is it even legal for undergrads to grade undergrads?), a subject I want to discuss on another question.
At any rate, I have felt a big impact on my independent pursuits since I started, namely some days I'm at the campus all day so I don't feel like I'm doing much, and I really can't stand not doing stuff.
The question comes down to this: As an undergrad lab assistant, how much time am I expected to devote to the lab, and how much work am I expected to do at home? How serious a commitment did I make?

2 + 3 + 6 = 14?

In graduate school, this would be dictated by your GRA (graduate research assistant) contract, which would specify a minimum number of hours you would be expected to work on research each week.
As an undergraduate research assistant, if you're getting paid OR if you're receiving credit for your work, I would expect this to be dictated by your contract or a syllabus (respectively). If neither of those conditions are true, then this is a matter to take up with the professor you work for. Consider telling them that you would like to cut back on your responsibilities to pursue other interests, but know that they might counter with telling you that you're no longer needed. Negotiate carefully and respectfully.
For the record, 14 hours doesn't seem too extreme, even for an undergraduate research assistant. And if you're being paid, whether or not you can be asked to grade depends largely on the terms of your contract, though it doesn't seem unreasonable. In any event: negotiate respectfully with your boss, just as you would do in any other job.

There's no contract, graduate students get less than 100 euros per month (not much money coming into the university) and we don't get a dime, and I'm not getting credits either. I am receiving a document signed by the professor that I did assist at his lab though. As for the 14 hours, on their own they are ok, but I've got another 32 hours of lessons, a project deadline every now and then, and also some presentations and events as a campus representative for a company, which is nearly weekly preparation, and I'd really love to pursue some of my own projects, so it gets bad in the end.

@user3079666: So you're in Europe?  That's important information - I'd add that contextual knowledge to your initial question, as you may be able to get some help that's tailored to your country (I'm in the U.S.).

@user3079666: But in any event - based on your comment, I think you already know that you're going to need to make a choice here.  You've got a fixed number of hours in the week, a fixed number of responsibilities academically, and then you need to leave time for eating/sleeping/showering/the rest.  So it boils down to what's more important for you - the time spent working in the lab?  Or the time to pursue your own projects?  Answer that question, and then negotiate with your professor based on the answer.

It all depends on your  institution's regulations.
Explanation:
The workload for a TA in a lab depends on the resources and constraints. By resources I mean the lab instructors and other lab TAs allocated for the same subject. I'll list some of the other dependant factors below

Whether the subject or its syllabus is new
Complexity and density of the lab subject subject syllabus
Number of students per batch
Amount of work imposed by the department for the subject
Professor who handles that subject.

I doubt there are any regulations in the entire country for this kind of stuff, it's all dependent on the professors. The professor who runs this lab told be to work as much as I want and as long as it doesn't interfere with my other duties, but that is variant as project deadlines change and other events come up.

@user3079666, did you discuss with students of other professors? You should be able to get a statistical average.

This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review

@ÉbeIsaac, the labs each professor runs have a varying number of teams, and often different duration, so I don't think I can ask anyone other than the professor in charge of that lab. If I ask him, it may seem like I am trying to avoid the work without coming out straight.

@jakebeal: I've added the details


text:
Professor to whom I broke my promise is now a collaborator. What to say?
7 years ago, I got a PhD offer from professor X. Thinking that I would have no chance with other applications, I accepted it. I signed the offer, and the HR was helping me with the enrollment process.
But then I unexpectedly got another offer, and I broke my promise. I apologized in the most sincere way my poor English could express. X briefly said he understood. This is morally wrong, but not what I want to ask.
One of my collaborator just joined the department of X. He wants to involve X in our on going work. I have no problem with that, X is nice, and he can make a good contribution. But what should I say to X to break the ice?

Should I start by apologizing again?
Should I just pretend that I don't remember about him? This is good if he already forget about me. But if he still remembers about me because I caused him so much trouble, then I will appear as a horrible person to him.

What should I do?

If he remembers you, can't you just say some sort of things like this: "Finally, the research re-unite us again...". Well, I'm not trying to be funny. I just believe that typical professor doesn't hold grudge on the issue like your condition with X. As far as I know (from the internet, and the professors themselves), they see students coming and leaving as something not personal. Real professor might come here to help you with a more proper answer :)

Assume he has no idea who you are. If he does, take it from there. There is a good chance that even if he remembers, he has no particular interest in warming this 7-year-old story up again.

