text:
Struggle to regain lost passion in physics
I am a PhD student currently in my second to last year. Last year something weird happened, my supervisor forced me into projects in which I was not interested. He forced me into collaborations which I didn't want. Actually, I had already written some papers in collaboration and was trying to work independently on my own ideas. But he didn't pay a lot of attention to my ideas and calculations and asked me to jump on projects which he felt could result in a paper really fast. I did it but it broke my spirit. Having to work on things I had no interest in made me lose my motivation.
I came into physics from another field. I could have gotten a wonderful job but I left it all for physics because I love it. But after being forced to work on things that didn't interest me multiple times and not letting me do my own stuff and not paying attention to them, I lost all interest in the field. Everything felt like a waste of time. Actually I always had this idea in my mind that PhD is the time when you are supposed to learn to become an independent researcher and this situation made me feel that it was a waste of time. Also, my supervisor is obsessed with the number of papers, which resulted in average papers that could have been far better if he wasn't so hasty. I was ready to risk spending a long time on projects but he wasn't. Afterall, how can you expect to publish good results if you do not risk losing time on dead end directions? Anyway, since then I have been struggling to regain my passion and it has been a year now. I am finally allowed to do my own things but it feels useless now since I lost my drive so badly that I am finding it hard to get back on track.
Therefore, my questions to academics here: can you provide some suggestions/methods/ways to regain my lost passion since right now is the crucial time in my PhD and I feel I am wasting time because of my disrupted mindset?

Take a break. Change supervisor. Physics is a great topic, but the wrong supervisor can mess it up for you.

I won't say that "passion" is useless, but it is not a switch you can turn on and off. Nor is this a bad thing. I am somewhat older, and I have felt a passion for pure mathematics, but this was a feeling that came and went. I would say this is the normal order of things. At first when you get into a new subject (either physics as a whole or a subdiscipline, or sub-subdiscipline) you feel excited, but it wears off.  Familiarity breeds contempt, and thorough mastery of a subject will lead inevitably to a kind of jadedness. I can feel a kind of spark when I explain something that I once found exciting to someone for whom it is unfamiliar. But this is an interpersonal thing, and I actually always feel I must warn them not to fall in love with intellectual constructs too soon.
In any case, passion will not sustain you in the long run. It is true for marriages, and it is also true for academic pursuits.

Good supervisory practice should not kill the student's passion for the subject
If you'll indulge me, I'm going to give an "answer" here that is actually directed to supervisors and is tangential to your question.  This is important to add because your question raises some important issues about good supervisory practice.  My answer won't necessarily solve your immediate problem (though it might help you have a productive conversation with supervisors), but hopefully it might diminish the prospect of it occurring to others.

When supervising a PhD student, there is sometimes a trade-off between two desirable goals you want to help the student achieve: (1) establishing a publication record that will lead to entry-level career prospects in research; and (2) allowing the student freedom to explore ideas of interest to them to develop their passion for the subject.  Established academics are cognisant of the reality of "publish or perish" and we know that the competition for research positions in academia and elsewhere is fierce (and there is a huge overproduction of PhD graduates in the market).  Therefore, many well-meaning supervisors focus heavily on (1) at the expense of (2), knowing that they may be short-changing their PhD students if they don't push them hard enough to produce publications and help them gain entry-level academic positions after graduation.
This approach is okay if you are dealing with a student who is committed and disciplined and whose interest in the subject is solidified, particularly if the student's goal is to land an academic research position after graduation.  However, it is counter-productive to use this approach if doing so destroys the passion/interest of a student who could otherwise have been able to learn and practice the subject in some capacity.  Ideally, the trade-off between (1) and (2) should be formed based on explicit discussion between the student and supervisor about the career goals of the student, what they hope to get out of their PhD program, the realities of the academic market and broader research profession, and any other relevant issues.  Supervisors should teach their students the realities of what academic research looks like and how to go about getting a position in the field, but they should let the student make an informed decision about what they actually want in their life after graduation and what they want to get out of their candidature.  My view is that it is even good practice to explicitly tell the student about this trade-off, and that your supervisory approach will involve trying to deal with this trade-off, and that your approach can be varied if the student thinks there is too much emphasis on one end.
Some would argue that "testing" the passion of the student through heavy emphasis on (1) at the expense of (2) is actually a desirable thing, since it acts as a filtering mechanism during the candidature --- any student who is insufficiently happy with the harsher realities of professional research and the "publish or perish" culture is dissuaded from continuing in the field and directed towards some non-PhD activity.  This view assumes that the only value in a PhD is to secure and practice a professional academic position, which I reject.  There are students who will do their PhD and decide that they don't wish to practice in academia or any other "publish or perish" field.  For these students, a smaller number of papers in areas of passion for them is far more valuable than a larger suite of paper to pad out a CV for a job application in academia (and again, the student should make an informed decision on this).

"I could have gotten a wonderful job" - so excellent points made. +1

You list two goals.  In my experience, there is a third one which is very important to many (misguided?) supervisors and universities:  Ensuring the student completes their PhD, and does so on the prescribed schedule.  If thier student is at risk of failing, those supervisors tell them exactly what to do and they pick something easy, not something good for the student's career.

Getting more money to pay the your students with is also an important goal for supervisors.

@AnonymousPhysicist I agree with you that the goal of the supervisor is to ensure that the student passes. Maybe, indeed, the student is in danger to fail, but given that they have multiple papers, I did not assume that this was the issue.

To recover lost passion in a subject, I cannot recommend anything more highly than the "plate story" from the physicist Richard Feynman.  (I also highly recommend the book this comes from; it is wonderful!)  Feynman talks of having lost his passion for his subject for the exact same reason as you --- because he was focusing on "important" problems instead of playing with the things he wanted.  He decides to go back to playing with problems of interest to him with no concern for their importance and it brings back his passion.

In principle, yes. But this is not a burn-out due to overinvestment. This is simply a supervisor who changed goalposts. Spinning plate example does not work here - the supervisor has grabbed the plate out of the air and told the student to sit down and eat properly, so to say.

But according to OP, "finally I am being allowed to do my own things", so it appears that the previous imposition is now gone.

Maybe the supervisor gave up on them. But the damage is done.

Just take some time to rest from physics. It's burnout. More walking on open air, especially on sunny days, take vitamin D and good sleep. And desire to work magically will return sooner or later (can take half year though)

Passion is not useful in physics.  Hard work is.
If you are not enjoying your work, you should not be a PhD student.  Find a job you would like better, and if you cannot do that, find one that at least pays more, so you can use the money for something you like.
You say your mindset is "disrupted" but it is more likely you just learned what a PhD is really like.

I think that your advice - which I usually appreciate - is off here. The supervisor seems not to be suitable fit to OP. OP does not appear to be lazy, but rather interested taking things further and a more deliberate and thought-through pace. We cannot know if OP really has good ideas, but it is clear that the supervisor does not even consider them and does not really give feedback on them. Also, if OP has the right judgement, the supervisor prefers a shallow but fast style. In short, I think the advice does not respond to the question as it has been asked. Do you want to amend your response?

@CaptainEmacs No.  I think your misunderstanding is that you think this is the supervisor's style.  It is more likely that the supervisor's behavior reflects the choices of the source of funding.  The asker cannot do anything about that.  The last sentence answers the question:  The passion is not coming back.

@CaptainEmacs Thank you for elaborating my situation. I also feel that the answer does not address what I am asking. I have been a very diligent student all my life. I worked really really hard on my previous projects. It's just the way I was forced into things which I wasnt interested in and also was forced into a type of research I thought was very superficial and shallow that I lost my interest. I don't have an issue with hardwork. And I disagree with the statement that "passion is not useful in phy". I think both are very useful and my case is a living example of this.

I lost all passion which made me lose all drive to work hard.

