text:
Do two lesser degrees ever equal a higher degree?
I have an AA in Liberal Arts and am one semester away from an AS in Computer Programming and Analysis. I will have to double check the numbers but I will have around 140 credit hours which is similar to the number required for a Bachelor's degree. Is this equivalent somehow to a Bachelor's? In general, do two lesser degrees equal one higher degree (e.g., do two BA degrees equal a MA or two MS degrees equal a PhD)? Is there any number of lesser degrees that would equal a higher degree? Why or why not?

I'm not overly familiar with the US system, but I would imagine that a certain number of your credits would have to be in one subject or the other eg "Liberal Arts" credits would not contribute to a Bachelor's degree in Computer Programming or vice versa.

Please clarify in what context. Meaning, are you asking in the context of a job application where if it lists a Bachelors degree as a requirement, you could truthfully answer 'Yes'?

I edited for clarification. Really I am wondering if it would be equivalent in any context.

astronat, I wonder if vice versa might be possible, since, I believe, Liberal Arts degrees allow for more flexibility? Michael C., would it be considered equivalent in a job application to the employer? I don't think I could truthfully answer 'Yes' I have a Bachelor's degree, because I don't.

@takintoolong, possibly, as I said, I'm unfamiliar with the US system; here in the UK we don't have such a thing as Liberal Arts degrees. FWIW, I think James Hughes' answer is correct.

I don't know what "equivalent, for employment purposes" means. Can you describe yourself as "BSCS holder or equivalent"? No. Not on your resume, that would be fraud. Should you try applying for positions requiring a BSCS? Sure. Can you expect the same compensation as BS holder? Maybe not, it depends on the labor market and individual employer. Would they be considered equivalent, for e.g. work-visa petitioning. No. Would they be considered equivalent, for professional membership purposes in say IEEE/ ACM? Generally, depends on which institution, and demonstrating mentors/ referees/ experience

No. Simply "no". I understand some companies are swamped with  resumes and may be "filtering", but don't try to game things. What you have are academic credentials you have been awarded.  Allow your prospective employer to draw conclusions that you've persisted, grown, etc. If you really want to differentiate yourself, go after that "or equivalent experience". It costs you nothing in money to find an Open Source software project that appeals to you, and contribute (in public!) your support for it. This also can allow employers to view your code quality, tool mastery, and teamwork..

No. There are substantial differences between 1st/2nd year college courses, community college courses, and 3rd/4th year courses.

I added a "united-states" tag, because your mention of the term "community college" plus your not thinking to add a country tag makes this likely - but if you are not in the US, please change it. The answer to this kind of question can and does vary dramatically by country.

@Flyto You are correct. Thank you.

Is experience in two different entry level jobs equivalent to experience in one management position? Is reading the preface of two books the same as reading one book?
Lower-level degrees don't add up to a higher level degree. This can be confirmed by simple logic: If they did add up, what would be the point of offering higher-level degrees? People could just take many lower-level degrees instead.
Breadth of learning is not interchangeable with depth, and when advanced degrees are required it is because the latter is wanted. Number of credit hours is not the only requirement for a BS degree, it also requires covering key courses in the field at an advanced level and sometimes an internship and/or graduation project. This is something that can't adequately be substituted with an associate's degree in liberal arts. This is also why virtually every BS will have several required course chains, you usually cannot complete a BS by simply taking many introductory courses in lots of different subjects.
If you are applying to anything that requires a BS, and you claim you qualify with two associate's degrees, you should not expect them to buy it. You could argue that even though you don't fulfill the requirement you would still be a good candidate due to your two lower level degrees. But keep in mind that if for example the BS requirement is legally mandated you may be out of luck. Although for many jobs, degree requirements are flexible.
In your situation, the logical thing is to apply for a BS degree, and then have as many of your past credits as possible be counted towards the BS requirements so you don't have to re-take the same courses. You might even be able to convert your in-progress AS to a BS, you should speak to your university's advisor about this. But if you graduate with a degree that says AS, then you have an AS, not BS, regardless of how many credit hours you took.

Thank you Trusly. I appreciate your use of analogies. Also, I like how you described the situation as Breadth vs Depth. Incidentally, since writing this I began working on a bachelors degree and am about to complete it this fall.

@takintoolong Always happy to hear someone enjoyed my post! And best of luck with your bachelors degree!

@user115896 Well, it seems a bit of a moot point because you can't take the higher degree without first taking the lower degree anyway. What I meant is that there wouldn't be a need for universities to offer higher courses, they would just have only 101 courses that students can take as they wish. Those 101 courses could be designed to be easy or hard as desired. But obviously you cannot just teach 400-level content in a ostensibly prerequisite-free course and expect it to work.

I still think you explained this well. I have since completed my bachelors and know now from experience how content in courses is taken to a new level. In particular, papers get harder and longer. But, I did notice a lot of content overlap, which is sort of what spurred my original question. I feel like you could theoretically take related associates degrees to the point of having at least learned the same content. I don't think anyone would count it as such though.

From an educational perspective, community colleges usually do not offer courses beyond a sophomore level. Therefore, the bachelor's degree will probably contain more depth than an associate's degree. For example, an AA in economics will probably stop with intermediate microeconomics, but a BA may include advanced courses in microeconomic theory.

That makes sense. I wonder if it has any weight in from a hiring perspective.

It probably varies depending on the field. There are too many scenarios to list completely, but I will give a few examples.

If the employer insists on its employee having a BA then having two associate's degrees will not be useful.

If the employer asks for a set of skills that are well represented by your degrees, then I don't think your lack of a bachelor's degree will matter much. For example, a QA job at a software development house will probably not need the skills gained from taking advanced CS courses.

Ok, interesting, maybe I will try applying to some QA job postings. Thanks.

From my experience, in the UK at least. It's irrelevant how many qualifications that you have at any particular level, they never add up to the level above.
For instance, you could have 20 GCSEs, but someone with 1 A Level would still be considered qualified to a higher level than you.
The same goes for degrees, you can't add up Bachelors degrees to make a Masters or Masters degrees to make a PhD.
However, that being said, in Europe we have a system known as the European Credit Transfer Scheme, where you study modules worth a certain number of points (these also have associated levels) and should you change institutions, you can carry over any of these that haven't been assigned to a particular qualification.
Thus, if you studied for two associate degrees and two different institutions but never got awarded them, you might have enough credits to be awarded a bachelors. However, it is doubtful that you would have sufficient credits at the right levels.

That makes sense. It is similar I think to Jarrod Z.'s answer.

Employment: I recommend that you make some appointments with people in your computer programming department for career counseling.  If your community college has a person who coordinates Co-op Education, that person would probably be a good starting point.
Of course you can apply for jobs with an Associate's.  You won't know for certain how you will fare until you do.  (Do take a close look at the requirements for the jobs you are interested in.)  But two Associates are not equivalent to one Bachelors.  You are missing all or almost all the upper level classes.  In addition, some community colleges' courses are not well aligned with those of the state university in the same state.  You can find out more about the alignment in your state by asking for a pre-transfer transcript evaluation (note you may do this whether or not you will actually transfer to that school), or by speaking with the person in the state university's computer science department who evaluates transcripts.
Academically: you can't apply for a graduate program without a Bachelor's degree.
Note: Liberal Arts study makes you a good reader, thinker and writer.  Your programming classes make you a programmer.  The programming classes prepare you for programming (and related) jobs.  The liberal arts classes are great for personal growth, but they don't directly strengthen your technical skills.
Take a look at the program of studies in Computer Science in your state university, and you'll see that there's plenty of worthwhile work ahead of you in the second half of your undergraduate studies.

I understand this is Academia.SE, but I wanted to address both areas OP has inquired about.
It all depends on how the job description is written. For example, if the job description clearly states "Bachelors degree in XYZ" then the two Associates degree won't count and you wouldn't be able to truthfully fulfill the requirement. However, if the job description states "Bachelors degree and/or equivalent experience and/or education" then you could argue that you fulfill that requirement. (Having worked in HR, those requirements are very real because employers now recognize that the best person for the job may not have a Bachelors degree.)
In regards to furthering your education, you would never be accepted into a Masters or PhD program without having at a minimum a Bachelors degree. This is because Bachelors degrees often end with a capstone or thesis, which sets the foundation for the research skills needed to complete graduate level courses. Associate degrees don't offer the same rigor.
But at the end of the day, no, two associates degrees do not equate a Bachelors degree. Associates degrees equate to the first two years of a Bachelors degree, so it is missing out on the upper level classes, capstones, theses, etc.

No, you can't sum up several basic degrees to get an advanced one. Educational system is organised sequentially for a reason.
On each educational level people are supposed not just increase their knowledge about the subject, but organise it differently. For example, at introductory level more emphasis can be on understanding and remembering, later on advanced level people start to combine methodologies, evaluate results, choose appropriate solution strategies, and in more advance stages they can suggest new strategies, develop new methodologies, etc. Spending 1000 hours on remembering facts do not necessarily makes you any better in critical analysis and reflection or creative synthesis in the area of study.  That's why you can't take a hundred of trained puppies and make them into a Professor of Canine Studies.