What "promise" are you talking about? Starting a PhD is usually a contract, not a promise. There is nothing morally wrong in quitting a program for a better offer.

It's very unlikely that he doesn't remember you after just 7 years; don't try to hide that thing, it's very likely that doing so would lend to an awkward and uncomfortable relationship; whether or not in hindsight you realized you should have acted differently, or he was irritated by your behaviour or not, you at least for sure have a better english now, so you'll be able to explain or apologize better; do it and you'll sure make a good impression. Maybe don't use it to break the ice, but don't wait too much; let's say, after 10-15 minutes of chit-chat would probably be a good time.

As others have said, very few people in an anglican business climate would consider it morally wrong. It is generally considered natural that people pick something better if it comes along.

Why should he remember you? Did you meet with each other for over a week? Did you have a furious argument on the phone? Did he only see a photo of yourself? Have you not changed in 7 years? Do you have any particular distinguishing features that make you stand out from the crowd? E.g you are 2.10 m tall, are you incredibly good looking and look like a famous movie actor? I doubt someone who met you once or three times (if he had) 7 years ago will still remember you today unless you're omitting a significant detail.

I understand that this situation is somewhat awkward, but I think it is important not to overthink this. It was, after all, a fairly long time okay, and at the time the professor said he understands, so you may be taking this incident harder than he is.

But what should I say to X to break the ice?

I probably wouldn't mention anything, at least not at the beginning and definitely not over e-mail. Bring it up at an opportune time, or not at all.

Should I start by apologizing again?

No. See above. Even if he remembers you (which is not at all guaranteed), starting a collaboration with "remember how I reneged from our agreement last time?" seems supremely awkward.
Should the collaboration take off and you meet more often and personally, it might be nice to apologize again, optimally in a social setting. Alternatively, if he brings the topic up, you can and should apologize. However, don't make a big deal out of it if he doesn't.

Should I just pretend that I don't remember about him? This is good if he already forget about me. But if he still remembers about me because I caused him so much trouble, then I will appear as a horrible person to him.

You don't need to pretend you don't remember him. Just interact with him normally - even if you don't start a conversation about your last interaction immediately  (and he remembers you), he will probably not assume that you forgot about him, but that you are trying to not make the situation awkward. He won't consider you a horrible person for this.

"All but guaranteed" is ambiguous, it seems that it could either mean "almost guaranteed" or "everything except guaranteed". I'm curious which of the two you actually meant.

I usually take it to mean "almost guaranteed".  @Murch

I usually use it to mean "everything except guaranteed", so definitely an ambiguous phrase.  Hah, Google defines "all but" as: "1. very nearly; 2. all except".

@Nat, yes, but "all except" refers to nouns, not modifiers.  "Everything" does not equal "all."  So "all but guaranteed" is entirely unambiguous.  (You just need to clear up the grammar involved.)

I downvoted. The OP already apologized before and it's ridiculous to give Prof. X the benefit of feeling betrayed or whatever after 7 years. In particular given that it's not even clear if the OP did or didn't something wrong.

@user347489 where did I suggest doing that?

Ok, I meant so say "not at all guaranteed". I was under the assumption that "all but X" is a fairly well-understood way to phrase this, but evidently I was wrong :) edited.

I guess what I meant to say is that I believe in this situation it's better to be confident that you didn't do anything wrong and shouldn't apologize. If there is any sign of discomfort from the other party it's better just to take it lightly and move forward, as Pablo's answer suggests.

@user347489 Ok, then we just disagree, but that's ok.

How to break the ice? You don't need to mention the issue, much less apologize when you first meet him. Just act like with any other professional: "Hi, how are you? It looks like we have some exciting research ahead".
You are talking about 7 years ago and the professor might not even give it any importance, otherwise he'd not be willing to collaborate with you. So I'd suggest you stop punishing yourself, get over it, and just focus on acting as a professional.
If the issue arises, make some funny comment and move on. If he insists on making it personal and taking you to a guilt-trip or you feel uncomfortable working with him, just stop the collaboration and find another colleague to collaborate with.

+1 IMO this is the right course of action. What happened 7 years ago is of little importance at this point. There's nothing to apologize for and it would be very unprofessional of them to let this affect the collaboration.

