text:
If I don't participate in research in first couple of years of PhD , how much am I losing?
I completed my MS in Human Computer Interaction (HCI) and was planning to do an PhD in Operations Research. But after first few weeks in program , I decided it was not what I wanted to do in long term and dropped out.
There is a background to this- my untenured MS advisor refused to sponsor my PhD . Another well known professor in the department came forward and offered me a good stipend but I dropped out from his lab after couple of weeks.
Things had become too caustic even before I joined his lab. The PhD professor wanted me to help him with some algorithms in the final month of my MS, but my MS advisor shooed him multiple times saying that I was very busy, when in fact I was free all the time. My MS advisor wanted me to make her a co advisor and get her a piece of the tenured professor's project, it didn't work out and since then she has become pretty vengeful towards me. She rejected job offers from our research sponsors after MS saying I was doing PhD and was not interested in working for them.
I think at this point I have lot of ill will against me in my department mainly due to active efforts to undermine me by my MS advisor.
In my university ,we need to take around 30-40 credit hours of subjects and pass candidacy and continue the dissertation.
I am taking an completely different route to PhD. I am taking 9 credit hours every semester (full time course load is 6 credit hours) and at same time working full time as Data warehouse SW developer.
It's very strenuous(My long commute, job and courses and assignments occupy at least 17-18 hours of my day) but I am able to manage them and it's working pretty well as I get paid around 135K at my job.
Is this is an ideal approach until I finish my subjects and then see if any HCI lab in my department can take me in? Can I expect things to calm down in 2 years time.or what can i do right now to improve on this situation?
Or am I really hurting myself here. My concern at this point is after my candidacy, no lab will take me back because of no recent research work. By the way, I don't need to finalize an advisor for the dissertation right now, I can take candidacy exam in dept. by forming a temporary committee .
One advantage I may have is I will have enough money by that time to volunteer in a lab for around an year to prove my worth. But again I am afraid my MS advisor may actively sabotage any of those efforts. I have been afraid and tensed for past few days thinking about this.
Edit : I am from Midwest US

What is HCl? How long is a PhD in your country? Who funds you? Also, why would you MS advisor actively try to hurt you? If you have some proof, you should consider bringing this up to the department.

I don't understand either how your PhD prof. offered you work, but she managed to reject it. Did he offer it to you through her? How did you learned that he made an offer? Why didn't you tell him you were indeed free?

I presume he means that someone told the MS supervisor about a job that James might be interested in, but the supervisor ran them off without consulting James.

@Davidmh , HCI is Human Computer Interaction and I am  from US. So when the other prof. asked my MS prof. for borrowing for a day or two to fix his algorithms she denied him saying i was too busy even though i was free (and this happened 3 time). When research sponsors came to my lab and asked for my resume ,she came in between conversations and asked them to forward my resume to her and she would forward it to them. I understood the message and didn't forward my resume to sponsors and i was into conflict avoidance mode with my advisor. I knew she wanted to screw me real bad but she couldn't.

@james234 did you tell her you were actually free? Did you followed up with her, asking if she had forwarded your CV to the sponsors? I still have a hard time figuring out a reason for her to do active sabotage.

@Davidmh  Well she never forwarded the resume to them. Infact she actively persuaded the sponsor to recruit a completely new guy who had joined the lab recently . And at multiple times during our meetings she told me to drop my Phd with the tenured prof. and go to other univs and i shouldn't care what the other prof. thinks of it. When i asked her why she never gave me an answer.  I asked my other labmate why she was doing this and he told me that she wanted me to stay in her lab for Phd and the fact that i went to another lab was insulting to her.  But this is all just background info

If "135K" is in USD, why do you want to break your back over getting a PhD when you're already earning $135K pa? That's an extraordinary amount of money.

@LightnessRacesinOrbit that is a typical pay for a data warehouse engineer. My project architect makes over 400K just for FYI. But i am far more interested in research than consulting and working in IT. I just see my present job as a temporary gig to help get me where i want to.