To answer your question are any combination of lower degrees equivalent to a higher degree, the answer is no.  As to why it has to do with how the degrees are designed.
Associates degrees are designed to convey technical specialization in a very narrow area.  It emphasizes training over education.  It tends to emphasize foundational skills in a profession with the goal of mastery.  A bachelor's degree, in contrast, tends to emphasize education over training.  The first two years tend to provide a broader base of skills, including skills far afield from the profession implied by the major chosen.  This allows a person with a bachelor's degree to integrate their skills into other industries.  The second two years are about developing expertise within the field along with some increased depth outside of the primary field.
A person with a bachelor's degree has met just enough education to say they have a basic level of expertise in a topic.  This contrasts with a master's degree.  The goal of the master's degree is to provide sufficient technical expertise in the field so as to be capable of teaching it without supervision.  The master's degree emphasizes depth over breadth.  The job of the undergraduate degree is breadth.  The job of the master's degree is to convey depth.  The courses are not designed to add new information, they are to add knowledge from that information.  Within the field, it conveys how the world works to the current level of knowledge.
The doctorate exists in two forms, the professional doctorate and the doctor of philosophy.  A good example of a professional doctorate is the MD.  This differs from a physician's assistant, which is basically a master's degree, in that a PA learns hundreds of algorithms to treat a patient. The MD learns enough to understand why the algorithms the PA uses work and when the algorithm fails, will have learned the underlying biological principles to design a new algorithm to fit the very specific needs of a patient where the general rules are failing them.
The doctorate in philosophy has an opposite goal.  The job of a Ph.D. is to figure out what we believe to be true is actually false.  It is to research how the world works.  The job is to understand the implications of ways of thinking about problems.  It's important to remember that if there is something that we believe that is actually false, it is understood in such a way as that it makes perfect sense for it to be true.
In fact, you can't make a mistake by believing you are making a mistake.  You have to do it by believing you are not making a mistake.  Everything has to make perfect sense.  The job of the Ph.D. is to notice when mistakes are happening when they are not supposed to be happening and that are actually systematic mistakes and not just one-off mistakes.  Your Ph.D. is awarded after you have completed research that extends the frontiers of knowledge.
The training of doctorate isn't like the master's training.  The master's is not like the bachelor's and the bachelor's is unlike the associate's.  They don't combine.  You should contact a bachelor degree granting institution and see what could transfer into a bachelor's program.  You should see how far you are from a BA or a BS degree.  It will pay better and will probably not require a mountain of additional work.

I believe it comes down to what type of an Associate’s degree do you have or trying to obtain. I have an associate in science and arts. Needless to say, I’ve taken more harder classes than some people have taken to achieve their Bachelor’s degree. An associate in science has more complex classes than an ADN  (2 year nursing degree for RN’s). So, all associate degrees aren’t created equal.


text:
How to get a second Bachelor's degree in an unrelated field?
I was studying journalism in my country, but I realised it's not for me at all. I kind of had to apply there because there aren't really any good schools in things I was interested in. I was thinking of applying to a Physics school in the USA or UK, but all the universities I looked up say I won't be eligible because I already hold a Bachelor's degree, so what do I do? Has anyone of you done that before? Which schools allow this, since top schools won't?

And please, don't suggest I go and get a master's in journalism instead, that is not happening.
And yes, I can do physics and am really good at maths so none of that "are you sure you want it, physics is hard..."
No, money is not an issue for me if I won't be eligible for any type of scholarship.

I hope not your spelling was the real reason of the rejections.

duplicate: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/69249/second-bachelors-degree?rq=1

To whoever made the edit that changed "realised" to "realized" with a snarky comment about spelling: I have approved the other parts of that edit, but reversed that change, as "realised" is a perfectly valid UK spelling.

Why are trolls allowed to edit other people's questions?

I was really pleased to note that this implies Oxford isn't a top university, but it appears Cambridge isn't either. I'd suggest "second undergraduate degree" as a UK search term. https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying-to-oxford/second-undergraduate-degree?wssl=1 https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/why-cambridge/support/mature-students/second-undergraduate-degrees

Seriously? I think both of these are top schools in my opinion and I'd be overcome with happiness if I get a chance to study in either of them, though I'd prefer studying in the US solely because I have a couple of friends there... also, apparently oxford allows second bachelor's, which is frankly an amazing news

There are many schools that do not have odd requirements that they only teach those whose virtue has not been smeared by another degree.
Apply to programs that accept candidates regardless of what degrees they currently posses.

I did find some, but are they really all that good? I wanted to go to one of the top schools but all of them seem to not want to allow people like me to attend. I know you don't have to go to Harvard or MIT only just to be successful in life but still... I'll look into others, thanks

I am surprised to hear schools are telling you your previous degree is an impediment. I currently have a Bachelors of Arts in political science and am entering my third year of electrical engineering at a different university (both in Canada). I never encountered any issues when applying for my second degree as a result of having completed by first. While I can't speak for schools in the US or UK, I feel that you could easily apply to Canadian universities to study physics (or engineering :)).

Good idea. A question though - did you by any chance not mention the fact that you have a Bachelor's degree?

@Sam it is not a good idea to try and hide your first degree when applying for a second. If you are accepted on the basis that you don't have a degree and then the university later finds out you do... well, things might not work out too well.

That's exactly why I asked them that

@Sam - I think what astronat meant was that it would have been foolish to hide the first degree, and therefore it seems likely that ngereluk would have disclosed it.

@sam Yes, the school I currently attend is aware I already have a degree. They didn't really seem to care tbh.... Most uni admins just comment that my situation is unique. Also I got credit for all my humanities course so that was nice.

If you can afford to cover the tuition yourself, perhaps you could take the courses you're interested in as a non-degree-seeking (non-matriculated) student.
With this method, you would not "apply for admission."
But I'm not sure how this would affect your immigration status.

I want a degree actually. If I didn't I wouldn't even be asking this question. I want to work as a Physicist

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can I include in my CV the invitation to a conference I'm not sure to attend?
I have seen this question (Unable-to-attend conferences in CV), but the situation is a bit different. In my field, we don't usually submit papers for conferences. Rather, the organizers directly invite a number of persons whom they think interesting to give talks (sometimes participants can contribute talks or posters, but that is not the case here). I received such an invitation, but for a number of reasons am not sure yet whether I will attend.
Can I still add the invitation to my CV?
One could of course argue that it is strange to get credit for something (a talk) I might not do. But one could also think that the invitation itself is a distinction and therefore worth mentioning.

I would say no.
I often turn down invitations that could be considered a distinction, i.e. an indication that somebody thinks I am reasonably competent at this research thing:

Will you speak on this panel at this research open house?
Are you willing to review this paper for this journal?
Would you want to do a research internship with us this summer?
Do you want to submit an invited paper to this workshop?
Can you mentor this undergrad who is doing research in the lab?

All of these things would go on my CV if I actually do them, but not if I turn down the invitation.
An invitation to speak at a conference is no different, in my opinion. It's certainly a nice validation of your work that the conference organizers recognized your ability to contribute. But if you don't actually give the talk, it doesn't go on the CV.

You're right, I probably would not even consider adding the invitation if I had turned it down. But for the moment it's still undecided, and somehow it feels different (I do have an "Upcoming invitations" section in my CV).

Is there any compelling reason you can't wait until it's decided?

Yes, an application deadline.

Hmmm, I'd advise against until you've confirmed you will attend. Imagine that it's on your CV, and the person reading your application Googles the conference program and doesn't see your talk on it - it looks bad and you won't have a chance to explain.

That is a very good point which I had not considdered. Anyway,as other answers pointed out, it will probably not make a big difference.

If you put other conferences you plan to attend on your CV, then I think it's fine to include this one (from an ethical viewpoint, which is how I view "can").  You can just remove it if you don't go.  In general though, I would be pretty cautious about looking like you're trying too hard to pad your CV.  It depends a bit on what you're using it for, but in general having a few more entries on the list of places you've spoken (this is for fields where conferences are not peer-reviewed) isn't going to look especially impressive and could just distract from the good things on your CV.

If your CV is short, say less than 2 pages, then I think you should  mention this invitation to fill up the spaces. However, you need to be ready to answer the question, why did you not attend the conference?
If you already have a long enough CV, I don't see the point to include the invitation in your CV unless it is from an extremely reputable conference. In that case, the invitation itslef is a high honor that others may want to know. Again, people would wonder why you did not attend the conference?

Even if your CV is short, CV padding doesn't look good (actually, it's probably more noticeable in a short CV).  You should never put something on a CV to fill up space.

If you think you will not attend, it is generally better to not put it because people may ask you later why you did not attend it. Many researchers receive several invitations but decline many. So it is best to only list what you actually do.
There are a few exceptions where it could make sense to mention an invitation. For example, I have seen some people writing in their CV that their conference paper has been invited for an extension in a special journal issue as it was evaluated as one of the top 10 papers at the conference. This is interesting because even though the invitation was declined, it says that the paper was among best papers of that conference.

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

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


text:
Should you let the editor of a paper under review know when you post preprints of additional papers that build on the paper under review?
Let's say that one author has a paper under review, and continues on subsequent works based on the paper under review.
When the author puts preprints of subsequent works available online, should the author let the editor of the first paper know about those subsequent works?

What are some potential benefits?  Sounds like something an editor would ignore.