@AnonymousPhysicist "Reflects the choices of the source of funding" - there are no indications of the source of funding or such constraints in the question. Who says it's not just institution money? "The passion is not coming back.": of course not. As long OP is in that situation, the fun in research has been squeezed out of them. I have taken on students who left a supervision relation because it was unsuitable. It is very clear that passion, drive and hard work come back when in the right circumstances. Your response does not answer the question as asked and makes unwarranted assumptions. -1

@CaptainEmacs That is based on my experience with funding processes, including institutional money processes.  It is not based on the question.

Of course the asker can find a better supervisor, substantially delaying the completion of their PhD.  That will not change the pressure to publish many papers, or the fact that being a PhD student is rather different from their past experiences.

@AnonymousPhysicist Ok, this does not match my experience - supervisors have considerable leeway, unless they hired the student for a very specific narrow field. If that's the case, that needs to be discussed beforehand when accepting the student. And it's the supervisor, with their considerably larger experience, that should have made expectations clear (and elicit student expectations) in the student interview. I find the response lets supervisors get off the hook a bit too easily. We all have publication pressure, but some top groups  insist on spending more time on better papers.

@AnonymousPhysicist I just noticed one specific sentence which says it all, sorry that I didn't see it that clearly before, and made the point earlier, would have saved us some discourse: "my supervisor forced me into projects I was not interested in" - this is classic "bait and switch". Nonetheless, thank you for the discussion.

@CaptainEmacs I read that as "my supervisor forced me into projects that please the funding source."  If you do not please the funding source, that will always happen.  Physics PhD students do not get free choice of research subject.

@AnonymousPhysicist "Funding source" is nowhere in the question, and I do not remember having read it (i.e. I do not think it was edited out). So, it is patently not OP's case as described and the scene sounds very much like a bait and switch. Frankly, if research is expected to be such a joyless matter, there is far more money to be made at equally joyless jobs in industry. The candidate specifically chose the PhD because they wanted to do something else. I would think differently if I thought the OP was coasting around different topics without focus, but that does not seem to be the issue.

@AnonymousPhysicist "Physics PhD students do not get free choice of research subject" Really? Maybe not anymore, but then things changed drastically since my times. But OP already was in their PhD. Supervisor changed the rules in the 2nd year. OP has written some papers, so it's not like they were not doing anything and supervisor felt they had to intervene.

@CaptainEmacs "in the 2nd year." That is not what the question says.

@AnonymousPhysicist You are right. It says "second to last year". Which makes my point stronger, as this is probably even later into the PhD work.

That is also not when the question says the projects changed.  I do not believe you know the supervisor's reasoning.

@AnonymousPhysicist "...my supervisor forced me into projects in which I was not interested. He forced me into collaborations which I didn't want" - sorry, but you work exceedingly hard to somehow construct a justification for the supervisor. Of course OP might hide relevant information from us, but I think it is a matter of courtesy and respect to assume that OPs are essentially giving us a fair picture of the situation. Even if the supervisor suddenly discovers that they cannot fund the student anymore, the very least to be expected is that they explain the situation to the student.

@CaptainEmacs My interpretation is not a justification.  It's more the opposite.  Nor do I suggest the question is misleading in any way.  I suggest you are wrong to discount funding.  Funding is very influential in the majority of decisions made in physics.  I suggest you are wrong to attribute poor/harmful actions to the nature of the supervisor; in general people make poor choices due to external factors rather than their nature.

@AnonymousPhysicist There is no indication that anything like that happened. The projects may have pre-existed, but OP was forced into them only later. I do not understand how you construct a case in favour of the supervisor based on the question. I can't believe you as a physicist  would accept any study where data would be forced into a obviously preconceived model like that. I do not claim to know the supervisor's reasoning, but you claim you know. However, to make it fit, you have to bend OPs story with assumptions not supported by the question. Your case has been so far unconvincing.

@AnonymousPhysicist Ok, now I finally see where you are coming from, but this means one of two things: the supervisor is very bad at communicating; at managing; or is just in panic mode (i.e. bad at both). Still, the answer does not help. The "hard work" story is just not solving the OP's problem. There is no point for someone forgoing a well-paying career to do soul-destroying work to satisfy some grant they had no interesting in working for in the first place. And frankly, if a grant does not try answer a good scientific question, what a waste of money, to boot.

Finally "what a PhD is really like" - I fundamentally disagree. A PhD should be one of the most deeply fun times in a researcher's career; if it's not, one does something wrong. Sure, there will be frustrating stretches, this is in the nature of things. But it should be meaningful, or why do it at all?

@CaptainEmacs I mostly agree with your last two posts.  The reality I have observed is that nearly all PhD students get a worse deal than I got when I was a PhD student.  Less freedom, less pay, etc.


text:
My PhD defense is next week. I feel that I have not done enough work to justify my time spent on the thesis. What can I do about this?
I spent 5 years on my mechanical engineering PhD. I think that my thesis work could have been done in 2 years by a serious student. I have wasted my time on futile work.
I don't know how to justify the length of time spent working on my PhD and my low research output to my committee.

This may be country and/or field dependent, because my impression has always been that the time spent is not relevant. What is relevant for having the thesis approved is the overall quantity and quality of work it represents. On the other hand, the amount of time spent could be a factor in obtaining work/appointments in the first few years after your Ph.D., especially if your thesis seems weak to others. It could also be very important in continuing to receive financial support in graduate school (some places will cut off support after a certain number of years), but you didn't mention this.

There is a club for people feeling like that, it's called academics.. They occasionally go out drinking to dampen their anxieties about themselves and their profession. I suggest you give it a try :) no but seriously, it's a common feeling, without knowing the details of your current situation, I'd say it doesn't help to look backwards you should try to look forwards instead. Learn something from that experience.

Well, @concernpine, I know it was ages ago, but how did it go?

With hindsight most PhD theses could have been done a lot quicker, but we typically don't start with hindsight. Moreover, you are supposed to learn while doing your PhD thesis. So again, someone with the experience learned from doing a PhD might have avoided some of the futile work (but see my first point), but that is not a fair comparison. So the first thing you need to ask yourself is: are you fair towards yourself.

There is a LOT of dead time during a PhD. I've had friends spend years on projects that never came to anything. Some people are luckier than others - and any examiner will know this.
The main reason not to worry is that they shouldn't ever take into account the time taken to produce the thesis, only the quality of the thesis itself. They don't hold you to a higher standard if you took five years to complete than if you took three. A thesis is a thesis! Don't panic, and you'll be absolutely fine!

I was about to write “quality matters most” but you did it :) +1

The "dead time" comment is absolutely heads-on, for any creative task. Authors often take years to write a 90.000 words book, even though they can type 40 words per minute. Looking back and saying "I could have written this in a work week if only I knew from the start what I was going to write" isn't a particularly useful form of reflection. It's similar for a PhD.

Worry not. You dont need to justify your time, you only need to justify your thesis and what is written in it. Anything else wont exist for the duration of the defense exam. You are there to defend the data and results of your research, and any question outside of that you can redirect back to your thesis.
For example, if you have a research in pokemon evolution and you are asked about the time of the research, you says that the methods presented on your thesis, in Chapter 2, section 'XXXXXX' denote the process's own time, and therefore help validate the results, which are appropriately and consciously revised as can be seen in the conclusions chapter in section 'YYYYYY', which point to the prof/disproof of the original hypothesis.
Remember that you are defending your thesis, it's methods, and the results (and maybe, awfully too, the  historical/theoretical frames). Unrelated questions are actually tricks from the examiners to derail you.