@james234: Whatever your country is it is mental

If my understanding is correct and she's still your advisor, then she may be able to intentionally fail you in the exam and brings an end to your PhD.. Do not wait till the exam

@james234 If you really want a PhD, I'd suggest quitting your job and relocating to a different university.  In my view, if you are not participating in research, you are not getting a PhD.

@AnonymousPhysicist In an ideal situation i could do that. Buy i have enquired for funding with most of the professors i know and all of them are content with  continuing with their masters students for PhD. I cannot sustain a Phd with no funding and working on  my job for first couple of years not only eliminates the need for funding , but also i can complete my course requirements in that time. What is the drawback here?

The drawback of maintaining your job is not doing research, and therefore missing the point of a PhD.  If you can move to a better university there will be more funding opportunities.

@AnonymousPhysicist I am making up my plan for next 2 years as  i move along .I can do something like volunteer work for a professor to work in their lab over weekends (That gives me atleast 16 hours to work on research ). At this point ,thats all the time i have. So will it be a good idea to ask a professor in HCI dept about that. Also leaving my present university is not an option.

@AnonymousPhysicist It seems like the OP is in a PhD programme where the first two years focus heavily on courses (I've only heard of one such case in Europe, but OP is in the US). I would absolutely agree with you if the OP was in one of the situations familiar to me, where you jump into research with no to minimal course requirements at the beginning of (a typically short 3-4 year programme). I am not saying you are wrong, but still wondering if your advice is as much on point for somebody with a mandated course-heavy start of a PhD programme.

I think it's better to be involved in research from the beginning of a PhD program, but I've seen plenty of programs designed to discourage starting research until the student has passed the qualifying exams. Both models can lead to good PhDs and good careers afterward. You appear to be in the enviable position, assuming you can sustain it, of being able to save a substantial portion of the salary from your day job so that when it comes time to start some research, you can do so with your own funding. If the project goes well, and you are good at research, you may be able to complete your dissertation more quickly than someone who has to work on a funded grant which has deliverables other than your thesis.

i am in a pretty weak position within my department now. In Worst case scenario , i may have to go back to my MS advisor  till i pass my candidacy. I need guidance on which subjects to take to reach candidacy. If i ever have to go back to my MS advisor , can i face any potential adverse consequences like willful sabotage of my Phd ?

Yeah, but if the reason she was sabotaging everything else was because she wanted you to do you PhD with her, then the odds are somewhat lower that she'll sabotage the PhD itself. Though, if she's mad enoug, anything could happen. That being said, I think you need to find someone trustworthy in the department to talk to about the prior sabotage. If it happened as you said, it's something a good department would want to look into and stop.

i just took your advice and asked an office assistant( a close friend) who processes GRA contracts asking if she has any info. It seems my MS advisor has hired a new Phd student from outside . I have been her MS student for past 2 years and the assistant thought  my MS adviser may have asked me to leave univ. so that she doesn't look bad in the dept. ( the fact she ditched her student and hired new face from outside ).So if i had left the univ. following her advice she could have told people in department that she wanted to offer me Phd but i left for job on my own volition.

Find a new advisor, as quickly as possible.

Where is the department Chair in this situation?  Depending upon the structure of your college within the university, that is generally the individual with whom you can discuss both your questions regarding research and your situation with your MS advisor.  It sounds as if you need someone who can deal with the administrative aspects of the situation - the person who signs your MS advisor's annual review.
If that doesn't work, you can go to the Dean of your college, or perhaps the Dean of Students.  In my years working in Academia, the Dean of Students was always a powerful individual within the university.  You shouldn't have to deal with the petty issues that you're experiencing.  You should be able to focus on your degree and its associated research.