You've already apologized, the apology was accepted, and you've both moved on.
There is no reason to bring it back up, and the professional thing to do is to let the past stay in the past. Chances are good he will as well.
Unless he brings it up, don't bring it up yourself.  Conduct your research as well as you can, and show him how you've grown over the years.
If it still really bothers you, then well after you've established your research relationship, at a time outside of work (social), you might simply say, "I still feel bad about..." and express your feelings again, adding, "But I'm so glad we have this chance to work together."

ya know qsp, i dunno your gender or orientation, but i will put it from the perspective of a hetero-male.
it's like you had made a date with a girl, and later canceled it.  you go out with the other girl but eventually, because the first girl and you live in the same town and have some of the same interests, you bump into her again and decide, heck, you wanna date each other again.  if she wants to and you want to, hell, what's the problem?
i can think of a lot more nasty academic compromises of morality (usually involving plagiarism or misrepresenting data or stealing an idea).  collaborating with a person that you had previously "stood up" is not one of them.

Anyone who has ever been in charge of anything has offered a spot to someone who turned it down, either right on the spot, or later. Being aced by a better offer comes with the territory.  If I was the one who had offered you a spot, a later collaboration would only confirm my first decision that you had been someone I wanted in my group.
So, what should you expect? I certainly wouldn't bring up the past in any negative way, I'd say I was glad to be working with you.
And what should you say?
(1) Don't apologize. I didn't do anything for you, and you didn't take anything from me, so you don't owe me anything. Even if you cancelled so late that the position stayed unfilled for a while, that's not on you. If there's something of mine that will fail without staff that's on me. It up to me to have a contingency plan, and I will. "Many's the slip, 'twixt the cup and the lip". Anyone who belongs in their job knows the difference between someone on-board and someone who made nice noises about an offer.
(2) Don't ever bring up not taking the spot. I knew at the time you either got a better offer or had a family crisis, so now I know you got a better offer. If I want to know why you took the other offer I'll figure it out from working with you.
(3) if this person does bring the past up, or complains about you taking a better offer, or whatever, don't respond with anything about better or worse. Make it a matter of personal preference, like a food choice, say there was something about the other offer that really seemed like it was a good match for you. If the other person asks again or for details, deal with them like someone who has had too much alcohol and is saying foolish things. Smile, repeat your first answer patiently, smile again, and then talk about an clearly unrelated subject.
I don't know if this is great advice for people playing academic politics. I didn't earn my ph.d. as a grad student getting stipends, I was working full time in the r&d end of my field I had a wife & children and I had tangential research that interested me to pursue and write up for a thesis and a dissertation and some projects, and I took graduate level courses classes that interested me, and I paid tuition and fees. That wasn't as unusual then as now.

As others have mentioned above, I think you were right when you apologised 7 years back and you don't necessarily have to do it again, unless the situation begs you to.
You have got another chance to work with him again that you had to miss out that time. So, just try to make the most out of it. There is nothing to feel bad about.
Just let him know you're excited to work with him and if you feel he is not very comfortable or if he brings up the topic of you opting out of his offer, you can always apologise.


text:
Will they send offer letter within 15th April
In this fall 2016 I have applied  for graduate admission (PhD, Physics) few universities and I have received an admit from one of them. The university gave me a deadline (April 15)  to accept or decline the offer.
On the other hand, I emailed the other few universities(my priority university selection where I would love to join.) to know my application status.  They have put me on a waiting-list.
What is the possibility of these university that they will send another round offer letters within the 15th April ?

We cannot answer that. You should contact the other universities to know.

There is certainly a possibility that you will get moved from the wait list to acceptance before April 15th, but there is absolutely no guarantee or requirement of further contact. By "possibility", I mean this happens to students every year and it isn't particularly unusual - but I also mean that this only happens to a minority of students, and is hard to predict due to the nature of statistics and small numbers per program. Some programs might admit 2 students and both admitted students accept, while others might admit 20 yet go 2+ full rounds of wait list contacts before admission decisions are officially finished.
The general advice in the US is that you are safe to wait until close to that April 15th deadline for acceptance if you are not certain that's where you want to go, even if you are just holding out to see if any wait listed programs might accept you. Waiting past that deadline is risky unless you request and obtain an extension, as programs are well within their rights to rescind their offers and move on to their own wait list after the dead line.

having served on an admissions committee and observed this from inside, sometimes a program will keep students waitlisted until very shortly before april 15.  as it continues to get closer you can politely express enthusiasm and inquire, although you don't want to be too pushy.  offers are often sent out on a rolling basis for a variety of reasons, such as higher priority recruits declining offers.  you can safely hold out until the 14th or 15th before you make a decision, but do follow up one last time with your first choice before accepting anything.  good luck.


