text:
Why does where you got your PhD matter so much for getting an academic job?
According to one book I read, by an academic who has served on search committees, the first thing he looks for when he looks at an application is where the applicant did their PhD. The second thing is whether the applicant has a lot of publications in high-end journals. Why does the prestige of where a tenure-track faculty member got their PhD matter so much to hiring committees?
My guess is that universities want to be more like the prestigious universities, so by hiring people who went to those universities, they can claim that they are similar.

Related:  https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/90/27515 and https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/180379/27515

In my experience in the U.K., where you did your PhD doesn't count for much at all in and of itself. Of course, there tends to be a correlation between a good research output and a high rep university, but once you account for that, I dont think it matters at all. In any case, I don't think the question should be based on a single anecdote from a book rather than any hard evidence.

Someone wrote, What matters is the rep of the program or department ultimately in my experience-- nobody is sitting down and sorting applications based on US News ranking or anything like that. But if I don't know a lot about modern Japanese history specifically and I do know that Michigan Ann-Arbor has a strong history department in general I might give that more credence than I would a Ph.D. from the South Dakota State Poultry Institute.

Right now the question is "some anonymous person, whom you believe to be an authority, claims something. Can you give arguments for that claim?" The answer to that is: those arguments should be in the book you are reading. If they are not, than it is not a good book.

Alternatively, you are misunderstanding the statement made by the book. You claim that the book says " the first thing he looks for when he looks at an application is where the applicant did their PhD. " You interpret that as "the prestige of where a tenure-track faculty member got their PhD matter". That is not necessarily true. Different departments from different universities specialize in different sub-sub-fields or schools. Maybe that is what the original author is looking at rather than prestige.

In short, give the reference.

https://www.amazon.com/Good-Work-You-Can-Get/dp/1421437961

Now, given that where they did their PhD is, for a fresh graduate, right at the top of the CV and the publication list is at the end, it comes as no surprise that one is looked at before the other.

If we assume (counterfactually) a completely meritocratic system, then the best (= most talented) high school students go to the most prestigious (= highest quality) universities for the first degree, the best go on to the doctorate at the highest quality universities, so that looking at the Ph.D. granting university would give a rather clear ranking. In this fictional scenario, there would even be some error correction, because of the relative ranking of students.
One can argue that the real world is not that_far from this ideal scenario.
A more down-to-earth argument looks at the decision process of the selection committee. There used to be a slogan "No-one ever got fired for buying from IBM". Replace IBM with Cal Berkeley or MIT, and take in addition the fact that the successful candidates at a famous university needs to have good publications and good letters, you can see that hiring candidates from the prestigious universities is much less of a risk.
Another argument is that it is easier to get a good education if you are surrounded by other good students. At one of the best universities in any large country, the Ph.D. students would be able to educate themselves if suddenly all faculty were to vanish.
This means that exceptional people from humdrum places will have it harder to get a really good job in academia. But they have second chances.

someoen wrote What matters is the rep of the program or department ultimately in my experience-- nobody is sitting down and sorting applications based on US News ranking or anything like that. But if I don't know a lot about modern Japanese history specifically and I do know that Michigan Ann-Arbor has a strong history department in general I might give that more credence than I would a Ph.D. from the South Dakota State Poultry Institute.


text:
Are postdoc applications sometimes scored using a rubric?
I am wondering if some postdoc positions are evaluated using a rubric, like when students hand in tests and the instructors grade using a rubric? If so, is whoever gets the highest score the person who gets hired? In case rubrics are used, are they publicly availabe?

This totally depends on the position, there’s no standard way to grade them.

Can you give a specific country?

I voted to re-open because, while the answer to the question varies across countries, it is easily possible to give helpful comments! I was quite interested to see @FedericoPoloni's explanation of what happens in Italy. And, for the U.S., I think it's reasonable for people outside of the decision-making "elite" to wonder how decisions are made... especially with regard to issues about avoiding bias, etc.

In some countries, yes. This is for a position in Italy I am involved with (translated from Italian with the help of Google Translate):

The evaluation takes place through the attribution of a score, up to a maximum of 100 points, broken down as follows:
⦁ up to 10 points for a research doctorate or specialization diploma in the medical area;
⦁ up to 40 points for the following documented qualifications: degree mark, post-graduate diplomas, any contracts, scholarships, enrollment in doctoral or specialization schools, conference talks, other documented titles;
⦁ up to 40 points for publications and other research products;
⦁ up to 10 points for the possible interview.

The hiring committee first has to write a more detailed outline of how these items will be scored, before looking at the applications, and then proceeds to evaluate the candidates according to these criteria. There is still some space for informed judgement of the committee though; for instance the expanded rubric for the third item is:

The score is awarded considering publications that are relevant  with the research program and congruent with the scientific area of the call: based on their number (up to one maximum of 10 points); on their originality, innovativeness and methodological rigor (up to a maximum of 20 points); on the scientific relevance of their publication venue and their dissemination within the scientific community (up to a maximum of 10 points).

Does the highest scoring candidate necessarily and always get the position? Or is there room to reject one or all after the scoring?

@Buffy Yes, the winner must be the highest-scoring candidate.

@Buffy Once the scoring is done, there’s no room for rejection (if I recall correctly, it’s by law). Actually, even with this system, it’s not uncommon to have recourses in front of a court where candidates declare to have been unfairly assessed, and sometimes the selection has to be redone. In any case, no selection committee in their right mind would decide to deviate from the score. In certain cases, to avoid any recourse selection committees make very detailed rubrics.

Side note: I am not a fan of this method either; it is the product of a system where malpractice and litigation were rampant, and bureaucracy has been introduced as a complicated method to prevent them.

@Buffy I've also explained the idiosyncrasies of this process here: https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/59771/20058 As I jokingly said, you might not be able to hire a Nobel prize if the rubric doesn't foresee such an applicant. Personally, I think that such a system introduces more issues than those it's supposed to solve. On the other side, I had a few PhD students hired by a large US institution and the hiring process was totally devoid of bureaucracy and went about like this: hey Massimo, what is X doing? Can I offer them a position? I wish we have this freedom too.

In Germany this is not mandatory, but I know some institutions that use scoring sheets particularly if they are afraid some applicants want to sue their way into a permanent position. I.e., this is used mainly to produce a paper trail that can be used in court as evidence against discrimination allegations (in Germany, the [potential] employer has to prove non-discrimination). This also includes conducting standardized interviews. The actual questions/scored characteristics are put together according to the actual job offered, i.e., the research project's requirements. It will not be revealed

to the candidates as rubric used (unless maybe in court). But you'll of course know what questions you are asked, and you may realize that the questions sound standardized and the interviewers work along a list of questions and write down notes.

Despite the fact that they are sometimes called "trainees", from an administration perspective postdocs are generally managed as employees rather than as students.
This means that you should think of a postdoc application like a job application, rather than like any of the program admissions that you may have faced before.
Critically, this means that despite the conflation of "applying to a program" vs. "applying to a laboratory" in many discussions, the hiring process is usually completely different:

Graduate students typically apply to a department, which handles all applications together via an admissions committee. Professors may be able to "earmark" a student by saying "I want that student / I will support that student", but ultimately it is the department and not the professor that admits the student.

For most postdocs, the professor is the hiring manager and has complete discretion on how their make the decision as long as it is within the institution's employment regulations.

There are exceptions to these generalizations, such as organizational fellowships, but overall you should expect there to be absolutely no uniformity across institutions or even within a single institution as to how postdoc job applications are handled.

I can only speak to how I evaluate candidates at a US national lab. The posting (any posting) will have a set of Required and Desired attributes. HR screens for the Required, and I generally ignore applicants that don't meet those (although I do scan to see if HR messed up - I've learned to make the Required ones as easy to understand as I can, so no technical terms).
The Desired attributes are for me to score, and I usually have 5 or so. I do it very simply - a 1 is "does not meet", a 2 is "perhaps meets", and a 3 is "definitely meets". Add those up, and one typically get a few general groupings. There are quite often a number of 'does not meet any desired attributes', some with 1 or 2, and then those with 4-5 or so. Normally there is one "high point", but some strong candidates close behind.  I'm looking for the top 3 or so, if things are close I'll look at a few more but usually will only select 3. Then I'll set up interviews for about 3 candidates. The choice to hire is based solely on the interview results - the "rubric" was only to get to the interview pool. The 'high point' candidate is not always the selection.