This is an old question, but perhaps some people are in the same position, so...
I've just come through my viva - in computer science in the UK.  I had a lot of the same anxieties, but I did know that in the viva they were checking:

whether it was clear that I understood what I had done and why I had done it

whether I could justify my work's novelty - not that it was somehow ground-breaking, but that it explored a specific avenue that hadn't already been investigated and reported

whether my thesis made sense, i.e. were the experiments relevant, fair, well reported and analysed, and was the story told reasonably well from motivation through to related work, analysis, and conclusion

was it a significant contribution to the field

I guess it's that last one that was bothering the poster.  The examiners didn't care about the time spent, just whether the work was substantial enough to make it more than "just" a Masters level piece of work. That judgement could be on the scope of the work, on the novelty, on the thoroughness of the analysis, but never on the number of hours spent on it - they didn't ask and I don't think they care.
As others have said, the PhD programme is in a way distinct from the PhD thesis.  In those 3+ years you're supposed to be apprenticed into academia, learning skills, developing networks, trying your hand in submitting and reviewing work at various levels, etc.  This programme is tested indirectly in the thesis and the oral defence in the sense that if the journey has been successful then your work is of a certain quality (not exceptional, world-beating, just good enough to be of interest to the relevant research community).
In either case, once it's submitted there not much you can do about the thesis, but in preparation for the viva you can ensure you've re-read your work thoroughly (warning, you may spot mistakes afresh) and that you can justify your decisions and omissions.  There are useful lists out there with common viva questions, but they can be quite overwhelming especially if you don't have loads of time to prepare.
I was given the opportunity to kick off the viva with a 10 minute presentation setting out the motivation and chief contributions - this was a nice way to remind myself and the examiners of the big picture.  This might be a good preparation activity even if you don't actually present it on the day.

Even without knowing any further details, it is clear that you are too hard on yorself. Doing a PhD is not about doing a certain amount of work and then graduating.
You need to learn new skills, research and keep adapting until you find out in which direction to go and how your contribution is going to be. So in those 5 years you did much more than just the contribution itself.
You are not alone in thinking this way, as someone mentioned, check "imposter syndrome".

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Postdoc or permanent position
I am finishing my PhD soon and am working on computational chemistry within biomolecules.
On the one hand, I would love to go for a postdoc: to learn something and also earn a bigger penny. On the other, the University offered a position as a research assistant professor. Following the consulations it is similar to the anglosaxon Assistant Professor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistant_professor) or German Juniorprofessor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junior_professorship), though here the contract period is not restricted and I do entirely scientific stuff, without didactics.
As I poked around on the web, I found that postdoc should be considered temporary employment, and it is especially important for young PhDs, for whom it is just hard to find a permanent position, but also to get them started in things like project writing, research design; briefly to gather experience.
I am quite active academically as I can self-publish in good journals, have foreign collaborations, as well as planned exchanges in other academic centers. Moreover, I expect to be habilitated within 2-3 years given how my "career" is developing.
Thus the question arose: is then postdoc something for me?... Could I go for it after habilitation or before it while still being employed at my University? I am particularly interested in the `scientific' dimension, that is, how the lack of a postdoc is actually perceived in the scientific world if I decide to move to western country for the position? Will lack of the postdoc in my resume be considered as a disadvantage?
Regards!

You should read your employment contract and the relevant laws.  Consider salary, location, and your personal goals.  As it is, this question seems wrong since Wikipedia is quite specific that a junior professor is limited to six years.  Is this Germany?

https://www.science.org/content/article/junior-professors-rise

@AnonymousPhysicist No, I'm not German. Just used this for the readers might find it easier to understand (presumably, because of wikipedia entry) than the name it has in my country. I have changed the question slightly to make it more understandable now.

It's very vague after the edits.

Read the contract.  Nobody cares if you have had the postdoc job title.

As you have learned, I think, most people take a post doc for one of two reasons. Either they can't find a suitable permanent position at the moment, or they think the post doc will enhance their CV to enable a better permanent position than they can get now.
But, while the terminology is different, it seems like you are being offered a permanent position doing what you love. If that is the case, I'd guess that a post doc would be both a waste of time and risky as there are no guarantees that the post doc leads to a better position, given changes in the economy and other uncontrollable things.
If a research assistant professorship at a university like yours is your actual goal, then I'd suggest grabbing it.
The sorts of things you would learn as a post doc can also be learned as an assistant prof. Moreover, you have more control over your career (most cases) as one usually works a post doc under the supervision of a PI. Not so much as an assistant professor. But, yes, terminology can differ.
It would be hard to imagine better pay in a post doc than in a permanent position, actually, and certainly better job security.

@DanielHatton - the university didn’t relocate you? Wow.

A recent (experienced) hire in my group had to pay some costs. Everything in his house was covered, but the tractor, boat, and other stuff in his barn he chose to drive out himself.

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


text:
Is publishing a book with solutions to exercises in a math book that doesn't provide them legal?
Is it legal to publish a book with solutions to all exercises proposed in a math book without solutions or an instructor´s manual provided? Is it necessary to ask any permission to do that?
An old post (Solution manual and copyright? -- 8 years ago) discusses this issue  but I looking for a fresher view on the subject.
To make the situation more specific. Consider the U.S. jurisdiction and books under copyright protection. And 3 possibilities: (a) problem statements only referenced by question number and unpublished solutions; (b) problem statement reproduced and unpublished solutions; and (c) problem statements rephrased and unpublished solutions.

There are plenty of unspecified aspects here. What jurisdiction are you asking about? Is the book under copyright protection, or is there maybe even a license permitting derivative works? Are you reproducing the problems, or just providing solutions to numbered exercises? What do you expect to have changed in applicable copyright laws during the last  8 years?

@Anyon - Jurisdiction: US, book under copyright protection as most are. As this is a gray area, it depends on law interpretations by judges, and the understanding might change over time. Concerning the situations you posed, there is another one: rephrased problem statements and unpublished solutions.

I would recommend against this, but can't give a legal answer. I can give you some background to back up my recommendation and perhaps answer your specific questions.
First, copyright is civil law in the US and the copyright holder has to care enough to sue. If they do, then it can be expensive to defend. Another publisher wouldn't touch such a publication I think, as they generally want good relations with each other.
A more or less complete set of solutions is probably considered a derived work. Derived works are one of the rights reserved to copyright holders. I doubt that you could successfully claim fair use in such a work, especially if offered for sale, but maybe not in any case.
Another consideration in copyright is whether a work reduces the value of the original. Since a lot of professors would prefer that students not have easy access to solutions (it actually makes learning harder, not easier), they might not consider using such a book and thus reducing the value.
The above two points imply to me, at least, that such a work isn't fair use: too extensive, and reduces value. (More on the value below)
Paraphrasing is no defense against copyright in general.
So, you should ask the copyright holder. They might agree or not. They might agree that some, not all, solutions are ok, or not. They might publish the work themselves, which makes the issue go away altogether. They might agree to an instructor's guide that has hints but not solutions. Lots of possibilities, but doing it without permission is a risk.
Moreover, as I said above, having solutions available for a book makes it less valuable for students. People learn much more by doing exercises than by reading solutions. After all, most textbooks have some worked examples which permit reading solutions, but also have exercises, some quite deep, that don't have solutions. If a student is successful with those then they gain insight into a topic or a field. It is, in fact, what made me a mathematician and gave me insight into mathematical analysis. Without solving lots (lots) of problems I wouldn't have gained the same insight. Solutions seem like a service, but they are a disservice.
OTOH, one of my books has an available set of solutions, but I'm careful to provide it only to instructors who make a promise not to reproduce it. I think that promise is mostly honored. The book is such that the exercises are actually the most important feature. If a student can do all of them then they know the topic well. Struggling with them is a feature, not a bug.