text:
License and attribution of images in compiled work for public outreach
I am working on a lager poster about science which will be on display in a museum and may be made available online. I intend to compile it using images from different sources. Some are own work, some are Wikimedia Common (Public domain or Creative Commons), others may be plots/graphics from (mostly historic) journal articles (they are usually not open access).
To my understanding, the use of these sources for non-profit/academic purposes is free if attributed correctly. However, I am unsure about the consequences of compiling or slightly modifying these works. Journals may have their own license policies but my understanding is that reuse for such purposes is generally accepted. In addition plots which represent measured data may not be protected, it seems.
Here are some of my concerns:
Using a Creative Commons image may require me to publish the whole work under the same Creative Commons license. I suppose that this is not ok with licenses/copyright policies that apply for plots or graphics from journal articles?
The different images should fit in the design of the whole. In order to achieve this I may need to make minor changes, like cropping the image or changing the background color. Will such modifications be ok with Public Domain licensed images and the ones from journals?
May the license of the whole work be determined by the fact that I am working for a public university (even though this sort of work is probably not described in my work contract, so it could be interpreted as work which I do in my spare time)?
Generally, are there some good online resources which explain the license issues and attribution of images for this kind of work?
Here are some links I know:
http://creativecommons.org.au/learn/fact-sheets/attribution/
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Credit_line
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/

This may be a better fit on the Law SE, but I'm not 100% sure on that. My reasoning is that the concern here is less about academia and more about legal matters that don't pertain to academia specifically.

I am not sure. It may be an issue with which lawyers are not concerned so often, because profit organisations will buy the images. Academics, in my experience, mostly ignore these issues, but in this case the public visibility may be higher. Still, for me, it is mainly about how I correctly credit scientific and other work.

"Using a Creative Commons image may require me to publish the whole work under the same Creative Commons license." - this is definitely not the case. Individually CC-licensed works can be used in a non-CC-licensed compilation/collection, so long as the licenses for the individual works are clearly indicated

@Andrew Ok, that's useful. Do you have a reference that supports this?

@highsciguy there's some discussion here - http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/48375/using-images-with-cc-by-sa-license-in-slides-or-a-thesis/48382#48382 - with a helpful recent court case which confirmed this interpretation (in that specific case, it was a photo used as a book cover, but the general principle applies)

In addition, fair use standards also apply to open-licensed content just as to other license types.  If your use qualifies for fair use, you don't need the license AT ALL, and thus don't need to follow its instructions regarding derivative works.

There's a lot of confusion around this sort of thing in academic circles, because academics have been trained heavily about attribution, but attribution is mostly orthogonal to copyright. There is no general right to use things for academic/non-profit purposes, unless copyright law in your country happens to include "fair use" or similar provisions. They vary from country to country so I can't advise on them.
Some specifics, based on what you asked:

Something in the public domain can be used however you like, as the author has relinquished all copyright claims and "gifted" the work to the public.  Thus you can use it, modify it, etc. However, do not assume (as some do) that anything you see online is public domain. It's probably best to assume that something isn't unless you see a statement to that effect.
Something with a creative commons licence can be used according to the terms of that licence. The various varieties are quite self-explanatory. All will allow you to reuse the work for non-commercial purposes, but not all allow you to modify it (the "no derivatives" variants).
Something without any stated licence or that expressly reserves rights should not be used without permission - except possibly as provided for by any "fair use" style provisions that your country may have.

Generally the licence for your work need not be controlled by the works that it contains - "viral" or "copyleft" terms such as those of the GPL are not common outside of software licencing. However, if you choose a licence more permissive than that of works that your document contains, you should make it clear that it does not apply to (eg) those figures.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice; any of the above may be wrong in your, or any other, jurisdiction!

Thanks! Some of you comments are very helpful. A very important issue for me is what's with figures/plots in historic journal articles. Are they always public domain, do they become public domain after certain time or can they only be used under fair use conditions?

@highsciguy certainly not always PD. They may become PD after a certain time, but this depends on local laws.


text:
How secure is it to receive a verbal offer for an academic position in UK?
I recently accepted academic offer from a UK university. I comminicated wtih the head of school via phone and email, and I have not yet received the official offer letter. I am wondering how secure this situation is? In particular if this is a good time to decline other offers (I feel bad to let them wait too long and decline their offer eventually)? Or should I wait until receiving the official offer? Thank you for your input in advance.
I saw a similar question, but that is for postdoc positions and I suppose it is not exactly the same.