@AnonymousPhysicist I can relate to this situation. For example, in the paper under review you might be arguing about a gap in the literature that may no longer be true if you include the papers that build on the paper under review. Other times, you might be re-using data, where the first use is in the paper under review and follow-up analyses are in subsequent papers. Things can get a bit awkward when the date of writing the papers gets out of sync with when they are accepted.

You could check this publication on Maximizing Your Data or Data Slicing? Recommendations for Managing Multiple Submissions from the Same Dataset, it might help.

No, there is no need to do this.
If you submit a work to a journal you submit it as is and related to the current state of the art at time of submission. Things that happen after submission should in general not interfere with the current submission. While it could be in some exceptional cases that events after submission may influence the perception of the article, in general the article should be processed with respect to the date of submission.
If I imagine that people would start sending any kind of "additional information" after an article has been submitted, I would expect that this could lead to a great mess (articles submitted which are in fact only preliminary, additional appendices added at a later stage, corrections/amendments…). So I would guess that an editor would generally ignore the additional information and even may find this a bit strange.
However, you may add additional information in case of a revision/resubmission and this is the right time to add anything that could be relevant (with the only exception of severe error in your work - if you find one inform the editor immediately).

That's a somewhat tough question to answer (though a good problem to have!).
It depends on the journal you submitted it to's policy on the subject. The biggest issue will be if some of the work you're publishing elsewhere will be required by the reviewers for the current project. You can find yourself in a sticky situation.
For instance, let's say they want you to do an experiment or report on data that you were planning to publish elsewhere...that data hasn't yet been published so you can't include a reference to it yet, but if you include it in your currently submitted paper during the rewrite/resubmission, then you can't submit it as new work.
Also many journals won't accept the newer manuscripts for review until you've published the reviewed work on which it was based.
Each situation is unique. Best thing to do is just ask the editor.

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


text:
How to let a PhD student know that their research is not as good as they think it is
I am a postdoc and I have been talking to a PhD student about his research, as his interests are closer to mine than to his advisor's. He is generally nice, smart, and hard working. However, I think he has an unrealistic opinion of his own work.
He has written a paper and wants to submit it to the top conference in my field. (I'm in computer science, so we publish in conferences, not journals.) Unfortunately, I don't think his paper has a chance of getting in. His paper would be a long shot even for a second- or third-tier conference. His paper is also dismissive of prior work, which may offend the authors of that prior work (who are likely to be reviewing his paper).
What should I do about this?
It would be helpful to him if someone gave him a reality check and told him to rewrite much of his paper. However, it is not really my responsibility (or place) to do this. (I'm only two years more senior than him.) If he does submit, he will get a reality check from the reviews, but it would be good if he got some more "gentle" or "constructive" feedback.
I have limited experience with advising. Perhaps someone more experienced can tell me what would be appropriate in this situation. I feel like more than a subtle hint is needed.

Are you a co-author? Is your (joint?) advisor a co-author? At some point, you will have direct responsibility of what goes out from your group (you may already!). That first paper can be a brutal experience, but a crucial one. However, the hardest reviews should be done in-house, and the hardest questions asked there as well.

If your advisor 'gave him' to you, it is kind of your responsability... At the start, I'd usually talk with the advisor so he would directly intervene and say "do as he says!". On more extreme cases, I would let him submit and see his reaction after the reviewers tell him the exact same things I've told....

@JonCuster It is a single-author paper and his advisor is not even in my department. I am acknowledged and cited, but have no other "responsibility" for the paper or him other than trying to be helpful. I agree that he should get critical feedback in-house before it makes it to the review stage.

Do whatever you think is likely to help make him (more) compatible with the way things work - preferably without him losing his glow.

"I'm in computer science, so we publish in conferences, not journals."  Well, we do publish in journals, too.  It's just that conferences are much more important than they are in some other fields.

Has the student asked you for your opinion on this matter?

Speaking myself as a Ph.D student, also in CS, who had similar initial approach, I appreciated my adviser's honesty and directness in explaining the reality of the situation. I would not ever have become more successful if I hadn't been told, directly, what was required.

Let's start with the obvious:

I'm only two years more senior than him.

You have a PhD and he has not. You have written (many) papers before and he has not. You know your craft. He does not (yet). And he can learn faster by listening to well-meaning advice from more senior and experienced people. The age-difference does not mean anything. And it seems that you care for his well-being (and his success) and that probably makes your advice even more valuable than the advice of a more experienced, yet indifferent person.
Given that you are qualified to give this advice, you should absolutely tell him the honest truth. Start by:

Would you like to hear my true opinion of your paper? You might not
  like it but I think you should hear it. I think it is better to hear
  it from me than some random reviewer.

And then wait for his answer. If the answer is "No, I do not want to hear your opinion and my paper is so much better than most of the crap they publish in SODA, VLDB or..." then let him know the hard way. Nothing beats delusions better than three strong rejects and merciless bashing from the reviewers. You should also probably let his advisor know what you think of the paper and then let the advisor decide on how to proceed.
Otherwise, if the student is genuinely interested in your opinion then take the time to explain not only what is wrong with his paper but how he can make it better. Explain why he should be more diplomatic in his view of previous work. How he can present his experiments better. How to further clarify his contribution in comparison to the previous works, and so-on. But also state that even if he implements all that, his paper might still not have a chance in first-tier conference.
Of course, my answer is based on the fact that you do not directly supervise this student. If you do, he has no choice but to hear your opinion. And in this case, crap or half-baked papers should not go to prominent conferences. That makes everyone (co-authors, advisors) look bad. Of course rejection is something normal but only when you submit something that actually stands a chance to be accepted.

The reason I mentioned the small gap in seniority is that I'm not sure I am comfortable being quite so blunt with someone my own age. Although I appreciate your message that honesty is the best policy.

One thing that really help, both ways, is: EXPLAIN the changes, each change has a reason and he should know the reasons so he can expand his knowledge by incorporating that 'rule'. And eases the understanding of why he should change it. Unexplained changes are always harder to swallow...

@user52823: Really, this is good advice. I'd listen to it. It might be against your nature, but the age difference is irrelevant. You could be younger than him - I heard introductory lectures from professors my age, or younger. You might find yourself in the same situation when having your own lab, and need to be comfortable talking to older and younger alike. So learn it now. In this sense, this otherwise unpleasant situation can help you too. If student is unresponsive, talk to their adviser, and disengage.

@user52823, your limited but clear level of extra seniority can work in your favour.  You can work through the paper in some detail with the student (e.g.): improving the way the limitiations of prior work is considered; improving the writing; finding weaknesses and suggesting workarounds; looking for somewhere more appropriate to submit it .  Then, when you hit the limits of your influence, there's still the supervisor to intervene.

@gnometorule I advise caution. In practice age is not irrelevant, at least not yet. Personally I learned a lot from people much younger than me, but this is me. It it is also you, and a few others who cherish truth before some form of social standing, status or hierarchy position, but the PhD student in question might not be reasonable about this (which I hope is not the case). It's true that then he/she will learn the hard way, but it would be a worse outcome. It's easier to handle such matters with a slightly bigger (it shouldn't be too big) age difference, which means it is not irrelevant.

I think one should also consider the possibility that the OP is actually wrong. He/she can care about the other individual as much as he/she wants, hell they can be siblings for all I care; none of that changes the fact that the OP is entitled to their opinion but that doesn't make it right. "I'm only two years more senior than him" means that the OP is likely a fresh graduate. Does a fresh PhD grad really have the experience to go around telling people their research is or is not worthy?

Let him submit it and let the rejection be the reality check you are talking about. If its as sub-par as you say he will get the reality check, if not, then he gets to publish. win-win?

As others have clearly displayed, you have a host of options before you. In my opinion, there is only one choice (a step, if you will) that absolutely cannot be wrong:
Talk to the student's adviser.
My heart grows warm by reading all of the answers/responses that heavily support you and your opinion; they encourage the notion that you know what you're talking about as opposed to blatantly discrediting you. I appreciate that.
But the fact of the matter is, just as you wrote, "I think he has an unrealistic opinion of his own work" there may exist a possibility that you have "an unrealistic opinion of his" work. You wouldn't be the first person who had seniority over another and felt that the other person's work was garbage yet turned out to be wrong.  In fact, there have been collective groups of people who have shown dissatisfaction or worse towards a singular person's work yet that group ended up being on the wrong side of history. That's not to say that you should lose confidence in your ability to judge another person's research; it's simply a wake-up call to the fact that we can all be wrong sometimes. I am suspicious of your authority to call out a PhD student's work when taking into account that it doesn't seem to be likely that you're that much more experienced than him (because here you are, getting the guidance of others which is an admirable decision but reveals your lack of experience in judging others' work and having to give feedback on that work).
If I were you, take the safer route. Instead of needlessly risking not only the health of your relationship with this student but also risking the confidence of said student, consider approaching his adviser. At the very least, talk this over with more experienced individuals than yourself before you take it upon yourself to be the bearer of bad news. Like I said, there is the possibility that his work is good and you're simply wrong. There's no shame in that but there is shame to be had if you don't consider that possibility.
I also can't help but feel that you really shouldn't say anything because it's simply not your responsibility. Unless he directly asked you for your opinion or you're put in a position to give it (like being an adviser or experienced and respected postdoc), you probably should just talk to the student's adviser. Pointing out gross research errors is always welcome. Correcting flow or grammar of a research paper is no big deal either. But essentially calling his entire paper garbage is a big deal that warrants the experienced eye of someone at the adviser level.