text:
What is the likelihood of a PhD admission if a professor agrees to supervise?
A very nervous potential PhD student here!
Long story short, I have been applying to quite a few bioinformatics PhD programs in the US and been rejected from most of them. I did my masters in the UK, and had unfortunately fallen ill during its course and had to take a break so didn't end up doing great. My undergrad GPA is ok (3.12). I did however do good work during my Undergrad and masters, and have a really supporting recommendation letter to show for it.
I had a very promising interview with a professor from a Flagship State University who has agreed to supervise and fund me (Research assistantship). Suffice to say our research interests match a lot and I also think the professor would be a great supervisor. The professor has also been actively following up on my application within the department.
My question here is, what are my chances of getting admitted?
The department doesn't have a "PhD program" per se (i.e. traditional program where students are admitted and then find a supervisor). Students seem to contact supervisor and find funding through that route and then apply. I am not sure how the application processes work in the US.

If you have a professor with shared interests looking after your application for an ad hoc position, I think your chances sound good. Best of luck!

that sounds promising ! Thanks for your wishes !

Your odds are better than they might be otherwise, but they're not necessarily 100%, either.
Part of the issue is that some schools may not recognize or honor such "claims" or "gentlemen's agreements" to fund people after they are accepted. More importantly, the issue is that US admissions are typically done at the departmental level, not the faculty member level. That means that a professor telling you that you'll be admitted is not necessarily a guarantee, because the admissions committee has to make that call. (On the other hand, if the advisor in question chairs or is a powerful member of the admissions committee, that changes things substantially!)

Good points, but surely the professor who "agreed to supervise and fund" the OP's PhD would already know all of this and would know the situation in their own department. If we assume that any reasonable professor would not agree to offer a PhD position that they could not deliver on, then the question of how confident the OP should be reduces to the question of how trustworthy the professor seems to the OP.

When I contacted the admin office, they replied that students are funded via research assistantships from the grants obtained by core faculty members (the professor is one of the core members). So wouldn't the professor have a significant say in the process ? after all it's their money(in a way..)

It depends on when the "match" between advisors and students takes place. If students are assigned advisors before enrollment, then yes, the advisor would get a say, but advisors have less individual power when the assignments are made after arrival.

In addition to @aeismail answer; I would say it depends to the university policy/routine in handling applications.
Most likely there are three entities involved in any application:

School/Faculty of Graduate Studies (GS)
The department
The potential supervisor

Your chances depends on how applications are usually processed between these three entities.

Some schools they just need a commitment from a faculty member to accept you; ( that is, GS decision always align with the supervisor decision).
Others the final decision is made through GS - after receiving the input from the department.

to be fair, there is nothing mentioned specifically on the website, just that need to apply before a certain deadline to be considered for all fellowships.

This answer is coming from my experience at one major research school in the US.
This is department dependent. In some sciences (e.g. those where many professors have their own "lab"), it's essentially a prerequisite for you to have a professor who is willing to work with you and let you join their lab. So, in this situation, having this commitment from a professor is not a particularly strong "+" for you, but not having such a commitment would probably rule you out entirely.
In other departments (e.g. my PhD department: Statistics), a vast majority (if not all) PhD students did not have an advisory commitment from any faculty member before applying. However, it did appear that those who ultimately failed the qualifying process (exams, etc.) were those who had not had significant research progress with any faculty. I don't know if this was a causal relationship or just the simple fact that those who were working on research were those that were generally better equipped to pass the exams.

Well in all other places where I applied, they had a "PhD program" sort of system - get admitted, funded as a TA for first 1-2 years, do classes, do lab rotations and find supervisors in that time. This program is the only place I applied to where you gain the commitment of a supervisor, then only apply.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Diversifying the academic institutions one attends
I am planning on doing research mathematics at a university or similar institution as a career. I have heard that it is important to diversify your studies (not attend the same school for undergrad, masters, and PhD). Is this true? What if I am already going to a good school, with the potential to work with people in the forefront of my field?
I am currently doing my undergrad degree, but when it comes time to do my masters, is it important to find a different school, or will staying in the same place hurt my job prospects? Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Where are you located?