You should not decline other offers, and you could mention to them that you are studying several job proposals

An email offering you the job is not a 'verbal' offer, and although it's not as binding as a contract, I would certainly consider it secure, particularly from the head of school.
Note that the contract may come via snail mail and if you're on a different continent that could take a while. Perhaps you could try to get a confirmation from HR that the contract has been sent.

While a verbal offer should end in a contract (and can sometimes be taken as a contract - you may not even need a written contract in order to be employed), there are always things that can happen in between. Therefore it would be safer to wait before you decline other offers, but of course it would be nice from the university to send you the contract quickly, so you know what is going to happen (and so do the other institutes waiting for your decision).
On the other hand, I once started in a position and only received the contract a few days later since the administration was on holiday...

This is not an uncommon situation. The best thing to do is to ask the head of school how long until the formal contract is issued because you would like to alert the other universities you have applied. If they say a week, just wait. If they tell you HR is a pain and you will have the formal contract sometime in your first couple of years, hopefully they will volunteer that they have never had a problem. If not ask if it has ever been a problem. If they tell you 6 weeks, then it is up to you. Some people will wait, others will withdraw their applications immediately.


text:
Is it possible to negotiate the position rank in an UK academic job offer?
I received a job offer from a UK university. The post was for a senior lecturer/reader position. When the Head of School called me, he hinted that they would offer me a reader position. But two days later when I received the written offer, they actually give me a senior lecturer position with the highest point. I was a bit disappointed as I expected it was a reader position. I have no experience in UK academic system (I am currently working in the US), but I heard there is little room to negotiate in the UK system. I am wondering if I can negotiate for a higher rank (reader) without insulting them. Besides I am going to interview for a reader position with another school. If I get the 2nd offer, can I ask the 1st to match (based on the UK academic culture)? Thanks for your input in advance.

Are you sure that they are different ranks. At some UK universities they are the same.

Thanks for your response. Yes, I researched their system. Senior lecturer is on the point scale 37-48, and reader is 46-56. So they actually made an offer at the critical point and it was said in the letter that promotion to reader with depend on performance.

Ask for readership. It's not insulting, it's ambitious. You can also bargain based upon your 2nd offer.

Yes, you can always ask about salary and position for any job you are applying to. They won't stop considering you because you asked for more money.
While we are researchers, and love what we do [citation needed], in our society we need money and work for money*, thus bringing money to the negotiations is (or should be) an obvious part of the "finding a job" process.
They can say "yes", "let's negotiate" or "no". Just be prepared for all, and make the decision as you see fit.
*you wouldn't work for free, would you?


text:
reference letter from current line manager?
I am currently a lecturer at a UK university, and I got an oral offer from another university. I was called by their HR today saying that their official is condition on satisfactory reference checking with my current line manager, who is the HoD of my current department. In my case I do not know my HoD is willing to provide a reference letter, as I am pretty sure that he will not be happy knowing I want to leave.
I am wondering if this (requiring reference from current line manager) is a common practices for UK universities? If there is any alternative solution to it? Thanks for your suggestions in advance.

I can't speak about UK universities specifically, but it is pretty common generally. If you want to leave, you will have to deal with it. Otherwise the other place is sort of trusting you blindly, which they may not be willing to do.

Ask your head of department about it.

It is common practice in UK universities. It would also be considered bad behaviour if your HoD was unwilling to provide a reference, or if he wrote a bad letter out of spite or revenge or similar. Of course, there are people who take it personally and are unpleasant when people leave so there's no guarantee he would be reasonable.
You should be prepared to have a discussion about why you want to change universities. Is it a promotion? Or is there a research group that is closer to your field? Presumably you applied for the job for some reason. You haven't said why you think he may not be happy. If you have been there only a short time, there might be some bad feeling. But people move all the time for all sorts of reasons.

Thanks for your input. I do not have any personal issue with HoD, but I do intend to leave within two years. I wanted to leave because I had some disagreements with the head of the group, which makes it quite difficult for me to work there. But that is sort of irrelevant now as I have made my decision.