This is quite a common scenario.  The air of confidence (or maybe arrogance) in the first year of PhD is warranted. You can only advise if he is willing to listen or accept criticisms.  However, I doubt that he will at this stage.
My approach would be to provide advice only when he/she asks for it.  Otherwise, stay back and let the paper go up in flames; maybe it'll be accepted if the planets are lined up?!  He/she will then learn from it or not, in which case only he can save himself.  It is worth noting that there are many people who learn by trial-and-error.  So this student might be in that category.

This is what I have done so far. I hope he will learn with experience. However it would be better if he did not make a fool of himself in the process.

Do you mean is NOT warranted? (If you call it arrogant, it seems you do). If yes, I'll +1; if no, I don't understand your logic. :)

@user52823 yes, in the ideal case, you want to save the student from himself.  In my experience, this will not happen until he learns the 'standard' required to publish at top conferences.  So a different perspective (reviewers or adviser) will be required. The danger is that he might get depress if the paper gets knock back many times.  Again, it'll be up to him to admit he needs help.

@gnometorule 'is warranted'. No mistake.  Feel free to -1. I've seen enough first year PhD students, especially in CS, coming in full of confidence thinking they are Alan Turing and other people are idiots.  This comes from immaturity and narrow mindedness.  They will self correct once they start trying to publish in top places or meet wiser students.  Some, even Profs, never grow out of it.

@Prof.SantaClaus: It sounds to me that you then really mean to say "is common," or something like that? With that I agree too. Either way, it takes a really bad answer, or one that clashes severely with my idea of the world, for me to downvote an answer; this wasn't "agree and get +1, or disagree and get -1!" :)

@gnometorule well, I agree with 'common' as well.  However, I used 'warranted' because usually a good student will tend to have lots of confidence; a similar example is Michael Jordan (basketball).  That confidence is what propel them to continue to be good.  However, some may view these students as arrogant.

I really don't think "warranted" means what you think it does. When confidence comes from immaturity and narrow mindedness, that makes it unwarranted.

The age difference does not matter. You can supervise students older than you. When you are the supervisor, you are the person entitled to make a judgement.
They do not believe you? Let them submit, but make clear your name does not go on the paper, you may need to become emphatic on that (lest they try to put your name on the paper clandestinely); often that already sends a message. If it doesn't, they will get the feedback they are asking for from the reviewers.
Overconfident students can become real trouble down the line. This is best handled early on if you feel they fall into this category. As they develop the work, you make clear what the level is that you expect for a mark/publication/degree and give top-quality examples. Most overconfident students are quickly grounded by that; if not, the students may either be actually really capable (and their self-confidence justified, thus not "over"confidence; lucky you), or they are really dangerously far from the ability to judge themselves. The latter case is fortunately rare, but should be strongly avoided where possible.

Try not to overthink this.  The best education anyone can get is experience, and failure is often the best teacher. As you rightly mentioned it is not your responsibility to take care of this person (it's called co-dependency when you do) and his success or failure is squarely on his/her shoulders.  As a friend/colleague you can simply ask if he is interested in a critique of the research and findings.  If yes, then be honest.  If no, then let it rest.  "Gentle" feedback is what a mother gives to 5 year old child.

Let us start from the assumption that a paper, whether presented to a conference or submitted to a journal, must be about new research that has not been published before.

Unfortunately, I don't think his paper has a chance of getting in

If you think so because of mistakes in the paper then address such mistakes and correct them, or have the student correct them by himself. Once those mistakes are solved, then no issue about the submission and the approval should arise.

His paper is also dismissive of prior work, which may offend the authors of that prior work

As long as the paper is correct, that it dismisses prior authors is of not much interest for science.

What should I do about this? It would be helpful to him if someone gave him a reality check

I wonder where his supervisor and perhaps you (no address intended though) have been throughout the entire time the student was writing the paper. Articles do not write themselves alone and if you believe the entire area or topic the paper is dealing with is erroneous, then you (the supervisor) should have warned the student long ago, not to pursue a false line of research.
If the initial assumption, namely that the paper discovers new lines of research, is wrong, then that is not a paper in the first place, by definition, to be presented anywhere, whether good or bad it may be.

To the best of my knowledge, his results are correct. However, they are uninteresting partial progress, rather than something I would consider worth publishing. I was surprised when he told me that he had written up his results and intended to submit them, as I thought it was work-in-progress at best.

@user52823 Conferences are actually the best place to present partial progresses (that's what they are for). Unless the work is critically poor (in that case point it out) let the committee decide whether or not to accept it: if they will, so far so good; if they won't, try to understand together how to make it ready for the next conference.


text:
Whether to quit PhD in psychology: overbearing post-doc, lack of passion for topic, not wanting to enter academia, lack of statistical support
I'm over half way into my PhD in psychology and neuroscience in the UK. I think that leaving the programme is the best decision but I'm unsure whether my reasons are good enough. I have gained some valuable experience: computer programming, applying basic mathematics, addressing software and hardware issues etc.
I approached my supervisor and the director of research 4 months ago about quitting and I was encouraged to continue, but these 4 big issues with the project have persisted, which are sufficient to make me think quitting the programme is the right decision:
1) Before starting, I was not aware how involved the post-doc would be in my project, who is overbearing and has been very difficult to work with from the very beginning. The post-doc is more concerned about being right and getting his own way than being helpful. This hinders my progress because I have to wrestle with what their idea of what my PhD should be. If I had known this, I would not have applied for this PhD. However, I think it's too late to point out this problem and my supervisor would probably think I'm using it as a scapegoat for my own problems.  For now, I'm treating it as a 'training exercise' because you can never choose your colleagues in the real world - but this is a bad reason for staying on with a PhD.
2) My passion for the subject is gone and I have no intention of carrying on in academia afterwards. I don't think my PhD has a use in the real world, so I will definitely be applying for jobs in in the real world. However, if I quit prospective employers will think I'm 'a quitter' and will be put off employing me, but carrying on comes at the expense of experience in the real world, which I think is more valuable.
3) I have found the PhD experience very alienating and I find what I do for a living embarrassing. I'm reluctant to talk to new people because what you do for a living inevitably comes up and I like to avoid talking about it.
4) There is a some mathematics that I have to teach myself (I'm ok with this in principle), with no support from the department, leading to uncertainty as to whether I'm doing it right or whether I'm qualified enough for my position. This combined with reason 1 is slowing down my progress and I'm afraid I won't get enough done and fail the programme.
Do these reasons seem sufficient or should I bite the bullet and carry on?
Thanks.

In your first reason, you said "but this is a bad reason for staying on with a PhD.". Do you realize that this is also a bad reason for quitting PhD? Your second reason is fine to me. Don't do anything you have no passion anymore.

Is it possible for you to switch to a different lab so you don't have to deal with the post-doc? Also, doing research is intrinsically full of uncertainty. If you cannot handle teaching yourself new stuff, will you be comfortable creating new science?

I don't know, we all have been there -- difficult people, horrible self-learning statistic, Matlab, EEG and FMRI stuffs, encounter problems that no one else in the department really know.... if you are still passionate about your research question, these time will pass.... but if you are no longer interested, then doing a phd without passion, if not impossible, is super painful....

If you have no passion for your field, does that mean that you wish to find a job in another field? Do you have the required skills? If I were in this situation I think I would try to switch to another major and get a M.S. before hitting the job market.

Hi everyone, thanks for your responses. I think it's too late to switch to a different lab; I don't have time to transfer and learn all the new techniques and submit enough material for a thesis. I have the same skills as other graduates who have managed to find work. I'm giving it another month here, and if nothing improves, I will meeting with the director of research and discuss getting an MSc and leaving the programme. Thanks again.

One quick point:  if you had a passion for these topics but have lost it, that may be burnout talking ... or it may be clinical depression, which is an illness and is treatable.  You may want to ask the school about mental-health resources available to you.

I agree with you that, regarding 1) - difficult co-workers - you very well might quit and have just as overbearing a boss outside academia.  Although it is difficult, that shouldn't be a key driver in your decision.
(Note that pride is strongest within academia, so working with people who always think they're right is pretty normal!)
However, reasons #2) & 3) - having no passion because you don't think your work is useful to anyone, and being embarrassed about what you do - are very good reasons to seriously consider changing jobs.  This would probably be true in or out of the academic world.
Reason 4) - the fact that you have to learn something difficult all by yourself - may be pretty normal for many different research fields.  However, the thing that often propels people through these difficulties is a passion for what they're doing, either because it's enjoyable or because it feels like it'll be really useful later (to yourself or others).  If you don't feel either of those, then learning the new topics might be quite painful.
Depending on your situation, another option may exist - assuming you, at some point, were really excited about starting research in this field, perhaps  changing projects (or changing the particular aspect of your project that you pursue) could reinvigorate you?
It should be noted that just about every PhD goes through a time similar to what you're experiencing - the end not in sight, too many hurdles, just want it over, along with the constant fear that you're underperforming.  For me, I realized that at least I could say I loved my daily work, and thought it was really cool.  If I hadn't had that passion for what I was doing I wouldn't have been able to make it through the slump(s).