The University of Waterloo

Specifically I'm studying pure math with the intention of going into analytic number theory (if that helps)

sorry, I meant which country. I don't know about US/Canada - in Europe it is usually suggested to not do undergrad, PhD and postdoc all at the same place, but most people do the bachelor and master at the same university. Often also PhD, then go elsewhere for a postdoc. Unless they already have a bit of a family with kids, then they might stay where they are for good.

It's not a hard and fast rule.  It's one factor to consider among others.

It's just about showing that you work well in different contexts. You can also mitigate somewhat by working with another prof at the same school. The concern, as I've heard it expressed, is that if you only ever worked with one prof (s)he might have 'carried' you through your PhD, or that you might be so set in his/her ways that you won't be able to adapt to the way things are done at other groups.

While this is generally true, it depends heavily on the field and subfield. Pure math is a little unique compared to many other disciplines, and in my experience has a much higher rate of students staying with the same university/department/advisor from undergrad through PhD--perhaps because if you find a professor working on a given topic you'd like to study, there's a decent chance he or she is the only (or one of very few) person in the country doing it. I know a decent number of people in pure math who did this, and at least two of them are now tenured math professors at research universities--so I don't think it's guaranteed to hurt your job prospects.
I would talk to the professor(s) you're interested in working with and ask for suggestions specific to studying analytic number theory.

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


text:
When should conferences precirculate papers?
I have been to a few conferences that worked based on precirculated papers. That is, everyone submits their papers in advance and the assumption is that conference goers who come to a given talk have read the paper in advance. In principle this seems ideal, we can use that face-to-face time to discuss work instead of just listening to people read their papers (this people reading their paper at a conference thing happens all the time in the humanities). In what circumstances should conferences precirculate papers? Is it something that is best for small conferences, or are there good examples of large conferences that work this way too?

@Trevor Can you show us some examples of conferences you've attended that pursue such a format?

So here is a link to why the American Historical Association suspended doing precirculated papers http://blog.historians.org/news/1352/suspending-precirculated-papers-at-the-aha-annual-meeting As some have suggested in answers, the best successes I've seen with these tend to be small workshops.

I've seen some workshops in the CS field (more specifically in a subfield of Software Engineering, e.g. VaMoS - see workshop format -, in which there is a kind of "precirculation of papers", before the event take place. The workshop format includes a kind of "discussion session", in which, before attending the event, one paper is sent to an attendee other than the paper's (set of) author(s), so that he/she is in charge of reading the paper and preparing some discussion slides. During the event, after the paper's presentation, the discussant will provide attendance with his/her point of view on the paper, thus promoting the actual "discussion session".
Indeed, it is a small-scale precirculation of papers, in a sense that a paper is sent previously to only a few people (usually an author of another paper). However IMHO such a format provides event's participants with an interactive environment (in the worst case, at least you, as a paper author, will be sure that at least one another peer has read you paper... lol).
Quoting the mentioned workshop website:

Each session will be organized such that discussions among presenters
  of papers, discussants and other participants are stimulated.
  Typically, after a paper is presented, it is immediately discussed by
  pre-assigned discussants, after which a free discussion involving all
  participants follows. Each session is closed by a general discussion
  of all papers presented in the session.

To be very honest, I guess it's not feasible to do such a thing in big conferences, due to time constraints, but for small (and focused) events, like workshops, I guess this idea is very welcome.
As I said before, there are some other workshops that follow this same format: FOSD and  PLEASE.

I can't see this happening in any sort of large-scale conference. This would involve too much work and logistical planning on the part of everyone involved to be successful. It's hard enough to get abstracts for many conferences—let alone finished papers far enough in advance that people have time to read them!
In addition, this last point is another major obstacle: people don't have a lot of time to read all the papers that we're supposed to, let alone a bunch for a particular conference. The main reason why I would undertake that much work was if it were for a relatively specialized workshop in my personal field of endeavor.


text:
How do you avoid favoritism and personal relationships from affecting grading?
Universities do encourage close cooperation between students and faculty. However, how does one prevent close working or personal relationships from affecting grading, so that it can be carried out fairly and uniformly? Is there a method of avoiding "playing favorites" with students a faculty member has a "closer" relationship with than others?