There is another option, also, that would probably be acceptable to a copyright owner, even though it might be technically a derived work. Suppose you create additional exercises for a book and provide solutions to, say, half of them. So, a user would see some problems with solutions and others without. If you give it the same "chapter" outline that might make it a derived work, but might also be considered fair use. But it would enhance the value of the original, not diminish it. And enhance it both for the publisher and for the user. And, for elementary courses in math, such a problem/exercise set might be valuable independent of the text used. A publisher might actually be interested in such a thing. And the same might be done for books in some (many?) other fields such as CS.


text:
How can I know if a certain conference is worth attending and submitting my papers to?
As a PhD student in the field of information science, I want to find conferences to submit my papers to. How can I search for suitable target conferences? How can I know if a conference is of high quality?

Your question title is about which conference is worth attending. Your question body is about which conference to submit your papers to. Please clarify.

Talk to your advisor.

Look at the conferences that published work you are citing.

Talk to your advisor.

Look up people whose work you rely on. Which conferences are they publishing in?

Talk to your advisor.

You may notice a pattern there. Actually, work you are citing is possibly a bit more high-impact than your own work, which is why point 2 might lead you to aim a little too high, where your work might have a higher chance of being rejected. Which is why points 1, 3 and 5 are so important.
If there are other people around working on similar topics (e.g., Ph.D. candidates that have been around a little longer), you may want to ask them, too.

I really wish there would be a more reliable all-encompassing website that'd show a list of reputed conferences and journals, and more metadata and tools which helps people filter down to make a selection.

@Nav - knowledgeable advice from known good sources (e.g. your advisor) are much better than any all-encompassing website. Not just because your particular subfield has a particular view, but the all-encompassing website will have fake reviews or will be threatened with lawsuits as Beale was back in the day.


text:
Ghosted by research colleague. How to proceed?
I am finding myself in a difficult situation with a research colleague. We worked on two projects - one currently with the journal and the other I am working on. She has gone completely silent despite regular follow-ups from my side. She is abroad for further studies, and we have kept in touch with regular communication. I have contacted my co-workers and they say that yes they do hear from her and that she is doing fine. My last interaction with her several weeks ago was pleasant - there were no issues.
The issue is a) The article with the journal is under review and she is the first author, I am the corresponding author. When the article comes back with corrections, she is nowhere to be reached and will not/no longer respond to any messages. I do not want to over-rule/over-ride her role and do the corrections myself
b) She agreed to cover article processing charges (APC) - but now since she has disappeared, this has left us in a big quandary
c) I am traveling abroad for further studies in 2-3 weeks, for the second paper I need to take informed consent from the patient, get their perspective, and examine their current status. I had messaged thrice over several weeks if she has taken consent from the family but no response whatsoever. I tried calling - again radio silence. We were meant to split our work by half, but with no response from her side I cannot do anything or proceed forward.
I find the situation very frustrating and distressing. It is unprofessional on her behalf. Could she be going through something - I did entertain that thought, but my colleagues say she is doing very well and is responsive to them.  I do want to quit and message her that I no longer want to participate in this project, but I have done a lot of work and it is unfair at this stage. I can give her the login and password credentials for the paper with the journal to respond to peer review and settle APC if she wishes to never ever hear from me again. I do not want to go ahead and do everything on my own, which I can, but it would be unfair to proceed without her input.
In life, I wouldn't mind with ghosting or rejection, but in research after many months/years of work, for a person to ghost you is very distressing and traumatising. I fear collaborating with others lest they should decide to disappear and cut contact for no reason after months/years of work.

Have you tried a different mode of communication? How are friends getting ahold of her?

Yeah I have tried email, phone calls, WhatsApp messages. She does respond to other colleagues on WhatsApp, radio silence to me though

Another possibility is that she's overwhelmed by work, embarrassed at not being able to execute the next required steps, and stuck on how to communicate that.

I am happy to entertain all possibilities but we need to complete the work it's stuck at this stage. I'm happy to do everything. If I don't hear back I'll just finish everything cc her and all colleagues with the final draft for feedback, it is upto her how to proceed after that, leaving all channels open from my side

Sorry to hear you're going through this. I understand your colleague likely has a lot going on and deserves empathy, but this is unprofessional and exceptionally rare. She may be saying to colleagues that she is "doing fine", but this could not be entirely true. Still, it's exceptionally unprofessional if she is doing this on purpose.
Could you ask a friend that she is responsive with to deliver a message? Emphasize not coming off as aggressive, and come off more concerned and that you're on her side. Try and gather information from the friend but keep it brief; no one likes to play the telephone for long.
As a last resort, I think it is entirely fine to move forward in the process. I definitely agree with continuing to CC her on everything. Make sure you communicate what you will do in a separate email, probably over two forms of contact.

Thank you so much

Choose one of the other colleagues who she responds to, preferably the one who is closest to her or best friends with her. And ask that person to find out from her what is going on. You will need to explain everything fully to that person first.
Or perhaps that person already knows what is going on and can tell you directly.
Don't be afraid of collaborating with other people in the future. This kind of thing is rare.

Thank you so much


text:
What are the criteria for a student from a weaker university to be accepted to elite graduate school?
I would like to generalize this question by asking for the general circumstances under which a strong university (in physics) like Harvard would accept a student from a much smaller/weaker undergraduate school.
I asked this question to my physics professors, and they said that while most of the movement in elite schools is "lateral" movement (e.g. Princeton to Harvard), upward movement certainly occurs for the "exceptional student".
Q: What are the criteria for a student to be classified as an "exceptional student" (such that they are accepted to an elite university), taking into consideration that their coursework was done in a weaker university?
Clearly, very strong letters and lots of research are a must; but how does a university identify this student as "exceptional" beyond other students coming from elite universities? Certainly they are not simply counting the number of publications for each, so how do they determine the quality?
Edit: To clarify, I note that I presume that the strength level of undergraduate schooling is a factor; getting A's and being "top of the class" (this might be in their LoR) in a weak university is much easier than doing so in a strong university. So I am trying to understand how graduate schools choose between A student at a weak university and B student at strong university; how does an exceptional undergraduate at a weak university distinguish themselves from regular students at strong universities.

"What are the criteria for a student from a weaker university to be accepted to elite graduate school?" The same as the criteria for a student from a stronger university. You may be misunderstanding what they said if you are interpreting it as: there is a two-track admissions process which sorts applicants into students from elite vs. non-elite universities and then places some additional hurdles that the latter category needs to overcome (e.g. proving that you are "exceptional"). The point is that elite universities attract stronger undergrads to begin with and give them more opportunities.

@AdamPřenosil "The point is that elite universities attract stronger undergrads to begin with" I think the OP asks how would the admission committee determine "stronger" after four years ?

@Nobody I may be misunderstanding the OP, but the premise behind the second and third paragraphs seems to be that students from non-elite universities need to overcome an additional burden compared to students from elite universities, namely to show that they are "exceptional" (as opposed to students from elite universities, who are simply assumed to be exceptional by virtue of having gone to an elite university). The question "how would the admission committee determine "stronger" after four years" is precisely the same for students of elite and non-elite universities.

There is a book "Good work if you can get it" by Jason Brennan who explains well the hierarchy relationship between different universities in the US. It might be useful for you.

@AdamPřenosil I clarified my question; while it is certainly true that elite universities attract stronger students to begin with, the quality of their grades are put into perspective that they are competing against other elite students; but a student at a weak university has much less competition, and I presume that this is a legitimate factor.

I understand the motivation behind this question, but asking for what precisely defines an "exceptional" candidate is a bit of a fool's errand. By definition, an exceptional candidate has something rare and not normally seen going for them.