I'll answer because I've had a similar struggle, and maybe just hearing how someone else is thinking through his/her experience will help you.
I've grown to really loath my time at graduate school. The PhD program is not at all what I imagined it would be. I went to an applied department with aspirations of making a difference with my work, doing "real" research with "real" people, being on the front lines of the biggest issues our country is facing, etc. From the onset I had no aspirations to pursue "the life of the mind" or to be a professor. I wanted the PhD so I could impact policy outside of the academy.
What went wrong?
A lot of the same issues you are facing.
Realization 1
The first frustration I faced was realizing that the process of getting a PhD was not something I could push through based on my own hard work. The reality of working for an advisor and in a lab, and maybe this is unique to the social sciences or my experience, is that I found my timeline for getting through the program totally dictated by the needs of my advisor's projects. Fine. I could deal with that. Maybe I'd work on projects I didn't like or what not. What I had a problem with was working hard and trying to move my own work along in the face of this context, only to have my timeline for moving through the program constantly moved. We don't have funding... suddenly I went from graduating next year to 2 years from now. When you are already struggling on a stipend it is just totally disheartening.
Realization 2
I focused on honing the very skills most graduate students in the social sciences struggle with... statistics and programming. I'm very good at those skills and I have put in and continue to put in substantial time, study and practice to stay on top of those skills. As I ultimately became one of the 2 or 3 default stat persons in my department I found myself feeling a bit more taken advantage of in my lab. Unrealistic work deadlines, needing to take on more and more work simply because others could not handle even beginning the tasks, and being micromanaged on projects where the person managing me couldn't even do the project by him-/herself themselves, and feeling like in the face of that when I'd express concerns about the pace and quality of work I'd just be ignored, all left a sour taste in my mouth. If this was a job and not linked to getting the degree in the end I would have simply left my job without hesitation.
Realization 3
A total loss of faith in the quality of published research. I simply couldn't replicate results in our field and I was tired of doing my own research and feeling pressured to find the p-values that would conform to the narrative people wanted to hear. When you see confirmation bias in vivo over and over again it just gets discouraging. I don't think that the people I was dealing with have any real malice about it, it's just that there's too much pressure to "get the next grant" or "find the results that will help get the next grant" that it just becomes part of the greater context that you have to exist in. Read Andrew Gelman's blog. He likes to pick on social psychologists, but the problems he points out, in my opinion, are systemic in other fields, and at the least all of psychology.
What am I doing about it now?
Like you probably have done, I'd chat with my closet friends in the program. Some of them would understand my frustrations other's seemed to just totally buy into it all and seemed to care more about being Dr. so and so than I ever would. I got the mix of feedback: maybe you just need to talk to your advisor, maybe you need to change labs, maybe you need to take a year off, maybe your are depressed and should talk to someone.
I thought long and hard about it all. I wasn't depressed. I'm super happy in all other aspects of life, have a great partner, family and friends. I have all sorts of passions outside of academia. Maybe I'm just not passionate about being a scholar. Talking to my advisor hadn't worked in the past when I had tried to come at it indirectly. Moreover, the biggest predictor of future behavior is what has been done in the past. So, I truly felt like no matter what the conversation was that we had, when the deadlines came marching in everything would go back to what it was like before. Taking a year off became more intriguing.
I settled on just not working for my lab. I'm in the midst of looking for a part time position that would pay me more than I make as an RA, and would leave me 20 hours a week to focus on just MY work. Honestly, when I've chatted with potential employers no one has thought of me as a quitter! You might want to even consider the fact that by getting a PhD you will be over-qualified for what it is you want to do. PhD does not = job.
Anyways, it sounds selfish, but it's the only way I'm going to get the space to move my work along. Further, by removing myself from the context of working and being in the lab all of the time I'll realize whether or not I truly love my research or still care about getting a PhD. Maybe my advisor won't be happy with that decision, but I'm not happy, challenged or getting any personal or professional growth with my lab responsibilities and that's what should matter the most in all of this. The process of getting a PhD is your experience and no one else's.
So, that's what I'm in the midst of doing.
You know what? Second to the decision to propose to my fiancee, I've never felt more happy and at peace with a decision in my entire life!

Let me offer you my two cents, as a recent Ph.D. graduate, who was in the program for a very long time due to serious family circumstances. Generally, I think that decisions of such nature and scale are highly personal and significantly depend on various factors and circumstances that nobody on this site is aware of (your brief description of the situation IMHO is not enough and, this, I wouldn't count on it). Therefore, I would advise you to take all advice here with a huge grain of salt. I think that the best advisor in such situations is... you, meaning your gut feeling. Having said that, keep in mind that your gut feeling might change over time and due to changing a perspective, when looking at a particular subject or matter. Now, I will briefly address your concerns/reasons, as they appear in your question.
1) You're right in considering your difficult to work with postdoc as a real-life test. Plus, it is a temporary situation and, hopefully, further in your career (in academia or beyond) you will be working with more cooperative and nicer people. Moreover, even from this difficult situation you might take some really valuable experience from interaction with that postdoc (for example, his perspective, thoughts, approaches, skills, etc.).
2) While your feeling that academia is not for you might be the right one, it is very well might be the wrong one. Speaking about your lost interest in the topic, this might be permanent, but, as well, you might regain interest in that topic, if you could look at it through different "lenses" or via different perspectives. The world is not black and white.
3) While working on Ph.D. is mostly alienating or, rather, lonely experience, the research (or other work) that follows afterwords, is mostly not. Quite the opposite - it often represents collaboration. As for "embarrassing", I'm not sure why you use this term - I find research (as well as teaching) a respectful, even noble, activity, as it involves seeking the truth and expanding humanity's knowledge horizons and, even, producing some practical and, often, immediately useful results.
4) It's a valid point of concern (but IMHO should not be considered as one of the critical factors, when making the decision). I can relate to that, as I remember my sense of being completely lost in the ocean of statistics, when I decided to use certain statistical methods for my quantitative dissertation research study. I might have gotten some statistical support from my advisor, but I have decided to ask help from an external consultant, who not only was very knowledgeable in the methods I was employing, but also in R statistical environment, which was very helpful and, even, crucial to the success of my research, considering that I was writing software in R for data analysis. However, recognizing this consultant's significant help, I think that, ultimately, it was me, who pushed myself forward to the success, via long hours of reading books and papers, immersing myself into statistical topics as much as possible, participating in discussions on StackOverflow (R-related) and Cross Validated (statistics-related), as well as reminding myself periodically about the larger goals and aspirations.
One more aspect. I'm not sure how your studies in the Ph.D. program are handled financially, but, seriously consider the financial aspect, especially, if you have some family responsibilities. I was thinking dropping out of the program after some very serious life-changing events, but, considering all the efforts (mine and my loved ones), time, money and, most importantly, larger goals and personal promises, have decided to continue and complete the program (plus, I was farther than your mid-way point in the program, so that also impacted my decision). However, now I face serious financial issues, which I have to deal with, hence my emphasis on this aspect. RA or TA positions, grants, fellowships and other means were not accessible to me for various reasons, but, if you can use any of them, strongly consider that help. Hope that my answer is helpful. Good luck!

The over-use of different emphasis styles makes this answer hard to read.

@Mangara: Sorry that it was not an easy to read answer for you. However, generally, I disagree with you for two reasons: 1) the amount of emphasis is rather a matter of personal style (meaning that what you consider an overuse, other people might consider appropriate); 2) "different emphasis styles" represents no more than two: bold and italics, which is a standard nomenclature for emphasizing concepts or ideas.

It's been a long time since you posted this question,  and I hope that you are at a much better place now.  God forbid,  if you're still at crossroads,  I'd like to recommend a book by Cal Newport - So good they can't ignore you. The book busts the 'follow your passion'  approach and encourages a 'craftsmanship' approach wherein dedication, and hours of deliberate practice helps you invest in your career capital, so much so that you get so good at it,  that it will make you feel good about yourself,  add to your self-worth, and in turn make you love your job because of how amazing it makes you feel about you...  You will have turned your work into your passion then...  Please don't quit! We as humans are fickle,  our desires,  even our basic natures change,  what you are passionate about today,  might be something you loathe tomorrow... Follow your heart is terrible advice, the heart can't be trusted!


text:
Should I simultaneously apply for multiple jobs in different ranks at the same university?
Say this year the university A advertises one postdoc and one tenure-track position. If I prefer the tenure track position, but am not sure that I can get it, what should I choose between the following two options?
Option A: Apply for both postdoc and tenure-track positions.
Option B: Apply for tenure-track position only, hoping that even if I don't get it, the university will consider offering me the postdoc position.
I thought that Option A is safer, but some of my friends say the opposite. They think that if you apply for both positions, then even if you are good for the tenure-track position, the university will tend to offer you only the postdoc position, the lowest rank that you asked for.
Do you have any insight on this?
For more information: the job market I am referring to is the US'.
What if we have other situations: postdoc/lecturer, lecturer/tenure-track, or postdoc/lecturer/tenure-track?