Yes, it is common practice for UK universities to state that 1 reference must be from your current line manager, but whether this is actually enforced for academic jobs is a different story. You might want to confirm this with your new head of department (or whoever it is that you have been negotiating your position) rather than with HR.
When I filled out a form to apply for my first UK Lecturer job many years ago. I simply ignored this restriction and nobody cared: I got the job anyway.
A few years later, I applied at another UK university and the same thing happened: they requested the references already during the job application and it explicitly said that one of them should be my current line manager.
As before, I listed whatever references that I thought would be best, i.e. people who actually know about my research, and, just as before, it didn't cause any problems and I got the job.

I would try talking to HR and letting them know that you prefer not to give that reference as you are searching secretly.  This is of course the norm in corporate jobs, so HR may be much more understanding than you realize.  Suggest some alternates (old advisor or a peer who knows you're looking).  At least, it is worth a shot.  See what they say, before you just give in.

I don't think this is a good suggestion, given the UK norms that @JenB mentions in her answer. BTW, when you say "this is of course the norm in corporate jobs" are you thinking specifically of how things work in the UK?


text:
No response from recommenders after they agreed to write recommendation letter
I am planning to apply for green card for which I need recommendation letters from well known researchers/professors. In February 2019, I had contacted one professor and one industry based researcher to write the letters for me. Both these people know me through my research and have frequently cited my paper. At first I did not get any reply from them. A week later I reminded them while copying my PhD advisor in the mail. My advisor knows both of them. I got immediate reply from them that they would be happy to write the letter if I could given them an initial draft. I think it is OK to copy your PhD advisor while asking for recommendation letter from independent people who don't know you personally but only through research and papers.
Anyways, A month later i.e. in last week of March, I gave them the draft. Since then, I have sent 3 reminders to them but have not heard back from them. I am getting anxious and don't know what to do.
Does no response after 3 reminders and 2 months mean they backed out? Is it ethical?
I have all the documents ready for filing my application and I am just waiting for them to give me the letter. Since there is no deadline to apply for green card application, I can't even provide them a deadline. But I have tried to convey my feelings about the delay using mild language.

You need to move on and find new references, people who actually know you.
Realistically, it's hard to imagine anyone wanting to write an LOR for someone they've never met and know only as a name on a paper they've cited.  But then you further poisoned the relationships by waiting a month to respond to their requests for a draft (of the letter you want?) and CC'ing your advisor on your requests, as if to "report" them for not responding quickly enough.  And who knows what you put in your draft or your "reminders".
If someone did that to me, I'd permanently ignore them.  I certainly wouldn't waste my time recommending them.

You wouldn't even have replied to them to say that you weren't going to write the letter?

@NateEldredge I think Nicole's point is that if the OP can wait for a month on an urgent letter, they can assume it could not have been that urgent, and now the OP is getting, to put it his way, even a bit pushy. They probably wouldn't explicitly say no anymore, just silently drop the contact. They may have realised that it was not the smartest thing of them to agree to the reference, and perhaps the draft was not to their liking, but do not feel they can back out explicitly without starting an argument. No, it's not nice, but probably that's what happened.

@NateEldredge Captain Emacs is correct in his reading of my remarks.  If someone waits a month to respond to me, it can't be too urgent.  But also, it's not obvious what was said in either the initial requests or the responses; the responses may have been more conditional  than represented by the OP, e.g., "Okay, I might be able to help you.  Tell me exactly what you need, perhaps with a draft, and I'll consider it."

@NateEldredge But to answer more directly, yes, if I was not going to write the LOR for whatever reason, I personally would tell them to go away, then ignore them.

@NicoleHamilton For the green card application, the applicants need LOR from people who know them personally as well as from people who know them through their papers and have cited their papers. These LORs discuss about applicant's research and its impact in scientific community and there is no requirement to know the applicant in person. I have already got letters from my advisor and other people who know me. But I also need letters from independent people mentioned in my original question.

@user146290  But as you've discovered, it's difficult getting LORs from people who only know you as a name on a paper, especially when you don't respond to their requests promptly, then din them, CC'ing your advisor.  If getting the green card is important to you, you need to move on and find new references.

I cc-ed my advisor only once during my initial attempt to contact the recommenders. After that all communications with the recommenders were made without informing anything to my advisor. The draft of the letter was prepared by me and thoroughly reviewed by the law firm who is petitioning on my behalf.

@user146290 And it didn't work.  So, what do you want to do now?

As suggested, I have started contacting new people for letter. But it's disheartening to have waited so long without any result.