I think that is unlikely in the US, at least. Much more likely is a meeting of interested faculty (one or more) who hash out the merits of candidates. They might use something like a rubric to make sure that all factors are considered, but it is really individuals making decisions about who might be best to work with and such.
I'd also guess it is impossible to create a valid rubric to be used as you suggest. There are too many variables and they have varying importance.
I can't rule out that it has happened, though.

Since the question was changed to "sometimes" I'll add the following. Yes, everything happens "sometimes". But in the US I think that faculties would consider a rubric (such as the Italian model) to be overly limiting. The problem is that you can't take advantage of opportunities that arise only after the call is published and applicants appear in the pool.
One of my (fondest) memories is that of a bunch of senior (male) mathematicians deferring to a junior (female) faculty member in the choice of a postdoc. Just by chance, an applicant turned out to be especially well qualified as a collaborator of the junior colleague and their work together could be expected to benefit both. This would, in particular, aid her in gaining tenure. But that application was serendipity that they were able to take advantage of because they weren't overly bound (and were a collegial bunch).
In general, different people have different characteristics and it is IMO not possible to build a rubric that sufficiently covers the ground unless flexibility is also possible.

Oh, ok. I thought it would be something like: grade the research statement out of 5, take the number of published papers and multiply by a certain number depending on the prestige of the journal...

Seems far fetched, actually. Judgement is more important in such decisions.

There's no general answer for this because it varies immensely between countries, fields, and individual research groups––and sometimes even within them!
How hiring works generally
At one extreme, some positions will put out a call for applications, collect a bunch of them, and have them reviewed by a committee. I've never heard of a process quite as systematic as the Italian one described in Federico Poloni's answer, but it would not be odd for them to use  some sort of rubric or checklist to assess candidates.
At the opposite extreme, some postdocs are arranged without much formal process. An applicant contacts a potential PI and expresses interest in joining their group. If the PI reciprocates that interest (and has money, space, etc), then a position is created and that person is hired. The applicant might be invited to give a talk or meet with other group members to help the PI make a decision, but there is no structured process and the only "competition" against opportunity costs (e.g., Will a better candidate appear in the near future?) There may be some minimal bureaucratic component, like checking that the person has a PhD, or posting a job ad, but it is almost entirely pro forma.
Crucially, both can even happen in the same department. My PhD department participated in a School of Medicine-wide postdoctoral program that was reviewed by a committee, but many postdocs were hired via informal channels.
How to get yourself hired
I'd guess you want rubrics so you can maximize your own chances of getting hired.
Unfortunately, there's no magic formula and even the same lab may have different priorities at different times: funding with tight timelines and specific deliverables often need someone who knows the field/techniques already; more open-ended funding like an NIH R01 might instead be good for someone promising who wants to learn.
In general though, all the usual markers of academic success help (papers, presentations, fellowships, etc). Interactions with the PI—either directly or via strong letters—can also make the case that you've got knowledge and skills that may not be reflected on your CV. Asking trusted mentors (your thesis committee?) may give you a rough assessment of your chances.
Another way to give your applications (of all stripes) a leg up is to clearly explain what you hope to bring to this particular lab and what you hope to get out of your time there. I think this is often neglected, but is also completely under your control. Good luck!

In the U.S., in math, I have never seen anything completely determined by "rubrics"... despite a long tradition of trying to make decisions by algorithms based on various numbers. :)
In math, we mostly do not have "labs", and funding is more centralized, etc., so there is less reason to give final decision-making power to individual faculty.
And, yes, in recent years, there has been a somewhat-reasonable push to make hiring and admissions fairer by having some quasi-objective rubrics play a larger role, as opposed to old-boy-network criteria. A fundamental problem is that "to compare" we seem to need "numbers", and a valid way of assigning numbers ... and adding them up... ?!?!? ... is very difficult, if not impossible. As in "really, can we quantify the prestige of journals?". And what weight to give...?!?
On another hand, the hiring/admission processes in math in the U.S. are less closed-to-outsiders than they were years ago, I think. Rubrics may help a bit, but I think even more important is a change in attitude/culture, realizing that the old almost-purely-networked culture had many implicit biases.

It seems like quantity of papers is very important. I was looking at Robert Steinberg's collected works and I don't think Steinberg would be able to get a postdoc at most places in the U.S.

At the risk of sounding elitist, I surmise that second-rate mathematicians value quantity of papers more and will select for postdocs who will in turn become second-rate mathematicians.

True, number of papers is a number. And, somewhat more subtly, some people will hire postdocs who don't make them feel threatened... All sorts of nonsense is possible, and hard to avoid by pseudo-objective rules. Yes, even not pathologically, not-so-good mathematicians may understand lukewarm mathematics better than bleeding-edge stuff, etc. As in many contexts...

Do you think academia is a meritocracy? I have heard that opinion from a senior mathematician. Doesn't it depend on how merit is measured? Merit is a social construct.

Certainly the pretense is that academia is a meritocracy. But, yes, there is a significant self-referential aspect to that, in addition to the "constructed" aspect (which, in may, would be denied by many, as a matter of principle :)

I think that if merit were measured by how far people got based on where they started and took into account things like family background (e.g., were your parents professors?), academia would look very different and would be better in many ways. However, the prevailing ethos seems to be the idea that unfair advantages have minimal impact and that success is all due to "innate talent" and "giftedness."

@cgb5436: From Paul Halmos who attributed it to Andre Weil: First rate mathematicians hire other first rate mathematicians.  Second rate mathematicians hire third rate mathematicians.

In simple words, it is not necessary. However, it seems that the use of rubrics is becoming increasingly popular and is receiving unprecedented attention.
See here.
Even, the Virginia Tech Presidential Postdoctoral Fellowship RESEARCH FRONTIERS & CYBERSECURITY Proposed Scoring using Rubric. See here.

Wow! That's interesting.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How can I fix a relationship with a professor that has recently cooled?
What would be a good way to overcome bad experiences with a professor in my department, who is not my main advisor, but from whom I would like to get advice regularly?
During the first year of my PhD, I worked with the Professor in a class on a project that I didn't perform well on (because I was not very interested in that particular project + I didn't feel very confident on the topic by that time). Our relationship has cooled down since, and he was even debating whether or not to put me as a co-author on the paper that came out of the project with multiple students. (the authoring-issue is not part of this question; I mention it to describe the status of our relationship)
Now in my second year of my PhD, I realize that it would be quite valuable to have his advice on other projects that I work on, potentially even as a co-advisor, but I fear I messed up the relationship too badly.
What would be a good approach to overcome the bad/non-existing relationship? Or would that be a waste of time and I'd rather look for someone else, which could potentially even mean I need to change the focus of my PhD?

Can you maybe say a little about the nature of the relationship before it "cooled down"? That seems like it could be a pretty important factor in providing answers.

My general impression is that professors quite like giving advice (it's almost a job requirement...) but are incredibly busy. I would thus suggest you do not try to change 'your relationship' but focus on the task at hand, i.e. directly but politely ask whether your professor would be available to give you some advice.
Of course there is the possibility that your relationship is so bad that your professor will not even consider meeting with you. In that case I would not try to change his/her mind. Just treat it as a lost cause and move on.
In the more likely scenario of you managing to schedule a meeting it's important you are prepared and respectful of his/her time clearly signaling to your professor that his/her advice will be not be wasted. If you are clueless about your questions that will quickly signal to your professor that s/he is wasting her time. If however you seem genuinely interested and it looks like you are indeed benefiting from the advice I wouldn't be surprised if your relationship improves significantly and could even develop into something more formal like that of a co-advisor.
Either way: simply ask that you would like some advice, ideally explaining what makes his/her advice valuable to you. You'll find out how to proceed after that. Good luck!