I'll speak as a person who has been on graduate admissions committees in a field that ends in "-physics" at the university with a top five ranked graduate program and also at one that is in the top ten, but not top five.
First, context.  It is destructive to take on weak students who drain resources and then drop out or worse, stay to the bitter end and do a weak or failed PhD.  They drag other students and faculty down  and take the place of more worthy applicants.  So committees are very hesitant to take risks.  The admissions rate at these elite places is like 5-10%, and that's already among a self-selecting group of usually strong applicants.
If you attended a major research institution, the risks are lowered for the committee.  If you did your undergrad at MIT and a reference letter mentions you were the top physics student there in five years, you would almost certainly be admitted to an elite graduate program.  (An average undergrad physics student from an elite university is not going to get into a top graduate program.)
If you went to a small school, the same statement that you were the top student in the last five years gives no real information.  How many physics students graduate in five years? 20 students? What was this physics cohort like, that you were the best among them?  What is near-certain is that it wasn't MIT caliber.  What was the quality of your education?  Did your textbooks end with "...for scientists and engineers" or begin with "Principles of..."?   You can understand these sorts of questions.
The old equalizer was the physics GRE, but unfortunately the current trend of ditching the physics GRE as an admission requirement, for "equity" reasons, definitively hurts strong students from smaller institutions, as it makes committees much less willing to take a chance on you.  (If the institution accepts physics GRE scores, DEFINITELY submit yours if they are solid, like 800+.)
You will need concrete evidence that you can thrive in graduate school.  This includes most of the below:

refereed publications, especially as a lead author
poster presentations or talks at major conferences
solid research talent described in multiple letters of recommendation, especially strong if it comes from a mentor at an R1 who can compare you favorably to other excellent students who went on to elite graduate schools
Basically perfect grades
Academic awards, either from your university or better, at a national level
Funded graduate fellowships (NSF, etc).  These make you financially more easy to admit.

If you went to a small liberal arts school or something like it, to have a chance at a tippy-top program--eg, Harvard, Princeton, Caltech, Stanford, Berkeley, etc--you need all these things, and your chances are still not good.  For example, my graduate school friend group at one of those places included an international physics olympiad gold medalist, a Rhodes scholar, and someone who got the highest score in all of India on the national college entrance exam.  People like that are going to be your competition.
The good news is, you can still do exceptionally well at a say, top fifteen but not top five program, and there, your chances of admission are way, way, higher if you can meet conditions 1-5 above.  Good luck!

Thank you, this is what I was looking for. Could you clarify what an "R1" professor is?

an R1 is a primarily research-intensive (doctoral degree granting) university.  PS--if my above posting answers your question, please accept it.

A combination of close connection can work well here. First, the students needs a mentor/ letter writer who knows the student well. Just taking classes is not sufficient, you want some research experience, an undergrad thesis or something like that. Second, the mentor needs to have a close connection to a professor at the university you apply to, having written a joint paper or maybe being a former PhD student.
If you have a setup like that and the mentor honestly believes the students is strong enough to go to the top program they may be able to convince the professor and through them the graduate admissions committee.

"Second, the mentor needs" - I think this is too strong, but good point, connections can certainly work

@DavidRaveh My idea has was that the connection between the two professors is strong enough that they will not only read the recommendation letter but maybe call the other professor to get some individual personal feedback on the student. If the professor only knows the letter writer professionally from conferences that might be enough to get the application read but it will still be one among many.

It is pretty uncommon for the quality of the undergraduate institution to be the deciding factor in graduate school admissions. Admissions committees understand that there are a lot of factors that go into choosing an undergraduate school beyond scholastic achievement.
Outstanding students often end up in low-tier undergraduate programs because of financial reasons, or because there are family constraints, etc.
So, admissions committees recognize that top-tier graduate students can come from anywhere.
That said: for students coming from a low-tier university, it is especially important that they demonstrate their qualification through their academic record.
When faculty evaluate applications from students at a low-tier (but ABET accredited) university, they will always take the applicant seriously if they get all As, have a strong GRE, and maybe some undergraduate research experience.
If they have strong letters and statements of purpose, they are potentially as attractive as students from other top schools.
The distinction comes when looking at students who have mediocre academic records.
A student from MIT with a B average will be a much stronger candidate than a student from a low-ranked school.
If a student is getting Bs and Cs at a mid- to low-tier school, they should probably not expect much in terms of upward movement.

How would a Harvard decide between A student from weaker university and B student from strong student? Even if the A student has a strong letter saying "top of the class", the competition levels don't compare since it is much easier to be top of the class at weak university; this is the heart of my question.

Admissions committees do not work on the basis of transcripts alone. "Top of the class" is necessary but not sufficient for students at a weak university, yes. But if you add to that publications (especially first-author publications in top ranked journals) and experience at reputable research institutions, you will stand out above the B student from MIT.

Just to be clear: "exceptional" is not a thing that one can contrive by clever strategies. There has to be substance, that is (also) not a thing that can be arranged in a few moments. "You are who you are". (Yes, quite a few people have not had various advantages, but I'm not talking about those sorts of "disadvantaged" beginnings...)
So, in the end, although nowadays we may distrust such evaluations, (and with good reason...), if/when you are exceptional, some one of your faculty people will confirm that. You cannot "arrange" it!!! It'd be based on your body of work, and interactions with people.

Isn't it true that a student who is called "exceptional" at a weak university is simply average at an elite university? I am presuming that this is a factor committees consider; my question is how does a truly exceptional student distinguish themselves as such?

No, not in general. If you are doing everything you can do - straight As, undergraduate research, internships at reputable research institutions - you will stand out above average students at elite schools. They key is to show you are doing everything you can given the constraints of the institution you are at.  Review committees will see this.


text:
What does this personal essay prompt mean?
I am in the middle of my application to Princeton physics graduate school. Princeton requires a personal essay, with the prompt:

Princeton is strongly committed to welcoming students from diverse backgrounds and experiences. Applicants are required to submit a statement with their application briefly describing how their academic interests and life experiences would help them contribute to Princeton's scholarly community.

My background is simply "I liked physics courses, got a degree and did research," and my potential contribution to the scholarly community is simply "I did good research, and I intend to do more good research."
Can someone elaborate on what exactly they are looking for here? I already discussed the details of research I have done and that I plan on doing in my statement of purpose, so I'm not sure what is to be included in the personal essay that isn't in the statement of purpose (here are the prompts for the statement of purpose).
Edit: My post is substantially different from the "duplicate posts", which directly ask for how you contribute to diversity:

describe any aspects of your personal background, accomplishments, or achievements that will allow the department to evaluate your contributions to the University's diversity mission

How your perspectives or activities contribute to social or cultural diversity

might contribute to the diversity of the graduate group

contribute to the diverse learning community we strive to create

Princeton's prompt is ultimately asking

how their academic interests and life experiences would help them contribute to Princeton's scholarly community

which is completely different. My question is focused on how I should address this, despite having already discussed it in the statement of purpose. I request that this question be reopened.

It's not actually completely different, it's the same thing with a different phrasing, perhaps trying to communicate more clearly that they aren't asking you to "check a box" about how you, personally, "are diverse". (this is addressed in the answers to the linked duplicates)

@BryanKrause I don't see how "academic interests and life experiences would help them contribute to Princeton's scholarly community" is asking how I intend to promote diversity. This seems to be your interpretation of it, and I would welcome this as an answer. However, I think many others will not see it how you do, and I ask you to give them a chance to disagree with your opinion (as I do).

"Princeton is strongly committed to welcoming students from diverse backgrounds and experiences."

@BryanKrause I know that it has the word "diverse" in the prompt, and yet I still find that their prompt literally doesn't ask for this. How can I appeal my case to someone else?

I guess I'll just reopen it, but we don't need a new question about the infinite possible ways to interpret every phrasing of this sort of question. Unfortunately reopening it removes all the helpful links for the next person that finds this particular version.

Contribution to the community is never "simply" doing good research. You could describe, for example, how your experience and background could bring in new perspectives. Remember, there are tons of smart people who can do good research. It is barely the minimum requirement, especially when you are applying for top universities. Try to convey in your application how you are not yet another regular smart student.

Cam you clarify what you mean by "new perspectives"? I guess I can say that my background has fostered an "I'll believe it when it's proven" mentality,  and that this mentality fosters new ideas in research...is this along the lines of what you meant?