@NicoleHamilton Green card recommendation letters are completely different to academic recommendation letters. Firstly, they need to be from people that know your research but have not worked with you, otherwise USCIS may assume that they are biased. Secondly, these letters need to be extremely positive -- unreasonably so. It's not logical, but US immigration is not logical. Remember, it is bureaucrats evaluating these letters against bizarre legal requirements. Please don't judge the person requesting letters by the unreasonableness of the system they're trying to navigate.

@ThomassupportsMonica My criticism of the poor approach employed by the OP has nothing to do with any unreasonableness of the system.  I don't care why the OP needed an LOR, the approach was designed to fail.

I would disagree with the above answers somewhat and say that it's worth another try. My understanding is that for a green card one needs recommendations from prominent people. So if these are prominent people in your field, their letters may be worth a lot. And if they agreed to write a letter for a green card, it would be irresponsible of them to not follow through. Some people are just terrible at answering emails and meeting deadlines (thinking of Reviewer #2 here).
One thing to be sure of is that you sent them a high-quality draft. There's nothing worse than receiving a poorly drafted recommendation letter.
So I would maybe copy your PhD advisor again on a follow-up email and if that doesn't work, follow up one more time, letting them know you will pursue other recommenders.

No response after 2 months AND that they never met you personally means very likely yes. If you don't know someone in person, how could you objectively recommend him. Without this condition there would be a "recommendation letter industry" where everyone tries to get the best letters from the most prestigious recommenders and looks a bit like cheating?! Ask someone less known you really worked with/had contact with, in best case co-authors or supervisors.
The point of a recommendation letter for the people examining you is to get independent objective opinions on you as a person (ambition, work style/experiences,...) than reading short redundant letters (with similar, by you drafted, content) of "big names", who are unlikely to have worked with you due to very different location/field not appearing in your CV. If these letters look strongly copy/pasted and the persons are not willing to invest the time to write 2-3 pages, it's really better to look for less "known/influential" persons which had a topical and local relation with your work (post-docs, assístant/associate profs.). Some fields of research are very small, it is rather important to be cited by someone who is very active in research/publications than older/well-known researchers, especially if they never met you, to stress this again.

Unfortunately, this is not how green card recommendation letters work. You assume they are being read by reasonable people who understand how academia works. But, actually, they are read by bureaucrats with no understanding of academia, who are evaluating them by bizarre legal standards.


text:
Using a figure from a U.S. government publication
I would like to use a figure from a U.S. government publication in a research paper that I will submit for publication in a journal.
In particular, I would like to use Figure IV-1 from JP 4-03.
From this post it seems like you have to get permission when reprinting figures, but my reading of Section 3.1.2 on this government website dealing with copyright seems to say that there is no copyright on the publication.
If this is the case, will a caption like the following:
Fig. 1  Notional overland fuel distribution, reprinted from Joint Publication 4-03,
        Joint Bulk Petroleum and Water Doctrine (U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2016)

where I cite the publication and make it clear it is not my own image be sufficient?

Yes, this is sufficient.
By law, all US federal government publications are in the public domain, and can therefore be reused for any purpose, without permission, without violating anyone's copyright. Of course, you still need to credit the source of the image to avoid plagiarism, but that's exactly what you've proposed.

@revi "Only US federal gov's work is PD", please provide citation. Thank you. As far as I know, Fed and state governments are in PD.

@revi For example, The Library of Virginia web page says "Virginia State Documents is a list of publications currently in print and available to the public from agencies of the Commonwealth of Virginia.". Please provide a counter-example. Thanks.

@iayork Please see comments above.

@scaaahu Added Wikipedia link. Only a few state governments put their publications into the public domain. (However, even in those states, publications by faculty in public universities—who are formally state employees—are not considered state-government publications, and they are subject to copyright protection.)

Please note the 3rd paragraph of the link. If a report was generated by a contractor or grantee, there may still be copyright-protected work in the document. So no, not all US federal government publications are in the public domain.

I guess the question then is how to determine if the Joint Publication was written by a contractor or grantee.  There does not appear to be any such information on the document I linked.

I just emailed DTIC using their 'Contact Us' email and apparently there is no copyright on Joint Publications, so @JeffE your answer is correct.

That's not exactly true, and you need to be careful when pulling from DTIC: works that are by the federal government are public domain. However, USG can buy copyrights or publish copyrighted material under license. So, you still need to check for copyright (e.g. if a contractor wrote it, they are NOT a USG employee and might retain copyright).