+1 Good advice to focus on the task — after all, talk is cheap. You show by your current work and the quality of your questions that your attitude has changed. If the Prof mentions the prior poor performance, you can still honestly admit that you did bad work and show that you work hard to do better this time.

Request to meet with the professor. Make it very clear in the email/phone call/carrier pigeon note that you are looking to apologize for previous poor behavior/performance and want to make amends. He is busy, and he does not sound like the type to suffer fools; your emailing him is already making him suffer this fool (you) again, you need to clearly make him understand that you are apologizing.

When you meet, apologize. A good apology has three parts: (1) I'm sorry I screwed up. (2) I recognize that the screwup was my fault. (3) I won't do it again. You should offer all three.
If there was a good reason for poor past performance (personal illness, family situation, etc.), you can try to explain past behavior, but ONLY in the context of "...but that's no longer an issue so now I can be better." If you can't state that it won't be an issue don't bring it up. However, you will have to offer some form of "and here's why I'll be better this time around," because otherwise he has no real reason to take you on again.

Discuss your current request and ask whether he would be willing to help. Don't be upset if he says no or tells you that "he'll get back to you", which means no. Be polite and thank him for his time.

I think it is not clear whether an apology is needed; It may be that the professor got disinterested, and focused his time and attention elsewhere.

@VolkerSiegel - I was just going off the in the question, "I worked... on a project that I didn't perform well on..."

Yes, actually I do think your answer may apply. It's more about whether "I worked... on a project that I didn't perform well on..." implies that the that the professor did noticed or conclude his  work work was "not well". He may just have stopped paying attention, without doing the mental work of building a negative judgment.

I would advise you to just knock that professor's office door when you feel the need to meet him. Sending him an email to ask for an appointment could give him the opportunity to delay the appointment or to just answer you he is very busy for the next two to six months. When I feel the need to meet a professor of my department I just go and knock his office door. Generally, professors will listen me first, and if they are not available at the moment to talk to me, they give me an appointment. That is, I believe the best way to proceed.
I believe it will be scary for a professor to consent being a regular adviser to you while not being your official advisor. He may be scary to accept the title of regular consultant or advisor you want to honor him, thinking that your official advisor could apprehend that as a challenge or a competition to to him.

Foot-in-the-door strategy is good to force bureaucrats to sign the damn form, not if you're seeking academic guidance. I'd recommend visiting the person during scheduled office hours or organizing a meeting per email.

@CapeCode: "I'd recommend visiting the person during scheduled office hours or organizing a meeting per email." vs. "knock that professor's office door when you feel the need to meet him" - depending on the professor, these two can be roughly equivalent.

Invite him to lunch.  You pay.  Apologize for your poor past performance.  Ask for a fresh start.
For me, the simple offer to buy lunch works well when I have a strained relationship I'd like to fix or a new one I'd like to form.  I've been doing it for years in business and I do it now in academia.  I've bought a couple lunches this year alone for colleagues (other faculty) and I'll buy more next year.  What I find is that  if I make the offer, "Could I buy you lunch?", I instantly find out if a strained relationship is salvageable.  And if it's a new relationship, it's just a nice way to start it.
Can a student really offer to buy lunch for an instructor?  Well, sure.  Why not.  Speaking as an instructor, whether I actually let you pay is, of course, another matter.
Added:
A good point was raised in the comments about possible COI.  Speaking personally as faculty, if I felt that accepting the free lunch might raise COI or other ethical issues but I wanted to show my appreciation for the gesture, this is no problem at all.  I would say thank you but politely decline and then negotiate an alternative, e.g., meeting in my office.  But a lot depends on the lunch.  If the choices on campus are Subway and the food truck, either seems fine to me.  And anyway, I can always pay for my own when we actually get to the register.

Lecturers like lunch.

Is it common for PhD students to buy professors lunch? If those two are of different sexes this might lead to misunderstandings.

Faculty have clear ethical obligations not to misunderstand these things and to remain professional.

As academic setting - A student taking or offering a faculty member  'lunch' (or other gifts, etc) would make most everyone quite uncomfortable in most US university/departments. (more than seems implied in this answer).

If you had that concern as faculty but didn't want to seem unappreciative, could you propose an alternative, e.g., meeting at your office?  I think you raise a good point, but I think it also depends on the lunch.  If the only choices on campus are Subway and food trucks, how big is the COI?  And could you negotiate paying for your own sub?

Why would someone apologize for previous poor performance? Also offering to buy lunch is poor advice, it brings a strictly professional request on a terrain that would be much too familiar for many professors not to find it awkward.

You'd be apologizing that you did not deliver the performance for this person that you were capable of delivering and should have delivered.  You're apologizing that you did not work as hard as you should have and didn't care.  You left a bad impression and now you want a second chance to work with this individual.

Students inviting a faculty member for lunch is a highly unusual thing [in the US,UK, Germany]. I'd not recommend that at all.

Maybe lunch would be appropriate if you were trying to get the professor to become your advisor.  Otherwise this seems like too much, and therefore not likely to make you look more reliable than in the first impression you created.

If there's one thing these comments (and voting patterns!) bring out it's that customs vary widely. You may want to discussion this particular option with other faculty—specifically, ones with whom you have a better relationship—to judge it's appropriateness in your environment.

At best he/she will think you're slightly weird; at worst he/she will actually be offended.

I'm 65 yo and I have never in my life heard of anyone being offended by an invitation to lunch. If customs vary so much this is the way it works in your country, you live in a very strange place.

You see that from the view of a woman. In most first world countries when a 35+ male professor is out to lunch with a 25+year female student and other people (faculty, student) see them, they will probably think that he is trying to hit on her. That is why male professors have to avoid such social interactions outside their office.

In what "first world countries" does that happen?  It certainly isn't the US.

So in the US, all male professors go one-on-one out with all their female students and have drinks or lunches? I seriously doubt that.

Who said anything about drinks?  My example was the on-campus choice between Subway and the food truck.  I've had supervisors who were twice my age and some who were half.  I think it's sexist to imagine that if woman has lunch with an older male that drinks and sex are probably involved. If you saw two men having lunch, would you assume they must be gay? Women have lunches with a supervisors, peers and reports here in the US all the time and deserve respect. If you actually do speculate that sex must be involved in any real case, you'll create pretty good basis for a discrimination complaint.

I think the professor would most likely interpret it as a lack of understanding of the hierarchical relationship between faculty members and students. Maybe things are different in your department. I would never expect the advisor to accept.

I guess things are different because it would not be a problem in my department (where I am an instructor).  If an instructor didn't care to accept, he or she would simply say thanks but no thanks and suggest meeting in their office.  Certainly no one would be insulted or feel disrespected, nor would they start imagining they were being propositioned for sex.

Please take extended discussion to [chat].

I would approach an "intermediary," that is, another professor who knows you reasonably well, and who also knows the professor reasonably well. Explain the situation and "apologize" in the strongest terms to this third party, and ask for advice. The third party may advise you that it is a "lost cause," but more likely, will set up the meeting for you. The professor may ignore you, but is not likely to ignore his colleague.
If the second professor is able to set up a meeting or another channel of communication, that's your "second chance." Make the most of it.

Be honest with him. Tell him exactly what you told us in the question.
Admittedly it will be difficult to do this - being honest, open and vulnerable is a difficult thing to do, especially if you are not used to it.
He will appreciate your honesty and you will discover the fulfillment that comes from authentically expressing yourself.