I removed all previous comments, as they are no longer relevant.

Sorry, but that edit was inappropriate. This new and different
question should have been asked as a new question. I would revert if I could.

@dmckee I agree with you, and I’ve opened a discussion on meta about our policy in such cases

I would suggest to design a rubric to assess the work of students. The design of a rubric is difficult and may require a lot of work for the teacher, but it will isolate the grading process from other factors. Here you can find a book about rubrics.
One of the advantages of using a rubric is that students can easily observe how their work is going to be evaluated. Another advantage is that teachers can easily apply the same criteria across all the work to be graded.

If at all possible, have all papers and/or exams graded by two people independently, for example, two teaching assistants / graduate students. Then the official examiner can browse through the results. Where the two agree, one can directly go along with it. Where they don't agree, the examiner can judge what is correct.
This protects not only against favouritism, but also against simple, honest mistakes in grading. Of course, it's possible that two or even three all make the same error, but that's why students have the opportunity to appeal, don't they?

Where possible, exams and courseworks should be anonymised before grading.  But otherwise, we have to depend on the professionalism of academics, a strategy I think is sometimes undervalued.  Academics are professionals, and one part of many professions is striving to be objective.
Of course, psychologically it is impossible not to be influenced by knowledge, but it shouldn't be assumed that academics can't compensate for this adequately to give fair marks.  Some people may actually overcompensate and mark students they know harder, not easier, but hopefully the experience of learning from working with faculty makes up for this risk.
The ultimate academic "grade", a PhD, is entirely assessed by letters written by people who know the holder both personally and professionally.  Again, the same is true in other industries.


text:
Professor wants my "non-funded" master's data
I have recently abandoned my master's program. Long story short, she was a very strict director who always put me down. I didn't get along with her, and she never gave me any emotional or financial support. Now that I have quit, she asks I do a backup of all of the work I have done for her. I don't think it is fair that I have to give it to her, especially since there was no funding AND she kind of forced me to quit. I can't find any rules that adresses this type of situation.
Should I give her what I have done since I produced those results while being her student?
Here are more details: After 4 semesters, she told me that I didn't have the abilities to complete the masters program, and that she didn't know what to do with me. While it is true that my work wasn't the best, there also were a lot of problems with the actual project which explains why we weren't going as fast as she would have liked. She went on to talk to the dean, and I went to see my co-director for some alternatives so that I can complete my studies. He came up with a new project,with less interactions with her and more with him, which she rejected. She said that seeing how I have "not produced a single result", she won't start a new project. if I want to continue with her, I have to complete a number of tasks (on the original project) within the semester, and if I fail to complete them, the project is over. Since I was (still am) in a deep depression from working with her, I refused to continue seeing how I don't want to get psychologically weaker. I left school and hoped to get all of this behind me, but she then writes to me saying that since I decided to abandon, I need to give her my all of the data, articles, and other works. I don't understand why she wants my work when she says that I was an incompetent student who hasn't produced any results.
She never did any investment apart from giving her time, I paid for all of my studies and did my own research alone. I don't think I owe her anything.

Did you have a contract (e.g. e-mail exchange)? Also, where in the world are you? The laws differ. Depending on the situation, you might even be able to sell the data for money, as it is the fruit of your labor.

The answers so far have focused on legal obligations.  I don't see that as very relevant - even if the advisor/university did have a legal right to the OP's work, it seems very unlikely they'd go to court to get it.  I'd focus more on the academic or professional consequences to the OP of either sharing or withholding the data.  Initial thought for the OP: do you know the fable of the dog in the manger?