That could be one example, say, how you built up such mentality, how it helped/challenged you in past experiences, how it would help you in the future, and fit into or add value to the place you're applying... Just an example since, at the end, you should know best about your strength and positionality (that's why it's called personal essay).

You're overthinking it. They don't want to hear about your research, you already talked about that in your statement of purpose. They want to learn about you. An essay like this (annoying as it may be to write) is a chance for you to sell yourself and show your personality. What about your experiences and interests make you a worthwhile addition to the program? How can you contribute to the university? Why should they choose you over the countless other well-qualified individuals?
The ways to answer those questions are infinite and obviously specific to you. There is no "right" answer to the prompt - no tricks or test there.
My advice would be to reflect on your life and experiences. Sometimes it helps to just start writing - the first draft doesn't have to be perfect. Come up with an answer, sleep on it, then revisit it with fresh eyes.


text:
How concerned should one be if he/she does not get referee invitations?
A friend of mine is an experienced researcher in early career.  We are surprised to learn that she never get invited to referee for any journal.  I once rejected a referee request and referred the editor to her because the manuscript matches better with her expertise, but still, she did not get invited.  I recently learned that this happens more than once: some one else also recommended her for referee but the editor did not take the advice.  It becomes a little bit concerning: is she somehow blacklisted or what?  What is really happening here?

Raising sexism is a hot button issue here, but it does exist if a bit less pervasive than it once was. It might just be coincidence, of course.

@Buffy Well, those who recommended my friend include a senior female researcher so we all assumed that gender didn't play a significant role.

@Buffy But sure, if there's slight discrimination, junior female might get hit the hardest.  This is a possibility ...

It's possible that the editor initially sent out many more invitations than needed and got enough reviewers agree from the first round of invitations. I wouldn't read too much into it, it can take a little while for editors to know someone exists.

The objective of a journal editor is to get acceptable quality reviews written in an acceptable timescale. It is not to be "fair" to every potential reviewer that they are made aware of. If their existing pool of reviewers is getting the job done, there is no reason to try somebody new and unknown.

Can we be clear, that boils down to someone "in early career" was twice not used as a referee, or is there more? All other things being equal, as an editor I'd always have chosen referees with experience

@RobbieGoodwin That seems to differ among disciplines.  I get invited to referee when I was a PhD student (math).  If physics only ask PIs to referee, that would explain a lot.

@alephzero Still though, the question is reasonable to ask - what could she be doing wrong or is there something she could be doing differently? Doing reviews is an important, if small piece of being an early-career researcher.In my field, most people have done a large handful by the time you have a PhD.

Ask the important questions: Does she get her own publications refereed reasonably fairly and on time? If there is any sort of blacklisting, it would more likely show up that way. Not being asked to referee is hardly a disadvantage. (If you really want to read up on new research, just follow the standard preprint servers.)

Also, there might be very trivial technical reasons someone doesn't get any referee requests: their email address is hard to find, or looks unprofessional, or the email address they put in their papers is one they never check. I suspect having a too-common (i.e., ungoogleable) name also makes it harder, since someone outside of the subject could struggle making sure they have the right person.

Your friend might be on a specific editor's blacklist, if she has engaged in poor reviewer behavior with that editor (submitted very short or low-quality reviews; accepted reviews for which she has a conflict of interest; leaked ideas under review before the authors have publicly posted a preprint of their paper; etc). But it's unlikely that she's on any kind of journal-wide blacklist (in some systems like Elsevier, editors have the ability to assign reviewers "scores" visible to other editors, but almost nobody bothers doing this) and extremely unlikely that she's on a field-wide blacklist---these things don't formally exist, and she wouldn't be shunned by her research community unless she is infamous for a history of gross misconduct.
I can't speak to sexism as a potential cause as I don't know the statistics---I wouldn't be surprised though if women are asked to do more than their fair share of reviewing (it's behind-the-scenes service work, with no recognition or prestige, after all).
The most likely explanation, I think, is that she's not yet visible enough in her field to receive a lot of reviews (the OP mentions she is early-career). Even if you suggested her as an alternate reviewer for some papers, perhaps the editor already had enough alternate reviewers in mind whose expertise more closely aligned with the topic of the paper, or with whom they already have an established relationship of trust.
I don't think your friend should worry too much, but she of course should think about ways of increasing her visibility, so that her name naturally comes to the mind of any editor handling papers in her area of expertise. In addition to making sure she is easily findable by editors (setting up a personal web page with list of recent publications, Google Scholar profile, etc) she could also volunteer to serve on papers committees for conferences in her area. Obviously, she should also just keep publishing: being prominently cited by a paper under review greatly increases the chance of being asked to review that paper.

It's quite possible the editor never read the recommendations.  Some journals invite more reviews than they need.  If some reviewers decline, but enough reviewers return reviews for the editor to make a decision, then the editor will not consider inviting more reviewers.  If the decision is to reject, it may be made after only one review is returned.
Never getting invited is a bit odd, but could occur by chance.  I only get 33% of my fair share of invitations, even though my reviews are faster and more detailed than the other reviewers.  Most journals in my field have never asked me, other very similar journals ask repeatedly.  I have received no invitations for many months, and then gotten two from different publishers on the same day.  Don't overanalyze it; don't be concerned.
Most publishers have a form you can fill out indicating your research fields.  If you complete this it might increase your chances of getting papers to review.  In my experience, it is not necessary to publish with a journal or publisher in order to get asked to review.

"I only get 33% of my fair share of invitations" - how do you determine what your "fair share of invitations" is?

@Chris Presumably you "owe" your research community $P/A$ reviews, where P is the number of papers you've published and A is the average number of coauthors. Of course in practice you should review more than this, since your journals also receive submissions from beginning students and amateurs, who don't review at all.

@Chris The formula is: (reviews received)/(average number of authors)

@AnonymousPhysicist Technically it would be the sum of (reviews received for paper)/(number of authors of paper) over all of your papers, but if neither of those numbers has any big outliers, the end result should be about the same.

@mlk: Not sure whether that's in there, but it would seem that rather than "all of your papers", "all of your submissions" should be counted. This includes papers that never got published because they were rejected and given up on, and papers that were resubmitted (usually, in an updated version) after a rejection.

I kinda depends very much; journals/publishers usually keep a list of referees and their fields of expertise, so the first step of the editor may often be to query the database of people who have already refereed for the journal.  Thus, the system is designed to give the refereeing jobs to those who have refereed before.
If you are “on the list” of go-to referees, you get asked all the time.  It can take a while to make it to this list, but if you’re there and do a decent job, the non-linearity of the system can easily overwhelm you.

My experience is that you are likely to end up on this list of reviewers if you publish in that journal.

Just a single aspect to respond to a part of the question. The only reason why as editor I'd ever "blacklist" anybody would be that there's something wrong with their reviews, either unfair and useless, or promised but never sent. In general I'm happy to have an as large choice of reviewers as possible, so surely nobody who has never made a bad impression reviewing (see above) would ever be "blacklisted".

Would you blacklist someone who turned out to be a crank?

Not sure. Labelling somebody as "crank" is subjective, I'd have to think about the individual case. I never was in that situation. If the person has recent good work that shows they are qualified regarding the paper in question, I may just ask them anyway. I don't blindly follow reviewers' recommendations so if the person writes a nonsense review I can still ignore it.


text:
Is it appropriate to apply for an assistant professor job in the same department where I just started my postdoc?
I started my second postdoc at a European university this month and found that my department has a job posting for hiring an assistant professor with a tenure track. It matches my profile and I really wish to have a try. But I am not sure if my current supervisor would be unhappy about it and if my application would be considered by the department, because its application deadline is quite close and it would be just at the third week of my two-year postdoc contract...