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


text:
What are the disadvantages and advantages for a senior graduate student to restart after 6 years' study?
I am a graduate student in a physics department in US. My department's ranking is really low. In fact, you cannot even find the ranking in, say, usnews. This year is my 6th year and I am seeking a postdoc position in high energy phenomenology, and gravity related postdoc positions.
But I have a strong feeling that I will fail because of my background. Even if I got a postdoc position, I would still go to a low ranking institute. Having studied in this department for 6 years, I did not get very good training. There are many reasons, but one of them should be related to the department. I want to continue studying physics and do not quit completely. So I think I might transfer to a good university. But the problem is I already finish nearly 6 years graduate program now. It would be a waste of time to restart a new Ph.D program in a different university in some sense. But if not, I cannot see my future in academia.
I have no idea now. I really want to hear your advice and your experience. Thank you very much!

I stated that I did not get very good training. I think I need explain that a little bit more. There are many aspects. Firstly, I should blame myself. I should have transferred earlier. After I decided not to transfer, I should have worked harder. Perhaps, I am one of the best students in my department: probably, there are only two best students with whom no body else can compete no matter how hard they work. So I kind of lost motivation: I am not good at motivating myself. Although I did not motivate myself very much, I did like learning stuff. However, I liked learning mathematics by myself. Probably I spent too much time on math which is not very useful. (I like highly formal, abstract things, eg, topology) And there are many others...
On the other hand, I just want to say some thing about my department. Professors in my department are really nice. But they are not devoted to teaching very much. I am pretty sure that they understand their courses very well, but I could not get any deep insight after class. All I got was "plain text": I could even just read textbook instead of listening to their classes. There are only 3 professors in our group. Two are very old. One is too young.
Finally, about my own project. I am working on a project which is outside of my advisor's expertise. He does not have good projects, so he find a professor outside my department and asked him to offer a project. That professor is far away and, he did not work on related area either... Probably, I should not choose this project...  Edit based on comment:  Probably, I should not have chosen this project...

Did you actually produce decent publications, during these six years?

Up to now, I have 3 papers. One has been published about 2 years ago. The other is now accepted for publication and should be seen on journal next month. The 3rd has been submitted to a journal for a couple of weeks. I hope can produce more in the next few months. But ... it does not seem enough...

Some people finish their PhD with many papers to their name, some with one or two. I would be lying if I said that it doesn't make a difference, however your main duty has been to your PhD research up until now. Because of this, your first postdoc position depends on many factors. I think it would be wise to try your hardest to get a postdoc at an institution you deem "good", and have contingency plans. IMO, downplaying your current department won't be good for you - many successful researchers have come from unlikely places. You can also try abroad, where department standing may matter less.

I did not get very good training -- Could you please list the specific types of deficiencies you suspect?  Forget the ranking.  Just focus on what you think a physics PhD should know, and know how to do, and compare that with what you have learned.  Such a list would help us respond in a meaningful way.

@aparente001 I added some explanations to the original post. Hopefully, this will be useful. Thank you!

@DrakeMarquis - Helpful!  Now, could you explain where you stand with regard to your dissertation?  "Probably, I should not choose this project" -- does this mean you are poised to start your dissertation project?  Or are you regretting having chosen that project, now that you are getting ready to defend?  Or something in between?

@aparente001 I think you got confused because my grammar was wrong. I wanted to say " Probably, I should not have chosen this project". And I plan to graduate in at most 1 year, so I will start to write thesis soon. Now, because I am not confident that I can get a postdoc, I start to think about transferring to a better university and starting a new Ph.D. program. This is why I ask you guys to give some advice. Thanks!

It is very common to be beset by self-doubt at this point -- just when you are poised to begin writing.  (It's best if you can write as you go along, but sometimes the nature of the project does not permit that....)
(There are questions with good answers on this site about how to keep up your nerve during this final stage.  Helpful reading!)
In your case, these self-doubts are complicated by some weaknesses in your department and some frustrations you've had along the way.
Let me draw an analogy from parenting.  Most of the time, a parent will do best if he is really tuned into his baby or his small child, and his antennae are set to pick up subtle vibes from the child, so as to be as responsive as possible.
But there are situations in which this is actually counter-productive, and you have to detach yourself, and care for the child more or less on auto-pilot.  For example, if your child is the non-responsive type, and you are getting frustrated.  In this case, you have to back off emotionally, so as not to overwhelm the child.  It's okay, it won't be forever.  You just need to let the child's brain mature a bit more, and then try again, in small steps.
In your case, the thing you're going to have to train yourself to ignore, on a temporary basis, is the niggling voice in your head that makes the negative remarks and the probing, self-doubting questions.
You are very close, just keep plugging away!  Crank out an imperfect dissertation and move on with life.  You are not the only talented person to have attended a school that has some weaknesses.  Think of the Third World!  I once attended an agronomy class, "Farm Machinery", that was taught with posters the instructor had made on his kitchen table.  An actual tractor was not brought in until the last day of class, and then we did not even practice changing the oil.
For your postdoc, forget about rank -- look for a position where you will have comfortable, fruitful collaborations.

Thanks! I've been busy with my research project... Probably you are right. It is really dangerous to transfer and start a new Ph.D. program. What if I go to an even worse department? Even if this won't happen, I will spend way more time, which is probably not worthwhile.

It is important to finish what you started, especially if you are near completion.  It reflects poorly on you if you show on your resume that you had to leave your program prematurely. If for some reason you feel the institution/department that you get your degree from is inferior, you can always get a second graduate degree when you complete your PhD.  That would be much better than stopping now.
Your search for a post-doc will be guided by your publications and your ideas for future research.  Your research statement will be critical to your success, so you might want to practice writing short research proposals (e.g. think of a few research ideas and write a 5-10 pager for each one, describing the research scope and objectives).  In a field such as yours, it's important to think about more than just your direct research topic.  Also, the more long-term collaborative colleagues you can develop relationships with, the more your career will benefit.  You should strike up collaborations and get involved with writing funding applications (e.g. grants from government agencies).   As a post-doc, your success will be measured by your ability to find future funding (assuming you wish to stay in academia).  Subscribe to list serves that solicit for funding proposals so that you can see exactly what topics are getting funded.  Communicate with your colleagues about proposals you'd like to work with them on.  Expect only 10% of funding applications to be successful, even less as a first timer.
I don't see any benefit to restarting your program elsewhere.

Thanks for your comment! I am interested in getting a second graduate degree after my present one. But I heard that I cannot get physics Ph.D. twice. Is it true? Certainly, I would not try to get a second graduate degree immediately after finishing the present one.

authors: 社长千金的自我牺牲抛砖引玉_诱拐社长千金不以为然

authors: 蓝尺涧社长千金耳提面命_蓝泽润全部作品编号悬梁刺股

authors: 蓝沢闰社长千金左右逢源_深闺千金蓝泽润天府之国

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


text:
Do people still read monographic dissertations (in the Natural Sciences)?
I'm in the natural sciences (astrophysics) and in my experience, virtually nobody has the time to read monographs anymore (specifically dissertations). Most people don't even read entire papers. I know my peers feel the same, but I wonder if there are any studies that have done research on this?
I'm also aware that in the arts, humanities, and social sciences, monographs also still play a much bigger role beyond the dissertation, and I found this article, which looks at publications and sales of monographs in those fields. They basically find that while print sales are down, the overall number of published monographs are up (due to digital publications). However, these fields have quite a different research/publication culture, and especially in times of exponential growth in the publication rate of all scientific literature and open access, the total number of publications is likely not representative for the number of reads.
They also don't discuss the recent decline in attention span due to the rise of the internet, mobile phones, and social media, etc. (see e.g. here or here), and the overwhelming amount of available resources and literature, which is forcing you to make tough decisions between what to read, and to allocate your time more efficiently than ever before. (I also found this interesting interview, but I did not find the study that they mention.)
EDIT:
Since this question was unfortunately closed for unjustified reasons, and people refuse to reinstate it, I cannot answer my own question. I thus post what I found out below, in hopes that it may be useful and informative to somebody else:

In the Natural Sciences, the monograph has long been replaced by the journal article as the primary means of scholarly communication (e.g., Mabe 2009, 2010; Mabe et al. 2011; Ware et al. 2015; Johnson et al. 2018; Tenopir et al. 2019; Dietz 2022).
Additionally, monographic dissertations are increasingly replaced by cumulative dissertations, which is a common format by now (e.g., Dong 1998; Wilson 1998; Sharmini et al. 2015; Autry et al. 2016; Frick 2016; Anderson et al. 2020, 2021; Donner 2021; Kubota et al. 2021; Paltridge et al. 2023).
Even in the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, where monographs still play an important role beyond the dissertation, the demise of the monograph is extensively debated (although the reasons for it are manifold and it's not just due to a lack of readership, e.g., Steele 2008; van der Weel 2015, 2016; Thomas et al. 2016; Crossick 2016; Mrva-Montoya 2016; Gould 2016; Paré 2019; Clark et al. 2020; Shaw et al. 2022).
The human attention span (or at least the time that we allocate to any specific activity) may have significantly declined over the past two decades (e. g., Duffy et al. 2022; Ducharme 2023; Mark 2023; niplav 2023), while the number of scientific publications per year has massively increased over the same period.
Consequently, it has never been more crucial to decide what to read and how much of it (e. g., Nicholas et al. 2004, 2007; Baron et al. 2021). As Baron (2015) aptly puts it: “One of the major effects of digital screens is to shift the balance from continuous reading to reading on the prowl ... The result? The meaning of ‘reading’ increasingly becomes ‘finding information’—and often setting for the first thing that comes to hand—rather than ‘contemplating and understanding’.”

So in conclusion, there are in fact studies on the reading behaviour of scientists (Nicholas et al. 2004, 2007; Baron et al. 2021), and they find that long-form reading is in decline. They don't address monographic dissertations specifically, but there is no reason to assume that this finding doesn't also apply to them. Additionally, the vanishing relevance of monographs in the Natural Sciences and the increasing popularity of cumulative dissertations show that there is a clear lack of interest in monographic dissertations.
I admit that this is still not a conclusive answer to the overarching question of my post "Do people still read monographic dissertations (in the Natural Sciences)?", but I think there is much evidence that people are likely not reading monographic dissertations in meaningful numbers anymore, at least not in the way that monographs are supposed to be read, which is front to back. Monographs derive their strength from their overarching coherence: ideally, every part was written with the whole in mind. That way, they should provide a better/more comprehensice picture to a reader than a cumulative dissertation might ever be able to achieve. But if monographic dissertations are not read as a whole anymore, they lose their defining strength. And in that way, I think it is fair to say that, indeed, people do not read monographic dissertations in a meaningful way anymore (at least in the Natural Sciences).
In fact, given that monographic dissertations only emerged in a form comparable to the current format during a time (around the 19th century, e.g., Allweiss 1979; Meadows 1980; Bazerman 1988; Kruse 2006; Paltridge et al. 2020) when journal papers began to completely replace monographs as the primary means of scientific communication in the Natural Sciences, I would even doubt if monographic dissertations were ever read in a way similar to how papers are read today.

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

Not sure if I understand what you're asking. The obvious answer is "of course they do", since publishers still publish monographs, and no publisher would do that if they didn't expect to make some sales. But then what exactly is it that you want to know?

@Allure thank you for asking! Of course I don't mean this question in the most literal sense--there will always be people who read monographic dissertations. But is it still a meaningful number of people? And do they still read them in their entirety or do they mostly just skim them? Also, publications and sales do not equate readings. Sometimes you're also forced to buy a book because you are interested in a detail that isn't available elsewhere. But that doesn't mean that you then read the entire dissertation, or that you wouldn't prefer this info to be available in a different format.

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


text:
Was offered a PhD position, I accepted it but no replies afterwards from the potential supervisors
I gave an interview for a Phd position and I was offered the position within a day of the interview. I accepted the offer withing two days (before the deadline) and sent an email stating my acceptance of the offer to the supervisor who interviewed me. No acknowledgement was given  and thereafter I have not received any further emails from their side. I sent another email to follow up and ask if they received my first email, but still no replies. It is now been 2 weeks since they last emailed me. Should I keep waiting, or send another email or just move on and apply for other positions.
I tried all emails I could find to contact them. It is not an email delivery problem, since I corresponded with them using the same email many times before the interview took place and I am receiving emails from other people without any problem.
Edit : Now I have another PhD offer and have a deadline to acfept and reject. Still no replies from the first offer. It is almost been a month now.
What would be the best way to go ahead in this situation? I don't want to be dishonest by accepting both offers and but I also don't want to lose both in case the first offer doesn't work out.
The first offer was not an official one. The email read ' We would like to offer you in the position.'

Try again.  There is a crisis.  People are more busy than usual, and usual is pretty busy.

Can you find a phone number of the professor or some secretary related to his chair? But even if you find a number, they might be in their home office and might not answer the phone.

How long has it been since the actual deadline for acceptance?

After the offer, I was given 3 days to accept. I accepted on the second day. It is been 12 days since the deadline.

I did try a phone number @usr1234567 but no one picked up. Must be the same reason you pointed out.

Thanks,  @Anonymous Physicist.

Ordinarily, I'd say not to worry, but given the current situation I can understand being concerned. Have you contacted the department the professor is a member of? They might be able to respond on the professor's behalf.

How many different people have you tried to contact?

By "PhD position" do you mean a job for people who hold PhDs or for a PhD studentship? What country? | Also, why the [thesis] tag?

@Bryan Krause, I tried to contact two people who interviewed me.

@Worriedandwaiting Can you try contacting some administrative staff? Who did you receive the offer from? Was it a formal (like a legal contract) or informal offer ("we'd love to have you")?

@Azor ahai , A Phd studentship. A PhD thesis, at least that's what I meant from the tag . The position is in Austria.

@Bryan krause, the offer was not an official one. The email read 'We would like to offer you this position.' I did try contacting HR. I guess everything is closed due to the pandemic.

@Bryan Krause, Done.

How did it go? tell us!

Hi @EarlGrey , the supervisor did reply after 45 days. I was worried until then. They did not explain or give any reason for the delay in replying. Towards the end, I messaged the supervisor asking them to confirm their offer or I stated that it was in my best interest to accept the other offer. They reconfirmed their offer. So it ended well.

Corona crazy time! Good luck with your research!

I don't think you have any reason to worry. Under the current strain and disruption of the pandemic people aren't able to do the things they would normally do. A couple of weeks isn't very long after a deadline as there are probably quite a few administrative tasks that seem to them to be more important to them than reassuring students. The professor in question might have additional issues preventing them from responding in a timely manner (or at all, if they are ill or caring for a family member).
Assume that all is well. You've done what was required of you.
Don't keep hammering, though, as it just makes their workload worse.
On the other hand, you are due an acknowledgement that all is well. A once-a-week email is probably appropriate until you get confirmation.
Note that normal phone numbers aren't being answered at some places. Buildings are locked and people are forbidden to enter, even to retrieve personal effects.

You could, however, keep abreast of any news pertaining to that university by doing web searches. There is a lot of disruption and universities are planning how to finish out this year and finding ways to be flexible for next. Bad things are happening. They could continue to happen.

Thanks a lot Buffy. I will just wait for another week before sending my third email.

I have an opportunity to interview for a new PhD position now. Not sure how to explain my situation to them. Still no replies from the first PhD offer. Should i go for the interview? Or would it be dishonest to attend the interview?


text:
Estimating postdoc salary with "30% ruling" in the Netherlands and is postdoc a "scientific" position?
I'm trying to estimate the salary of a postdoc position in the Netherlands. I know that if approved for the "30% ruling," 30% of the gross income is tax-free. But, there are three category in the 30% ruling: (i) Scientific position (for which salary is not a bar); (ii) under 30 with MSc (mainly for the PhDs); and (iii) 'other' category.
I'm using the tool www.thetax.nl to estimate it (I'm not affiliated with it or endorsing it)
Here is the situation:

Gross annual salary (including holiday allowance): 47297
Recruitment: from abroad. She is living (>150kms)
since forever.
Last degree: PhD (this is a fresh start to a postdoc position).
Age: 30 before starting the position.