The standard phrase in the USA is "I apply for a tenure-track positions but also want to be considered at the postdoc level" (or something equivalent) meaning "I really want tenure track but if you cannot offer it and I find it nowhere else, I'll accept a postdoc offer from you". That is very different from "I want to work at your university, so if you cannot give me tenure track, I'll agree to postdoc and only if I cannot get that either, I will look elsewhere". Whatever meaning applies to your case, make sure that you convey exactly that meaning, and not another one in your application.

@fedja: Thank you. a)Can you suggest some explicit sentences to write in the application to say "I want to work at your university, so if you cannot give me tenure track, I'll agree to postdoc and only if I cannot get that either, I will look elsewhere"?

@fedja: ... b) I still don't know what is your opinion about the two options A and B?

@postdoc That depends on your status, perceived strength, etc. If you are little-known and desperate to secure a job for the next few years or if you want to get to that particular place at any cost, certainly apply to both. If you have one more year of postdoc at your current place, expect to get a few good offers elsewhere, and had 2 postdoc positions already, apply for tenure track only. Everything in between is, well, in between. Both A and B make sense under some circumstances but not other. As to phrasing, your English is better than mine. Just say it straight and clear :-).

My experience is in mathematics in the US. My personal experience is that people will not read anything especially deep into applying for both jobs.  Everybody understands that the market is tough, and basically expects everybody to apply to every opening.  I've seen instances where a person was considered both for a postdoc and TT position at the same university, and this was not seen as an issue at all (there was much more strategizing around the question of whether they would come for a postdoc).
In the vast majority of cases (without, say, a severe geographical constraint), I think if you consider TT and postdoc at the same place as both reasonable options for you and plausible possibilities, you're probably kidding yourself on one score or another. Generally if you'd even be seriously looked at for a TT job at University X, then when the postdoc committee looks at your file, they'll say "We could hire this person for a TT job.  There's no way that a postdoc at University X is the best job they'll get." and they probably won't offer you the position.    But unless you feel confident about which way it is, I don't see any problem with applying to both.
EDIT: One thing I'll add, which is mathematics specific: if you're applying MathJobs, the visual difference between applications for the different jobs is negligible.  There is a column where you can see what positions the applicant applied for, but it's not very noticeable.  So, it's quite possible the committee for one job won't even notice you applied for the other (I have seen this happen).

In the first part of the answer, you meant people won't care if I apply for both tenure track and postdoc at the same time. I don't really understand what you meant at the last part of your answer.

especially this "generally people don't believe that someone they'd seriously consider for a TT position will accept a postdoc, because they'll get some less appealing TT or more appealing postdoc"

did you mean that if someone applies for both tenure track and postdoc, he/she will get worse tenure track and better postdoc?

@postdoc, I think you're misinterepreting me.  I rewrote my answer a little so hopefully it's clearer.  Anyways, don't worry too much about the second part.  My point is just that you shouldn't try to overthink this, and you shouldn't avoid applying to both just to avoid it.

As a recruiter, I don't see much of Chris's point. And, as a candidate (some years ago), I followed pretty much your option B (apply to both). Here's the reasoning:
Times are though, and the academic job market is very competitive. Anyone who expects you to apply only to a single position (“applying to more that different positions shows that you don't know what you want”, or “you don't believe in your chances”) is delusional to some extent. You will apply to backup post-doc positions, and I don't think you benefit by excluding the place where you also apply for faculty position.
In fact, you can actually turn that into a pretty positive argument: “I love your institution/department, this is really my dream place to work at, and if I don't get on faculty this year I'm willing to take a post-doc, know you all better and try again next year (if circumstances permit).”
I'll add that this is actually commonly done in France, UK and some other European countries: once you've traveled a bit, find the place where you want to settle, apply there, and if you don't get the job on the first try, get a post-doc there and try again later.

Well, you are there, so unless you renounce it publicly, we'll consider you as an example (at least, as of the moment when you applied there). In short: are you trying to make some point or just to vent steam? If the former, what's the point?

@Anonymous yet I hardly see myself applying for a position with a statement that says “This place sucks, but times are hard and I need to eat. Please kindly offer me a tenure-track position.”

[Rewrite of deleted, poorly worded comment:] I wouldn't expect that applicants consider my department to be their dream job. It's certainly a very good job, and we are further improving, and I'm happy to be here. But it's good in ways that our competitors are also good. I can't imagine someone withdrawing faculty applications at comparable institutions to take a postdoc here, unless they had family in the area.

Or someone to work with, or plans to move to a different country in 2-3 years, or... I know an excellent young researcher who's currently taking her 3rd postdoc in not so famous place despite (IMHO) she could get a tenure-track job at some other place quite easily. Why? It is her business, not mine. As I said in my comment in the original post, my advice is just to tell your preferences as honestly as you can without alienating people. This saves both the applicant and the recruiters a lot of time and effort in the process and creates a good impression too.

@F'x: To give more context for your answer, can you tell me where do you live now (in the USA, Canada, Europe, or somewhere else)? Concerning the last paragraph in your answer, do you have any information on what is commonly done in the USA or Canada?

One thing to be aware of that I don't think others have mentioned is timing. In my field (theoretical particle physics in the US), postdoc hiring decisions are all made in December and January, while interviews for faculty jobs usually take place in February, March, and possibly April. Postdocs who are on the last year of their current job have to apply for and accept a postdoc position, even if they are hoping to get a tenure-track offer, simply because of the timeline. If they haven't accepted a postdoc job in January, and they don't manage to get a tenure-track offer that spring, they have no job at all. Because of this, everyone expects that people will apply for both postdocs and faculty positions simultaneously.
The timing of these things will potentially vary depending on your field, so this consideration might or might not be relevant. But it's something to think about.

I suggest choosing the job you want and think you have a good shot at, and then apply for that position. Here is my rationale (and supposition, to a certain extent):
If you apply to both positions, you've told both hiring committees a couple of things: you've said to the tenure-track committee that you would be happy with the post-doc position, otherwise you wouldn't be applying for it. You've said to the post-doc position, "I'm doing this as a backup in case I don't get the tenure-track position." In both cases, you're not telling them anything particularly good. Sure, there is the possibility that they'll see your dual application as really wanting to work in that particular department, but I wouldn't bet on it.
If you can make a good case why you are very competitive for the tenure-track position, then go for it. Apply to post-docs elsewhere if you want a bit more of a backup (although in the job market it isn't really worthwhile to talk about "backups" in the same way you talk about it for school applications). Also, there is something to be said about applying for the position you really want: it demonstrates your own belief that you are well qualified (but, of course, you may end up without a job...).
If you can't make the case that you're a strong candidate for the tenure-track position, apply for the post-doc position. You'll get the experience you need to be competitive for future tenure-track positions, and there is always an off-chance that there may be another position opening up at this school, and you'll be more competitive for it (and know people on the committee). I don't believe there is the same stigma about hiring post-docs into positions at the same school as there is for hiring PhD students into positions at the same school (which is rare).

I don't agree with your take on the message being conveyed. The hiring committee is very well aware of the fact that you are hedging your bets by applying to both.

I agree with eykanal; this is not the psychology I've seen on hiring committees at all.  People just expect everyone to apply everywhere and don't read anything into it.

Unless it is a huge department, the committees will overlap and/or communicate with one another. If you are a strong shortlist-able contender in the TT candidate pool they will proceed thus and so; if you are somewhat marginal TT-wise, but still strong relevant to the PD pool, they will say OK this person is a bit overly ambitious right now but let's take him on a PD for a few years and see how things go; and if you are not strong in either pool none of this matters.
Now, you may get an interview for a TT position and then they bring up the PD application and say, if we offer you a PD instead, would you take it up. Tricky! They think you are TT material (you are being interviewed) but can be got on the cheap (it opens up a slot for some other good person). If you blink now you will always be a push-over in the eyes of this department, and this will delay any subsequent promotions by many years. If you want to be there badly enough that you are prepared to take this hit, then agree. If not, say that you now feel the TT is the appropriate fit and see where the chips fall. You may also propose a compromise: take a PD for a few years with an official commitment from them that you will get TT at the end of that.


text:
How to fend off someone putting their Name on my work?
I'm a postdoc and a guy who used to be a part of our group dropped by today and said repeatedly that he wanted to collaborate with me and that he's too busy with other commitments to do any work. I suggested a project where he could write up some of his recent experiences in the area (I know of a publication that did something similar to this that we could use as a framework and am working with another man in our group on this), and he had no interest in that saying instead he was more interested in the data analysis I'm doing.
The message I got was "I don't have time to do anything, but I want to be a co-author".
He was "generous" enough to say he "doesn't need to be the first or second author".
How would you handle that?
During my PhD I had one of my supervisor's former students do this to me. He got 3 publications out of me, which he didn't understand well enough to present at a conference (he insisted that I create slides for him and write a word-for-word script for him to deliver - the conference was in his area of the world).  I eventually put my foot down and refused to have him as a co-author again (my supervisor was pushing to put his name on a 4th publication, I think she wanted to help him get tenure and / or was repaying some debt to him with my work).
I don't want to spend time trying to defend my work from people who didn't contribute putting their names on it, but I'm not sure the best way to get rid of him. My PI thinks quite highly of him.
I'm going out with my PI casually for dinner tomorrow and am planning to bring this up and ask him to be explicit about his authorship policy (my PI reserves the right to determine authorship of work from our lab).  I don't want to seem whiny, but also don't want to spend time / energy worrying about this.
Am I overly anxious about this?  Maybe it doesn't really matter as long as I'm the first author?  If that's the case, I'm tempted to just put everyone I know on it (I don't want to reward this guy for being obnoxious).

he wanted to collaborate with me and that he's too busy with other commitments to do any work — Wait.  What?  What the hell does he think "collaborate" means?  Just say no.. If your PI insists, just say no. If your PI threatens to fire you if you don't agree, just say no and walk.