Note that in many places there may be extra procedures because of concerns of nepotism or stale ideas accumulating in a dept. For example, many places in Germany have rules about Hausberufung.

A reasonable and supportive supervisor would have no trouble with this. You need to have a chat with them to see how disruptive it would be, but, I assume, that any permanent position wouldn't start for a while in any case.
In an ideal world, yes, this is an appropriate action. The purpose of a postdoc is to get a permanent position. There is nothing inappropriate in applying for one. Normally you need to be making applications during a postdoc in any case. This is just a bit early.
But a chat would be appropriate also.


text:
Graduate admissions: can't make my acceptance "official" at this time due to guidelines
I received an email today from a university (should I specify which?) Physics graduate admissions, saying they hope to welcome me next year, that they will fly me in to an open-house event, etc.
However, they didn't say "congratulations" or "you have been accepted". When I asked for clarification they said that they can't say it more officially at this time due to "guidelines", but essentially confirmed I got accepted and will receive an official email later.
Q: what guidelines are they referring to?
Edit: I asked this question when I attended the open house. They explained that they technically need to wait for the graduate school administration to approve their selection before sending an offer letter. To give students a chance to book their flights earlier rather than later, they sent this "unofficial" email (I received the official email several weeks later).

In the US it is common that the department reviews applications, and then makes a recommendation for who to accept, but not a final decision. This recommendation would then be sent to the a higher level (e.g., dean for graduate studies at the school or dean of the graduate school) for approval. In rare cases some candidates recommended by the department might be denied at this stage, for example a candidate who seemed promising to the department but doesn't meet an administrative GPA or GRE cutoff, or if there are budgetary changes. Official admissions decisions would then be sent out after official approval. Although different institutions may be subject to additional rules, I think this is the most likely guideline to restrict the department here.

Thank you for posting this as an answer. My professor has a different explanation, which I give as an answer, do you agree with it?

@DavidRaveh Like others I'm somewhat skeptical. If GradCafe is to be trusted, several "elite schools" have already started sending out acceptance notifications anyway.

Could be anything, from department, university, state, to funding agency guidelines. The university is part of a huge bureaucracy, so there is no shortage of guidelines.

Ok, but what's the logic behind the guideline (there must be some reason, right??)

@DavidRaveh In my experience, you can't expect to always find logic in bureaucracy, but perhaps this could be a department having made their recommendation that then has to be approved/rubberstamped by someone at a higher level.

@Anyon I see, that makes sense to me. I would encourage you to make this an answer so people can vote on it

@Anyon Related, a lot of bureaucratic weirdness falls into two categories:  Things that made sense a long time ago but can't easily be changed (sometimes due to one annoying stakeholder), and rules put into place as the result of one-time failures.  None of these make sense except to the people who were there at the time.

I asked my professor this question yesterday, and he had no idea. This is the email he sent me today:

I think I finally remembered/understood what is going on: many of the elite schools have an agreement on the earliest date that an applicant can be informed of an admission offer (I’m guessing mid-February), and the earliest date by which they must accept (mid-April).

And I guess ***** wants to get ahead, and give you time to book your ticket. (Most schools will want their recruits to visit in mid-March, so it may not be possible to visit them all… )

"Earliest date by which they must accept" of April 15 is a real thing, and not just elite schools but practically all US universities, but not relevant to your question.  I've never heard of an agreement on "Earliest date that an applicant can be informed of an admission offer", and am skeptical.

@NateEldredge thank you for your comment. I had never heard of it either, and decided to ask if this exists as a separate question

As Anyon says, this sounds an awful lot like the department has made their choice, and is waiting for approval of their choice through some administrative framework.  If this is the case, the reason for notifying you in the manner that they have may be to urge you not to accept some university's "official" offer without considering this offer, or waiting for it to firm up.
Of course, if I'm misinterpreting this, the next most likely scenario is that you're in a second tier of candidates, and they're waiting to see how many in their first tier accept their offer before offering you something firm.
Although universities really appreciate early acceptances, so they can better understand their needs moving forward, your proper course of action is to do nothing until you start approaching deadlines for your decision.  If this hasn't been firmed up as it's getting close to the time you really need to decide, and this non-guaranteed offer is something you might consider after knowing whether you're accepted to any the rest of the programs you applied to, then you should email your contact at this program, tell them you're under deadline, and need a firm offer.  At that point, the program may need to circumvent their standard protocols, and directly ask the office who can approve your admission to do so before they're done with their entire process.

Yes, I can see, possibly, how that program's reaction means you're in the second list... but they don't want to tell you they've rejected you, because an unexpected number of the people in the first-round offers may reject them, and they want to preserve high-quality second-round offers. And, also, yes, it's only that students (in the U.S.) are not obliged to commit until April 15. Nothing about earliest possible firm offers, etc.

The "second tier" option doesn't seem very likely to me, the person I emailed for clarification said "congratulations" and that they look forward to seeing me at the open house, and apologized for being unable to say this officially at this time. If things were more uncertain I doubt they would have said this.

@DavidRaveh  I agree that the effective waitlist is probably not what is going on here.  I mention it because I consider it irresponsible not to.  In any case, your course of action is the same regardless of what the scenario is, so at some level, it makes no difference why the program sent the kind of letter they sent.  The message the university sent back in response to your request is very wishy washy.  What it doesn't say is "We're recommending your admission to the people with final approval authority," which would have been a clear indication.


text:
I want to do mathematics similar to style of Grothendieck. How is that possible?
I admire Grothendieck's style of mathemtatics and want to do mathematics like his style. For example,

Generalization of things by discarding unnecessary hypotheses which leads to simplification.

Underwater work: making solvent in which solutions or proofs come out by themselves naturally.

Accomplishment of fundamental transform and redefine foundation of mathematics (in particular algebraic geometry).

Creation of new mathematics and achieving revolutionary innovation.

Painting landscape (highway) in which proofs become obvious and natural.

Finding new hidden structures so that the solution would come out by itself.

Rewrite the existing mathematical language into a new language (transformation of mathematics).

Conceptual way of doing mathematics.

Grand unification.

etc..
How can we achive or implement these style / ideal of mathematics ? Does anyone have any experience with this? Is there a simple and clear way/knowhow? By selecting some 'good' problems ( with discerning for cognizing good problem ) and trying to solve it, like the galois theory? An issue that makes me confused is, when I try to approach to this ideal directly, I feel like that my mind is being distracted. Is problem selection and solving necessary, even as a means of focus?
Perhaps, do new theories come naturally in the process of solving problems?
Let me upload few quotes about this issue :

"He who seeks for methods without having a definite problem in mind seeks for the most part in vain," - David Hilbert.

"Unfortunately, it is impossible to find the right definitions by pure thought; one needs to detect the correct problems where progress will require the isolation of a new key concept.” - Peter Scholze.

On the other hand, there is also quote like next : "Then around 1956–1958 Grothendieck began to work in algebraic geometry, a field with a rich history,
and with already many existing theory. He told us that this was because he was planning to solve the Weil
conjectures. However, do not interpret this as “problem solving”. On many occasions Grothendieck told us
that finding the structure involved was the only essential thing to do and then the solution would come out
by itself: “immerse a large nut in a softening fluid, and the nut opens just by itself”. We have seen many
instances where going to the very roots and pure thought gave insight and solved difficult problems." - Life and Work of Alexander Grothendieck by Ching-Li Chai.

etc..
This may be ignorant, but I want to do math with 70% theory building and 30% problem solving. I don't know what to do in loneliness. Do I need to interact with other mathematicians?

What is your background? Masters student looking for a PhD? Postdoc looking for collaborators? Impossible to answer without some background...

If you're not Grothendieck, first you need to come to terms with not being as brilliant as Grothendieck.  Most people who attempt to be Grothendieck end up coming up with useless junk theories.