My questions are:

If a postdoc gets approved for 30% ruling, then will he/she be considered under scientific position (for which salary is not a bar) or 'other' category of the ruling?
What will be rough monthly salary?

What is a 30% ruling?

If you move to the Netherlands from abroad, for some jobs, your income tax is 30% less. You can also opt to pay 30% less towards your pension pot.

@Rob More precisely, 30% of the gross income is tax-free.

@lighthouse keeper: the 30% of the gross income is tricky to calculate, depends on many factors (age, skilled labour, post-30% amount of salary). Generally, 30% rule applicable as long as your post-30% salary is not lower than the minimum taxable salary set by CAO. However, this doesn't apply to scientific research. And, THIS is the reason we aren't able to find the right numbers. If she qualifies for scientific category, then a (rough) flat 30% can be assumed, otherwise, only a portion of Salary (<30%) is tax-free.

@Andy_Jake "otherwise, only a portion of Salary (<30%) is tax-free." Where did you find that information? Back when I researched the 30% ruling, my impression was that the reduction is the same 30% for everyone who's eligible.

Pasting from https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/living/take-care-of-official-matters/highly-skilled-migrants/thirty-percent-ruling/30-percent-ruling-indepth: An employee who is 35 years old receives a salary of €50,000. If the 30% ruling would be taken into account in full, his taxable salary would be €35,000. This is lower than the mandatory salary and therefore not allowed. In this case, he would only benefit from the 30% ruling partially, for a maximum amount of (€50,000 -/- €36,889) €13,111.

@Andy_Jake Ah yes, the minimum-salary condition. That is addressed explicitly on the same page: "Furthermore, for scientific researchers, employees working in scientific education or doctors in training, no minimum salary is required."


text:
Do I have to tip the bartenders and hotel staff, when a U.S. University hosts an event for researchers?
Prior to the COVID-19 lockdown, I attended a generously-funded research meeting that included a hotel stay, free dinners and bar drinks.  There was a dedicated bar section just for us.
I always wondered: At these funded events, should I tip the bartenders and hotel staff, or can I assume that the University takes care of not only the bill but also the gratuity that is expected by the service staff?
I landed up tipping on most times, but the few times that I did not, it felt a bit awkward -- walking away with a beer without tipping the bartender seemed rude

I would guess that there are policies around this and that they vary widely. And, of course, the expectations around tipping vary widely by country as well.

Definitely not in scope at this site, I'd say :-(

I’m voting to close this question because this has nothing to do with academia but with expectations in the leisure industry.

@WolfgangBangerth it's not about tipping for a generic hotel/bar/restaurant stay, but specifically for conferences with international travellers. This differs both from personal/leisure travel, and travel working for private companies where the rules for reimbursement of expenses are different.

I always figured that, even as a grad student, I made more money then them. Plus they often had good restaurant tips. You have no way of knowing whether some contract between a university and a hotel/conference center covers tips to their staff. Give them a tip, enjoy a little conversation, and move on...

I think it's in scope. It's a common situation at academic conferences.

Big contracts like that would usually include gratuity. It has never crossed my mind to tip on gratis drinks.

Plus, who carries cash? If there's no credit card terminal, there's not really anyway for me to tip.

At least at some such events I've attended, there has been a tip jar on the bar, which seemed a clear indication that tips were expected or at least welcomed.

One idea is to avoid hotel stays altogether. In many cities in the US, one can book an apartment instead.

@lighthousekeeper How does that help either a) hotel staff, or b) housing affordability?

In the end, you are asking whether you should pay out of your own pocket for work. No. You should not have to pay out of your own pocket anything in order to perform your work duties; and despite what some would say, this kind social events are very much part of work (see elsewhere on this site). Either the organizers should step up, or you should get reimbursed by your employer, like for any travel-related expense.
Now, you might very well be in the situation where the organizers and your employer have both failed. You should first realize that this is their failure, not yours. And if you do tip despite all that, you should recognize that you are going above and beyond what is required of you to help other workers (the hotel/bar staff) who are criminally underpaid make it to the end of the month. But this is an act of charity, not something that is expected of you professionally.

I mean, I agree - any tip should be reimbursable, but it doesn't really answer the question of whether you should tip (and submit)

No no no. You aren't working for them. They are giving you a service. If you believe (correctly) that they are criminally underpaid and don't tip, then you are participating in an unjust system.

It is typical for catering contracts to include some sort of 'service fee' that serves like a 'tip', and you can assume that the staff are paid a better base wage than tip-supported employees typically are. Even regular restaurants often have a non-optional 'tip' added on for larger parties (thresholds vary but "8 or more" seems common).
That said, employees in these businesses are not high-income earners, and probably make less total take-home pay per hour than their tipped equivalents (bartending, especially, can be a relatively lucrative position in the service industry at the right venue).
If you appreciate their service, if they do something above and beyond, if you're in a generous mood, or if the cost makes you feel less awkward, feel free to tip; it won't seem like you are throwing money around or anything negative like that.
If you don't have cash and especially if you aren't asking for anything special, you can have a clean conscience that you haven't committed a faux pas by not tipping in this circumstance.


text:
A reference that is old, has no bibtex entry, and probably not well-known throughout the readership. How to cite this?
I am writing an article for an audience that mostly consists of computer scientists. A specific part of the subject is motivated by Kirchhoff's laws. I intend to mention this fact and reference the rules. But that is easier said then done. Apparently, Kirchhoff predates referencing.
How to reference a source that is so old, it has no bibtex entry, but is also probably not well-known  throughout the readership?
edit: I want to clarify, that I can also imagine to not reference it at all, but I find it difficult to draw a line here. Can I assume that every reader is familiar with a term? For instance, can I omit a citation to Damas/Hindley/Milner when introducing ML to modeling engineers? How about Newton's method for computer scientists?

What do you mean by predates referencing and has no bibtex entry (I can easily make one if I know the bibliographic data). Anyway, the German Wikipedia tells me this is the publication you are looking for and a quick glance seems to confirm it.

Why would you cite this?  Providing citations for standard undergraduate-level material will just make you look like an amateur, ill informed about academic norms.

That is a valid concern. But I occasionally find it hard to define where the limit is. Especially when writing about subjects that are related to multiple fields.

@Wrzlprmft Even hand-crafting a BibTeX entry is unnecessary in this case, since you can download one from the journal's website... I too am a little confused as to in what sense this paper "predates referencing". I would just cite it like any other paper, whether or not I could find a canned BibTeX entry for it.

Re: Edit: Kirchhoff's laws are undergraduate (possibly high-school) material for anyone who's taken Physics, and Newton's method is covered in most Calc I courses.  In both cases, you can expect an audience of college-educated computer scientists to know of (if not be familiar with) these laws.  However, Damas/Hindley/Milner isn't typical undergraduate material for most modeling engineers, so that might need some explanation/citation.

Not having a bibtex entry shouldn't prevent an article from being cited. Imagine if mathematicians were not allowed to mention Aristotle or Pythagoras just because bibtext didn't exist back then.

As your audience can't be assumed to know German, I suggest that while you may or may not choose to cite it, if you do, you also cite a more accessible text ("see any undergraduate electronics textbook, for example introduction to Electronics, by Smith and Jones")

For cases like this, unless you want to give a historical reference, there's usually no need to cite the primary source, you can just cite your favourite circuit theory book.
Anyway, if you really wish, you can certainly cite the original paper too, which can be found, e.g., here.
For what concerns the added question on where to draw the line, you can have a look at the following question, and the answers therein: How generous should I be with citations?

I am writing an article for an audience that mostly consists of computer scientists. A specific part of the subject is motivated by Kirchhoff's laws. I intend to mention this fact and reference the rules. But that is easier said then done. Apparently, Kirchhoff predates referencing.