Welcome to [Academia.SE] Stack Exchange!

@gerrit More like "Welcome to Academia" full stop...

What kind of input is this ?  Could you have accessed these data without him/her ?

By the way I suggest you to ask him to be on his work. His answer can be usefull to handle the problem.

What does "PI" stand for?

Your situation sounds messy. I think most will agree that the basic prerequisite for co-authorship is intellectual contribution to the manuscript . To add authors for thanks is common but really not a practice to endorse. If someone comes to me and asks to be a co-author, the obvious response would be: "What will be your contribution?" If there is no clear contribution other than, say, "Read the manuscript and provide input" then the answer should be "No, thanks". In your case, it sounds as if there is no major point in even having a discussion.
In fact, your case reminds me of a colleague of mine who ends up in all sorts of strange situations. His problem is that he is too nice and does not know the word "no". I realize it may be hard to set up strict rules for these things if your immediate surroundings do not subscribe to them, but I think you should know that you have solid grounds for being more strict about adding unnecessary co-authors or letting people into a project without a clear picture of why.
If you are first author on a paper, it seems to me you will also be the person deciding how the work should materialize. I think you need to make your own mind up where you want to draw the line. you will benefit of making a decision on how you want things run. If you want to deviate from this later on, then it is still your decision and no-one else's. I think this is what you (and most of us) really want - to be in the driver's seat. So follow your instincts, they seem sound to me.

Thanks very much, this is quite useful.  The tricky part is that the PI wants to be in the drivers seat (and has made this explicit).  I think it's fair for me to do some back-seat driving though :-).

If there is no clear contribution other than, say, "read the manuscript and provide input" — depending on the input, that could be quite significant.

"to add authors for thanks" - well, that's what the "The author wishes to thank ..." paragraph at the end is for. Otherwise I'd have to start adding e.g. the developers of Linux and MATLAB as "authors"

I am not a postdoc but a current PhD student. Strangely, I have had a couple of similar instances in the recent past.
Just say a firm NO !
If he is a former member of your group and has nothing to intellectually contribute to the current project, then he does not deserve authorship.
I would definitely bring it up casually with your PI and make it clear to him that you do not support a person being a co-author if he does not or has not contributed to the project significantly over its life cycle.
Saying a clear "No!" usually works. :)

Not so easy when OP has already said "Yes" several times before.

As others, I would say that you should say "no". However, I have something to add: this is not merely about the request of being freely a co-author being annoying. It is about ethics. Not letting someone that contributed significantly to a paper be an author is universally seen as unethical;
it might be less clear that letting someone not having contributed significantly to a paper be an author is equally unethical, but it is.
Notably, it gives her or him an advantage in evaluation, promotion, tenure and more importantly recruitment that his or her competitors will not have.
In conclusion; not saying "no" is unethical... to many people you probably do not even know, but unethical nonetheless.
I have to add another point there : this is a delicate situation as you are not completely in charge, and as a postdoc you have to handle things gently to have good recommendation from your PI. Being to rigorous about something that people may think costs you nothing can lead you to an impossible situation, so be careful, think ahead the point up to which you are ready to be flexible, do not act offensively, do not corner your PI but let her ways out. For example, you should definitely explain how wrong this would seem to you, but you should not blame her right from the start for asking you this.

In addition to the excellent answers that you already got, I'd like to point out two things.

There are criteria lists for authorship, see e.g. http://www.icmje.org/ethical_1author.html.
You may want to look up a specific guideline for your field.
While I agree with the "say a firm no" side, this may not be possible in - due to the local "power structure", or also because real life things are usually not as clear as one sentence in a stackexchange question suggests (in that case even possibly not advisable).
I've found a "Contributions" section in the text where for each author is listed what exactly they contributed very helpful in situations where people were unclear about coauthorship and position in the author list.
If there's really just "A. Uthor did not contribute anything" that should a) be embarrassing enough for A. Uthor, or b) the supervisor or, as a last resort c) reviewers/editors to insist on having neither the name in the author list nor the sentence in the contributions. For the less clear cases it allows  readers will to judge for themselves, and in any case I found that explicitly writing down the contributions can do much for the clarification and thus also make decisions about authorship much easier.
Last but not least, what about approaching the problem from the opposide side at the dinner: telling your PI that you're afraid the guy's not going to do his share in the work. That you had similar experiences previously, so your alarm at that is quite shrill. What your PI recommends what should be that coauthor's exact part of the work and what the PI recommends to ensure that the guy is actually doing his share?

+1, I agree that adding contributions is a good thing which might solve the problem at hand. On the other hand, you may just end up with vague contribution entries like "F. Reloader has provided valuable comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript." Those always seem fishy to me.

@MarcClaesen: I completely agree about fishy vague contributions. But making this public is one of the advantages I perceive with having a contributions section... A related is that if the contribution sentence is embarrassingly vague, the autorship issue may solve itself ;-)

Sometimes, a firm "NO" is not the best option.
I believe it would work to say NO but your PI wants to "drive the car" and you don't want this to generate a conflict.
If her wanting to "drive the car" was not legitimate, I think a firm NO would be the best solution.
Otherwise, I think the best choice is to bend. BUT, there is a big BUT: THEY are in demand and you should turn this into your own advantage:
Think of a compensation, a leverage that could be useful to you... And try yourself at a polite negociation exercice...
Or maybe... Mention something like "expedient co-author" in your publication...

Don't use negative words (“expedient co-author”) to refer to your co-authors in a publication.

@F'x Yep, that was some kind of joke... maybe I should have added a smiley to make it more explicit ;)

Adding expedient co-author would be a funny way to commit career suicide.

compensation === bribe => unethical


text:
Admission in research based Master's/Doctoral programme with a bachelor's from a low-ranked University in India
I applied in Master's programmes in Europe / Asia (mostly Germany) this year and most of them were rejected or are still pending. My GPA in the Bachelor's is 7.19 / 10 while my TOELF iBT score is 100 / 120. Most of the Universities stated on their websites that the GRE (General or Subject) is optional, so I did not take the GRE.
After getting so many rejections and still being unable to figure out why, I am now thinking of strengthening my application to apply again in fall 2014. I have mailed universities / professors inquiring about reasons for rejection / shortcomings of my application, but none have replied. The only reply I get is that there were a lot of applications and mine just failed to compete with them.
I wish to know more about why my applications failed and how to improve? Also, as I don't know anyone around, I prepared my Statement of Purpose, Letter of Recommendations, Research Proposal, etc by going through the internet and information on website of universities (I did not copy-paste, but used the tips on how to write and stuff). I have no idea if the reason for my failed applications were because of low GPA / no GRE score or ill-prepared statement / research plan. Also, where can I get these checked and get suggestions on improving them?
I am very passionate about Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Ubiquitous Computing. I am planning on quitting my job at Oracle Financial Services (where I'm working as as Associate Consultant, writing code since SEP 2011 after my Bachelor's) to prepare for my application and dedicate full time and energy. I am aiming for admission in top 20 universities for Computer Science of the world and also aiming for a good scholarship. I want to appear for GRE later this year and get very good scores to try to compensate for my low GPA. But, when I checked few top universities (like MIT), it was mentioned they don't accept GRE scores. How can I try and get into such universities?
My goal is to complete my Master's, PhD and then continue researching on my areas of interest. Furthermore, the Subject GRE for Computer Science has been discontinued as per the ETS website!
Is there any hope of getting in top universities with a Bachelor's degree from an unknown university which is practically nowhere in the rankings? What to do now and how to do it, I am pretty confused and hope that someone here can help me.
Thanks for your time.
Rahul

Maybe you are aiming too unrealistically high. There are still great universities in the top 100.

Yes, maybe, but is it not possible? Why is so unrealistic to aim for top 20?

I prepared my...Letter of Recommendations — This might be your problem.  You aren't supposed to write your letters of recommendation; your recommenders are.

Those were written by them only. I just requested them to write for me and give me official copies on my university letter heads. Some universities demanded sealed copies while some directly contacted them via email. Even one of my applications got cancelled due to this. My professors said they did not get any mails but the university said that it might have been sent in the spam folder and now they could not do anything as the deadline was over.

The fact that you have been rejected many times might be evidence that you are aiming too high, along with the not super high GPA.

But how can I improve myself?

I dont think your GPA is low, it is around 2.88 if you convert it to a 4.0 scale.

That is kind of low. Anyways, I got into the University of HK a year back. Thanks.