@Alexander Woo : I see. Yes, I accept it. I'm not trying to be competitive, I'm just curious if there is a way, because I want to do the math I want. If there is a simple and clear direction related to my concerns, I will be able to focus all my energy on it. I asked this question because I thought it would be better than worrying about it alone. Please understand my ignorance and limited experience and perspective. And I will be careful not to become another mathematician. Thanks for advice.

@RicardoMagalhãesCruz : Thanks. I received my master's degree in algebraic geometry 10 years ago. I am currently studying on my own.

It seems like this potentially sensitive question can only be asked like here. :)

If there were a simple and clear direction, then there would be many people doing mathematics in the style of Grothendieck - certainly many people have expressed a desire to do mathematics in that style.  Since there is very little mathematics in the style of Grothendieck, one must conclude that there is no simple and clear direction.

@Alexander Woo : Is that so? Wow, that's interesting. Simple and clear argument and advice :) I will refer to your point out.

Why don't you ask the same question in Math:SE?

@EarlGrey : Yes. Do you think it's okay to ask questions to Math stack? I also want to ask a question on Math Stack, but I haven't been able to do it yet because I feel like I have to ask a specific question about math, it might be off-topic, and it might attract (negative) attention as a sensitive question. It seems quite wandering and frustrating to worry about these things alone :)

Grothendieck also famously said: "I never bothered about whether what would come out would be suitable for this or that, but just tried to understand - and it always turned out that understanding was all that mattered." Let me adapt this quote to your situation: "I never bothered about whether I was doing mathematics in the style of Grothendieck, but just tried to understand - and it always turned out that understanding was all that mattered." My advice would be to follow this adapted quote.

@AdamPrenosil : Yes. Thank you.

Some of these items just form a particular style of doing mathematics, or constitute lofty but not ridiculous ambitions here. This encompasses your items 1,2,5 and 6. Probably the most concrete objective here is the first one: You can start with an existing theorem, and then tinker with it to try and find out what exactly its requirements should be, what concepts should be mentioned in the proof, and what the "proof from the book" for it is. The others are more what is in the far distance, and getting anywhere will require a significant body of work. Also, do keep in mind that many of your goals refer to aesthetic judgment, and thus will require substantial interaction with the broader community.
Goals 4, 8 and 9 are a mix between being ultimately meaningless and far to grandious to ever state about ones own work.
Goals 3 and 7 are bad goals to have. They may be very worthy things to actually do, in certain circumstances, but if you start out intending to transform mathematics, you will fail. In order to convince others to use your new language, you need to make the case that it is a significant, maybe even necessary improvement over the status quo. To able to make this case, you should only seek radical change if the mathematics itself drives you to it. Otherwise, you will just come about as a crank and be ignored.
One important question you need to ask yourself here is whether you actually seek to do mathematics in this way, or whether you are simply captivated by the image of yourself-as-the-new-Grothendieck. The latter would be a very human motivation, but that motivation would also explain why the doing doesn't come naturally to you.

Thank you for your detailed advice. I think this will be an opportunity to reflect on my aspirations. I think my preference system and tendencies are similar to Grothendieck, but I don't think we are the same. The reason I've posted this question - the possibility of implementing it in some style - is fundamentally because I want to unleash my full potential in mathematics. Your answer also gives me some insight into why progression is not natural in mathematics. How can I conduct mathematical research more naturally?

In my opinion, enjoyment (love) and immersion are the most important things in mathematics. From your perspective on my current situation, how can I become more focused and natural at math while better integrating it with my ideals? Is there a part that I am doing something stupid or overlooking something? Anyway, I will consider your answer carefully. Thank you.

@Plantation the questions you ask (which should be asked as a separate question) require more focus. Where are you holding in math, what have you done/tried to do in regards to research, what issues come up, etc. Such open-ended questions tend to have relatively useless answers.

@David Raveh : O.K. I got it~

If you are committed to this vision, then my advice is to:

apply to PhD programs in mathematics, and go as strong of a one as you can
find an advisor who works on mathematics to your taste, work under their supervision, and listen to their advice
talk to your fellow students, attend conferences and seminars in your area of interest, and participate in the community.

Grothendieck was a once-in-a-lifetime talent; very few people would have any hope of accomplish your stated goals working on their own. (Certainly I am not among them.) But many more mathematicians than Grothendieck accomplish theoretical breakthroughs, and the vast majority of these go the traditional route and spend plenty of time talking with other mathematicians. If you put in the time and effort, and consistently listen to advice from those with more experience than you, then you can participate in a community that shares much of your vision, and contribute to its collective efforts.
Good luck.

O.K. Yes. I think it's important to interact with other mathematicians. I will challenge myself and try harder. Thank you.


text:
Confused about how to show research done while applying for MS thesis option
I will give a little bit of background, I have been working in a space and defense based startup for around 30 months now. I have been involved in a lot of hands on research and have done many projects and have collected a lot of data, but due to it being a startup I couldn't find the time to publish anything. Now due to covid, funding has been stagnant and I feel there's not enough growth here, so I am applying for fall 2022.I have a provisional patent filed and am filing a patent asap. The patent is good and contains complex research, also I am starting to write research papers asap.
I believe I have done good research in the field of catalysis and I am looking to apply to some ambitious universities, but since the patent and papers will take time to publish how can I convincingly show the admission that I have done research in the field. I am taking LOR's from the professor who was a mentor to our startup under whom I have conducted research, and also from my manager in startup who will also write about the research done. Will this be enough or should I apply for spring 2023 with all the necessary research items published? Because I want to get into good schools like Uni of michigan ann harobor, eth zurich etc where they have very good research on catalysts going on.
Any advice will be appreciated.

If you actually commit to "I am doing publications asap" part, you should be able to get patents by then and also quite feasibly have some of the papers accepted. The problem here, of course, is whether the research is sufficiently wrapped up and whether you don't discover mid-writing that there's more work to be done by the time you won't have resources for that anymore.

I don't think papers will be accepted because deadlines start from november 15, and the time for the patent to get reviewed is atleast 6 months in India. Any advice on how should I go on about showing my research ?


text:
Post PHD carrer life
I wanted to ask what is the path of academic person that finished his Ph.D. in math or in Computer science what is the academic path that he can take?
Not everyone can continue with Academia or be part of the universities faculty, so does this mean the end of an academic career or can he continue learning post Ph.D. degrees?
What is the usual path of post Ph.D. in these fields?

Why do you think learning stops after a PhD?

@SolarMike: I mean academic learning, academic path

Are you tied to a particular country or city? In the US, there is plenty of opportunity to do R&D or things similar to R&D for private companies -- some of these are just as interesting as university research (and others are about maximizing clicks on ads). But things vary a lot by location.

What is the usual path of post Ph.D. in these fields?

There are two main options:

Pursue in academia as a postdoc, usually in the hope of eventually reaching a tenured academic position.
Apply for industry positions, either for research-oriented jobs (often found in big companies R&D departments or innovative start-ups) or non-research jobs for which PhD skills are required or recommended.

So if by "continue learning" OP means "keep doing research", there are options outside academia. Personally I often encourage PhD students who are close to graduating and haven't made their mind up to consider applying for a postdoc: it's a short contract which gives you a taste of the academic career path while also giving you a job experience, thus leaving all the doors open.
This question might help clarify the landscape of post-PhD options.

There is no reason to stop learning, or studying. But the way you go about it will probably change. Prior to earning a doctorate, you are under the direction of others and guided by them. Most people are, in any case.
But, having earned a doctorate, you become one of the guiders, not the guided. You can learn by developing ideas and sharing them with others. This is research. It is also fundamental to advising.
But, you also gain the opportunity for collaborative learning if you expand your circle of professional relationships. Thus, a group of people, whether co-located or not, can collectively study deep problems and learn from one another.
And, of course, in many fields, you can study on your own, once you get the experience to be your own guide.