Your statements make no sense. It's like saying that you want to use Pythagoras's theorem "but that is easier said than done. Apparently, Pythagoras predates the English language." It is trivial to cite any paper you wish: just write the necessarily BibTeX.
The fact that no references appear in Kirchhoff's paper is completely irrelevant to whether or not you should use references. You are writing today, not in the 1840s, and today's standards apply to you.

How to reference a source that is so old, it has no bibtex entry, but is also probably not well-known throughout the readership?

You write you own BibTeX entry! BibTeX is just a language, like LaTeX.
However, it isn't necessary to give citations for such basic material as Kirchhoff's laws. They're part of standard high school education, so you can assume that everybody knows them. And, even if somebody doesn't know them, the phrase "Kirchhoff's laws" is specific enough that they can Google it and get the answer.

"And, even if somebody doesn't know them, the phrase "Kirchhoff's laws" is specific enough that they can Google it and get the answer." That's what I've been wondering about throughout this entire thread. Also, I don't see how a precise reference to Kirchhoff's original paper would be of use to the intended audience. If the intent is to indicate how old the result is, one could simply say something like "Kirchhoff's laws (formulated in 1845)". Of course, now one has to spend some time making sure they weren't formulated (or communicated to others) several years prior to publication . . .

@DaveLRenfro I'd certainly expect more of the audience to know Kirchhoff's laws than know enough German to read Kirchhoff's paper.

Yep, I completely overlooked that part, and I'm someone who struggles pretty much every few days with 1800s mathematical literature in French, German, and Italian (the 3 main languages that show up)!


text:
How to find decent translator for technical jargon for application?
I am in a somewhat difficult situation, and I am not sure if this is the right site to ask this; feel free to close this question if not.
There is a refugee from Syria who has been studying computer science in Syria before he fled. He was 2 months away from graduating. I am currently helping him to get back to his studies (in Germany). To avoid that he has to start all over again, I need a translation of his official University course descriptions from Arabic to German or English.
I have tried two normal translators, who where quite expensive. The results they produced were of very poor quality, since a lot of technical terms are used in these descriptions. I study computer science myself and am thus able to judge the quality of the translation. I am often not able to tell what they mean. I am pretty sure that this is due to the lack of knowledge of technical terms of the translator, not because of the document itself. They try to translate the terms, but it is not clear what they mean. For example "programming paradigms" was translated to "kinds of different types of programming languages", and that is one of the few I was able to guess what was actually meant. With this quality it is very unlikely that he won't have to start from the beginning again.
So how or where can I get a decent translation of computer science technical terms from Arabic for an application to university, so other people at least somewhat knowledgeable in the field understand without too much thought?

A note: though his state as a refugee might count, are you sure that the university would accept a non-official translation?

There is a professor who is somewhat helping me/him out, so anything would be a good start. There might also be the option to have an official translator sign that this non-official translation is correct.

Can't the applicant help translate?  If not, they are likely to struggle greatly in their new school in any case.

Has the university considered offering credit by exam or portfolio for at least some classes? That way, he could say something like, "Maybe I can't prove that what I took is equivalent to your course, but here is my implementation of QuickSort and I'm ready to take the tests in algorithm efficiency analysis and object inheritance patterns."

Have a Syrian PhD student / faculty member do a translation, and have the translation validated by an accredited translator? This avoids translators the work of finding the correct technical term, but they can easily validate the matching of terms and overall content between both documents.

Yes that is what I am trying now. I doubt that they will look through his "Implementation of QuickSort".

When I was applying for my masters in Germany, I was in similar situation and did basically what @SteveDL recommended: I translated the whole description for all of my courses myself and then took it to a "certified" translator, who just read the text and stamped it with her seal for around 1/3 of the regular price. Of course, this is only available if you can find a translator willing to do such a thing. How acceptable that is, depends on local culture.

Find a local firm of patent attorneys and ask them what translators they use.
Patent specifications and patent applications are full of technical terminology. Holders of a foreign patent wanting to establish their rights in your country will need their patent translated into your local language. Patent firms routinely use the services of translation firms that specialise in translating technical documents. The translators don't guess at the meaning of specialist terms if they don't know the most appropriate translation --- they will query and check candidate translations.


text:
Referring to individual chapters in a review of an edited volume
I have to write a review of an edited volume and wonder what the best approach would be to cite individual papers, to which I refer. The review is for a bulletin rather than a journal and the format is quite open. I want to give enough info that the reader can locate any chapters of interest but think that putting the full titles in the main body will take up too much space, whereas adding a reference/endnote for each chapter seems like overkill. There are 12 chapters overall and I plan to refer to most of them. The field is computer science.

Perhaps you should ask at TeX-LaTeX

Cite them normally. At least BibTeX has a feature to refer to another entry (the book as a whole, in this case) in the entry for the individual article, giving something like 'A. N. Author, "Random ramblings", pages 111-123 in [reference-of-the-book]' in the bibliography.
For techniques/tools for writing papers, you should perhaps ask at TeX-LaTeX.

From my answer to a similar question, How to cite chapter in book?, on tex.stackexchange.com:

I think the best policy is never to talk of chapter numbers in the reflist at all, and move talk of chapter numbers, on the few occasions they are needed, to the citation in the main text. But of course you can't always choose. So, if you must use a particular Bibtex style that uses chapters, then include them in your *.bib files, and avoid Bibtex styles that allow you to refer to chapter numbers in the reference list whenever you can.


text:
Is it worth doing a second Bachelor's degree?
Currently, I am studying for a Bachelor's degree in Economics and Finance in Australia. Although I find my program enjoyable, I have a particular interest in mathematics, particularly on the econometrics and proof-based economics side, and I believe that pursuing a STEM degree would allow me to further challenge myself while building more questioning skills.
Therefore, I am considering pursuing a second Bachelor's degree in Mathematics after completing my current degree. I am wondering if this would be a worthwhile endeavor and what other factors I should take into consideration before making this decision. Additionally, I am also contemplating dropping my current degree to start the B.Math program immediately. However, I am aware that there may be other factors that I am not considering and would appreciate any advice on this matter.
I have also researched into "conversion programs" - would these be worth pursuing vs another Bachelor's?

I think the answer depends on your situation, which is not clear. How far are you into your current degree? Can you take math electives that would satisfy your interests? Why do you feel you should restart a bachelors vs applying to a graduate program that aligns with your interests and career goals once you graduate? What long term opportunities would a bachelors in math serve that your current degree would not?

Thank you for the reply! Figuring out how to use StackExchange now, let me know if its unconventional to reply in another comment.
My current degree is four years long, and I am currently in the first half of the 3rd year. I can take math electives, but I only have three left. I am also planning to do an honours thesis, which should have a strong quantitative grounding (I am looking to examine market anomalies for a finance thesis).
I initially looked toward another bachelors as I began reading finance literature, and found myself more drawn to mathematical finance. Cont. in next comment

After reading some mathematical finance research, I loved the subject matter and could see myself pursuing it as a career. However most practitioners of mathematical finance, particularly those making heavy decisions (buy-side), tend to be from more mathematics grounded backgrounds, often PhDs. Thus I thought a Bachelor's in mathematics would be useful to begin pursuing this. However, I am unsure if I would want to commit to a PhD; I plan to explore whether I enjoy research through my honours year. Hopefully that provides enough context, please let me know if anything else is needed.

Another more irrational factor was that I really enjoyed Specialist Mathematics in high school, and I miss having those challenging problems to work at. However, I understand that learning techniques and then solving pre-solved equations can only really last at a high-school level, while the real world requires innovation to thrive in.

Does this answer your question? Are two undergraduate degrees better than one master degree?