Focusing on test scores will not get you into MIT.
You need research experience — real, world-class, publication-quality, independent research experience.  A paper at a recognizable (from MIT) conference or workshop would be a big plus.  The top students from the various IITs have such experience.
You need a statement that clearly and compellingly describes your research interests, experience, and vision, with enough specific technical detail to be credible.  As an example: Describe a recent result (not just a paper title!) of your potential advisor, and suggest a credible strategy for applying or improving it.  Also, your statement should frame your ambition in terms of "doing great research", not in terms of "getting into MIT".  The top students from the various IITs write such statements.
You need recommendation letters from well-known (at MIT) academics that praise your research potential in personal, specific, and credible detail, with positive comparisons against other students from your home institution who have gone on to a top-10 PhD program.  Your recommenders must write the letters themselves; you should never even see them.  In particular, you should explicitly waive your right to see the letters later, if such a waiver is possible; most US schools offer such a waiver in their recommendation forms.  The top students from the various IITs have letters like this.
You need contacts.  Or more accurately, your recommenders need contacts.  Coming from "an unknown university" with a "low GPA", there is a serious risk that nobody will even open your application.  If one of your recommenders knows someone at MIT, either personally or professionally, ask them to send a quick email (or have a hallway conversation at a conference) saying "Hey, we have this great student Rahul Thakur who's applying to your department; you should take a look!"  Sending such an email yourself is unlikely to help.  CS professors get tons of emails from random students at unknown universities; we call it "spam".  The top students from the various IITs have these contacts.
You need some strategy.  All else being equal, it is harder to gain admission to top CS PhD programs to study AI than to study other areas.   AI seems to be the default areas for really smart, talented, qualified students who really have no idea what they want to do.  Machine learning is either a subset or a superset of AI, depending on your religion.  (Theory suffers from the same effect, to a smaller extent.)  In your case, you're probably better off emphasizing your interest in ubiquitous computing in your statement.  But remember, you need specific and credible technical detail.
Finally, you need luck.  Graduate admissions is an inherently random process; no one should apply to MIT expecting to be admitted.  Coming from an unknown university, your chances of admission are smaller than someone with exactly the same application coming from a highly-ranked school.  Aiming only for MIT is foolish; limiting yourself to top-20 departments may be foolish as well.  Don't rob yourself of opportunities!
After all, your real goal is to do great research, not to get into a top-20 program.  Right?

+1 for such a great answer. I also wanted to point out that usually, the best CS students from India are from the top 6 IITs and IISc. From my brief experience as a member on the graduate admissions committee in my school, I realized that school "pedigree" matters quite a bit.

Yes, right. How do you suggest I get some insight on my current statement and research proposal?

Ask your recommenders to read your statement(s) and give you detailed feedback.  Listen to them.  (Also: For applications to PhD programs in North America, there is no separate "research proposal".  Your "statement of purpose" should be a description of your research experience, interests, and goals.)

I have always been passionate about research, but I did not do well during my early days. I am currently working in a decent place also, but I really want to pursue my passion in Computer Science. I am hoping to get into a good university and wish to improve my application. But, I have little idea how and frankly speaking, my professors have no such connections or much insight on my application. Everybody else is not replying to my mails, I cannot find my way back to my goals now. I request you to please help me. I am not setting unrealistic goals, but give my 110% to get to the best possible.

Yes, you are setting unrealistic goals.  Passion about research is not enough.  Speaking from personal experience, I suggest taking smaller steps.  Instead of aiming straight for the MIT PhD program, set a more modest goal of admission to a mid-tier master's program, or even a non-degree program.  Stop thinking of "top 20" as the only synonym for "good university".  Get your ego out of the way.  Apply broadly.  Get your foot in the door.  Then prove yourself.  Meanwhile, don't forget to eat.

+1 for the above. Excellent advice. Loved the last sentence.

Best thing: Send mails to professors asking to collaborate. Especially if you think you can improve on their work. Professors generally would appreciate solid ideas for improvement on their current research work.

Also: Describe a recent result (not just a paper title!) of your potential advisor, and suggest a credible strategy for applying or improving it. Also, your statement should frame your ambition in terms of "doing great research", not in terms of "getting into MIT" can potentially be dangerous since if that professor does not have slots, then you almost automatically get a reject.

An alternative to the best thing: Work well in your company, and then ask for the top technical leaders(Perhaps something like CTO Oracle in your case) there to sponsor your PhD at a top university. You can get past the GPA bias in this manner.

@JeffE Thanks for the motivation and putting me on the right track. I will try harder and apply broadly. I do still wish to get admitted in top universities, maybe for my PhD after getting substantial experience in research. Meanwhile, can you please guide me. I desperately need your help and insight, I hope I am not asking too much. I have your mail id from your page but I will mail you only if you approve. Thanks for your time and patience. Regards, Rahul.

@all Thank you everyone for your valuable suggestions, much appreciated. :)

@Naresh: That's exactly what I did.

can potentially be dangerous since if that professor does not have slots, then you almost automatically get a reject — You should never suggest (for US schools) that you would only work with one professor; the example in your statement should be clearly just an example.  If your statement does a good job describing Prof. X's research, you'll impress more than just Prof. X.  Even if Prof. X doesn't have slots, Prof. Y might, and Prof. X might even lean on Prof. Y to admit you.  Also, in many US departments, individual professors don't have "slots".

@JeffE: They don't usually have "slots," but they do have "available positions." And some departments do have rules about how many students an advisor can take at a time.

Getting into a top-20 university with a GPA of 7.1 from WBUT is an unrealistic goal. Instead of trying to get into a phd directly you should think getting a M tech degree first in India. I'll suggest that you should sit for the GATE examination and take admission for M tech in old IITs or IISc. Once you're in IITs or IISc, maintain a very good gpa and try to do some very good research.
To just give you a hint how difficult it is, even students from IISc (which is the best institute in India) with GPA of 6.5/8 with publications don't get easy admissions in top-10 programs.
After getting your Mtech from IITs or IISc you will be in a much much better position to apply for Top-20 phd programs in Computer Science. Many faculty members of IITs and IISc have got their phds from top-20 universities. So, they can give you very good letters of recommendation as well.

What is your basis for these observations? In my experience admission committees struggle with comparing GPAs across universities.

I know several students of WBUT with gpa above 8.2 and excellent general GRE score who applied to Top-20 MS programs in computer science but none of them were successful in getting admission. Also, there are over 30 colleges in WBUT. The best ones are considered average in India and while those at middle and bottom of the list are not considered good at all even in India.

I agree with you on this. I have passed from WBUT with GPA of 8.5, which is certainly not the best possible. It is possible to get somewhere close to 9.0 if you take the examinations very seriously. And things being in WBUT as they are, it will be very difficult for any professor to write a recommendation letter stating that he had done good research, since very little research is actually conducted there. Your best bet is to get into a Masters at top Indian universities and then look for opportunities abroad.

In WBUT, like majority of the Indian universities marks have absolutely nothing to do with what students write in the exams. That's why none of the good universities in India like IITs and IISc select students on the basis of GPA scores but on the basis of GATE score and interview. Unfortunately, most US universities are completely unaware of this fact.

Update, I am currently doing my postgrad from HKU (Computer Science).

By HKU do you mean University of Hong Kong>

Yes, The University of HK.

I will share my story, it is somehow related. I got my BSc and MSc from a very average university in the Middle East (my GPA in BSc was below 2.7!!). So, of course I was conditionally admitted into the MSc program and by the time I graduated (2.5 years later), I had to work REALLY HARD and by then I was co-author of couple of journal and conference articles. When I started applying for PhD, I contacted many professors and applied in US and Canada but got rejections from most universities (although I had high TOEFL and GRE scores).
Before I finished my MSc, my adviser has come up with this idea. To sent me to attend a conference to present my MSc research because he knew that some professors are going to be there. I went and met many of the professors that I have contacted by email (and never got a reply from). To be honest, they did not remember me as they receive 10s of emails from other students on a daily basis. Some have even told that they don't go over them.
With couple of these professors who seemed interested in my MSc research, I have discussed my research interests as well as my BSc gpa and school issue. It turned out that it is risky to accept students with my gpa. The professor has to justify his decision somehow to the graduate committee. So, after one of these professors who saw my presentation, and knew that I was a co-author in couple of publication, said that he would go over my application one he gets back to his Uni. Few weeks later, I emailed him again and it turned out that the graduate committee would not admit me and asked me to redo my GRE and TOEFL to get higher scores! I did that, and finally got admitted! You should know that my school is top 50 in my field (civil engineering), my adviser is very well known, I got fully funded too, and I'm about to finalize my PhD!!
This is the moral of the story;

Get publications (its one of the only things you can control after you graduate, its too late to fix GPA or school name)
Contacts matter! Attend conferences and get in touch with people
NEVER GIVE UP!

It comes down to funding in the UK at least for all but the most prestigious Universities.
Being able to pay the (Non EU band) UK fees does give you preferential treatment despite the protestations to the contrary.
Edinburgh is one of the top Universities in the world for AI and on my (MSc AI) course we had numerous Indian students, one of them was from an IIT, the rest from middling Indian Universities. Did you try Edinburgh?
One of them is currently in Mumbai working and I'm sure could give you some advice, could twitter you his cell#.
As for the "After all, your real goal is to do great research, not to get into a top-20 program. Right?"
I'd disagree. A top program indicates excellent teaching and the fostering of a good Research environment and great resources as well as far better post-doc opportunities - you will likely not get this at Podunk U.