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/27807/is-a-second-bachelors-degree-worth-it

After reading your comments, it sounds like you are interested in a subfield of finance and economics. And it sounds like you are concerned about liking research and committing to a graduate program. This is not my field so I can only offer advice based on my general experience.
I personally would not do another bachelor's. Committing to a PhD can be intimidating. But is it really significantly less of a commitment than a second bachelors considering that it sounds like you would still need a PhD in the end? If you don't like research, what does this second bachelors alone get you? Perhaps someone here or at your university could provide you with some field specific insight. But for now, I'll assume that you need a PhD.
So my advice is:

If possible, spend your remaining time exploring this new interest. Take electives that are related to or important for that field.
If you want to pursue it further, apply for graduate programs. Masters are almost always shorter than both bachelors and PhDs. Also, (field dependent) masters often do not require research to the same extent as a PhD - sometimes a thesis that can often amount to a large literature review. I assume there are master's degrees available in this or a closely related field. If you wanted to pursue a PhD, it would be much easier to pivot in that direction from a masters.

I found myself in a similar situation in undergrad. I completed a masters and pivoted into a professional doctoral program vs accepting a PhD position at my institution. No real time was lost, and I never felt like I was "stuck" with a decision. There were other factors in my decision, obviously my situation is not the same as yours. But to sum up, don't be afraid to "commit" to a field you are interested in. There are plenty of ways to pivot if you want. You're never going to be stuck.

Thank you for the advice, it helps a lot. I'll keep a look out for masters to pivot with.

Persons usually do not actually earn two separate bachelor's degree. They simply take additional courses in another field, and the university gives them another diploma. But in most cases, they do not retake the first two years of a bachelor's degree program. Regardless, adding another degree at the bachelor's degree is useless, unless you switched to a subject like electrical engineering, etc from something like history. In most cases, you are better off to add a master's degree in your chosen field.

I'm not sure it's fair to say that people "usually do not actually earn two separate bachelor's degree". People often earn duel majors by doing as you say, taking extra classes. This doesn't seem to be the case in the OP's question.

I suppose my transition may not be as drastic as history -> EE, so hopefully I can find something around a conversion degree or diploma that can transfer me to more mathematical endeavours.


text:
Meaning of providing a reference
I have been applying for graduate level positions at several labs in the US, and I received the following reply from the PI of one of the labs I applied to - "if you are interested you should provide two or three references who are willing to write letters of recommendation for you, and we should then also schedule a Zoom interview."
What does providing references exactly mean? Should I just include the name, details and email of my referees and send it via email to the potential supervisor, who would in turn contact them for the recommendations or should I email the people on my list of referees and ask them to drop an email with my letter of recommendation to the potential supervisor's email?
I am confused. Please let me know what is the norm in academia and how should I proceed.
Thanks!

It is a bit ambiguous. You can ask for details. But before you provide names and contact information, ask the potential recommenders for permission and say that a letter will probably be asked for. Don't let it be a surprise.
I hope, but assume, that they want a letter and not a conversation with recommenders. That would be the norm.
Normally letters come with the application itself. Here they seem to be willing to delay the need for them until they speak (zoom) with you. But give everyone a heads up so they can be thinking about what to write or say.
And three letters is pretty typical.

Actually I received the email from the PI of the lab I applied to, not from the graduate admission department. Does the same answer still hold?

Yes, probably more so. The admissions office would be more likely to just ask letters be sent with less ambiguity. Presumably you haven't formally applied yet. Look at the requirements. In the US acceptance is most likely by a committee.

The thing is, I am not applying for a specific programme at the university. I would want to work for my graduate level thesis (masters) at that lab while being enrolled at another university.

That is a bit unusual. Make sure everyone is on board with your plan. But the same advice holds. Warn your recommenders and let them know the details.

I think it is best for you to ask them for more details (to know if they want the contact information of referees or just the letters of recommendation).

Sometimes, they want to have a short conversation with the referees via email.
Here is the academic reference/letters of recommendation section in the guide for Master of Philosophy applicants at the University of Queensland (UQ). I have found it useful as it shows everything I need to include in my application to UQ (no more, no less). It is likely to be the same for Doctor of Philosoply applicants.
Furthermore, the application will not be finalized until the Graduate Office manages to contact the academic referees and receives the letters of recommendation from them.
Academic referees
Please provide us with two referees who can comment on your academic work. For each referee, include their:

honorific and name
role title
employing organisation and the city and country where they are located
contact details, including office address, telephone, fax and email (preferably an institutional, rather than private, email address), and
an indication of the capacity in which you know this person (e.g. were they a lecturer or thesis supervisor, an employer, how long you’ve known them etc.).

References/letters of recommendation
Include the contact details of two referees who will support your application. These referees will need to provide insight into your research experience.
We will contact your referees for a report, but you will need to enter their details into the application form.

I attach the link as a comment.
https://study.uq.edu.au/study-options/programs/master-philosophy-7500#how-to-apply

This seems to me to be a bit unusual for the US, though.

Yes. It is definitely unusual.


text:
Difference among the articles to be get published in journal, proceedings, magazines, transactions
I wrote some papers in my field (mathematics), but they differ in length. Most of my papers are on the longer end (50-100 pages) and the others are short (5-20 pages). I failed to find out that what is the exact journal for lengthy or shorter math papers. I decided to publish these papers either in journals or proceedings or magazines or transactions or bulletin or notes etc..
But the main problem is that most of these journals are length restricted.
So, what journal can I choose to publish long length paper or short length papers in? And what is the defference among proceedings, magazines, transactions, journal, notes, bulletin etc.?

Do you have an advisor?  Some other mentor?  This really isn't a question that can be answered in the abstract.

Every journal will state its length requirements somewhere in the submission materials. AMS also gives guidance overall for its various journals.


text:
Finished MMath in 2018. Should I undertake a MSc in Statistics to evidence prerequisite knowledge for a Statistics PhD?
I graduated with an MMath degree in 2018 and am interested in applying for a PhD in Statistics. However, I don't have a Statistics MSc and have been outside of formal undergraduate maths education for four years.
My MMath degree specialised in Quantum Mechanics and, at the time, I wasnt able to pursue a PhD in Quantum Mechanics. After graduating, I taught GCSE and A-Level Maths for three years and am now teaching on a Level 3 Statistics programme at a relatively new university here in the UK.
As a result of the soft skills I've developed as a teacher, I now feel ready and able to pursue a PhD in Mathematics. I've forgotten a lot of the quantum stuff and I am much more familiar with Statistics and enjoy teaching it. I've spent the last six months learning MSc Statistics content and R by using online resources that are available to me.
I would greatly appreciate any advice on the below:

I've been out of formal uni-level maths training. Would it be a good move to fund myself through an MSc to evidence and (more importantly) develop my understanding of some MSc Statistics content?

Following on from Point 1, I would of course need an academic reference to apply for an MSc or a PhD. However, I've changed a lot since 2018 and am unsure as to whether a reference from my previous academic supervisor would not be as effective as a reference from a more recent referee. Would it be a good idea to do another masters so that I have a more recent and more relevant reference?

Thank you for your time!

Can you explain what MMath stands for?  Also, tell us what math and stats  you know and what math you teach, without reference to exams in the UK.  I barely know what is on the GRE math subject exam and that is common where I live.  The main thing I know about maths A-levels is that Rachel Riley passed that exam.

I think it would be better to apply for PhD courses that include half a year or a full year of taught courses at the start. These might be designed as 3.5 or 4 year courses from the start, or there might be a master's degree for one year that then carries on to a PhD if both sides agree.
Four years is not such a long time to be out of formal study, especially if you have been teaching and working in a university and studying on your own.

No, it is not a good idea to fund yourself, not least for financial reasons. It is better to apply for MSc or PhD courses with funding. As for developing understanding of some MSc content, you have been doing that on your own already and that sounds good.

You certainly don't need to do a master's just to get a reference. You can use a reference from your current job and one from your degree four years ago.

Not to be advertising, or anything, but the US is a good place to execute such a plan, though it might be longer than 4 years here.

@user161329 Thank you for accepting my answer, but actually I recommend that you un-accept it, which might increase the chance of getting more answers. At least talk to a few other people and don't just rely on my opinion!

I think it is a good answer. But also there is an advantage for the OP to wait for a few days or a few answers before accepting any. Sometimes accepting an answer discourages others from answering.

Thank you both for your input! First time here