@NateEldredge: The ability (or lack of it) of another party to enforce their potential rights on research results IMHO doesn't negate the existence of a dependency between copyright and professional decisions. On the other hand, I agree that the ethical aspect is somewhat less dependent on legal obligations.

Do you not want to give the data to your former supervisor because there is something more you would like to do with it in the future, or simply to spite the person whom you feel treated you badly?  The latter seems hard to justify from an ethical standpoint.

Maybe think of it this way: you left because your supervisor lost confidence in your ability to do the work you were assigned, even to the extent of having "not produced a single result".  Given that it's all the same to you, would you rather your last interaction with her prove her wrong or prove her right?  Behaving professionally while leaving a bad situation can be a source of comfort and closure to you in the future.  Behaving badly can be a source of regret.

From the information you have provided, if you don't want to give her your information, you don't have to, at least not from a legal standpoint, since you were self-funded. I don't understand why you are posting here to ask about this. Are you trying to get validation for your actions from strangers? Do you want them to tell you it is Ok? I suggest you just do as you want. And, with respect, I disagree with @PeteL.Clark. I don't think ethics enter into it. And you are under no obligation to show professional courtesy to people who don't show you any.

Do you intend to work on this project again in the future?  Do you intend to have any interaction with academia?  If yes to either, can you salvage anything from the work?

I faced a kind of similar situation.  I complied because (a) it only took a few mins (b) I could forget about it more easily (c) I didn't want to stoop to her pettiness (d) I wanted to be able to honestly claim that I'd always behaved reasonably and done everything possible to achieve the project aims (f) I had already salvaged stuff that I believed was entirely mine and could be published.

She never did any investment apart from giving her time

Whoa, there! That sounds like a significant investment, to me.  Indeed, it's hard to see what other investment you could reasonably expect her to make. She's not responsible for your funding; she can't do the work for you because it's supposed to be your master's project, leading to your degree, not hers.
Nonetheless, it is typical for an advisor to provide sufficient guidance intellectual contribution to the project that they could reasonably expect to be a co-author on most papers coming out of the project. This is joint work and it belongs as much to your collaborators as to you, even if you don't get along with your collaborators any more.
What does it cost you to hand over the material? Do you expect to benefit from it in some way that will be diminished by giving it to the professor? If it costs you little or nothing, it's hard to see any justification for not handing it over.  "I don't like her" is spite, not justification.  The main benefit that I see from handing it over is that you can expect to be a co-author of any paper that results directly from the work you have done. And, if you do hand over the data, you should make this a condition.
You should also consider the impact of your decision on your future career. If you intend to leave academia then it's probably minimal: you're unlikely to be asking for a reference from this professor and it's unlikely you'll have any interaction with her in the future. However, if you intend to stay in academia, you need to think carefully about this. People's perceptions of your actions will depend very much on who they think was at fault. If, for example, your professor has a reputation of being difficult, maybe you gain sympathy from the community. However, if she has a reputation of being reasonable, trustworthy and easy to work with, there's the danger that you acquire the reputation of being difficult to work with, falling out and torpedoing projects.

While some your points are valid and should be considered, at the core of the answer you're mixing professional conduct and ethical one. Sure, they significantly overlap, but still the concepts are different. Moreover, your suggestion to make conclusions on a particular situation (circumstances of which, unless made public, are known only to those involved and witnesses) and, correspondingly, build perceptions about a person, based on general reputation of a professor is IMHO unfounded and wrong.

@AleksandrBlekh I'm saying that people do build their perceptions of unknown person X based on what their acquaintance Y says about X and how trustworthy they feel Y is. Whether people should do that is largely irrelevant.

Fair enough! I hope that not all people build their perceptions, entirely based on third-party opinions.

"The main benefit that I see from handing it over is that you can expect to be a co-author of any paper that results directly from the work you have done" only works if the OP does get authorship, which the OP needs to negotiate carefully before handing over the data. In particular, in that situation I would not hand it over without written agreement that the OP will be co-author and that they will have veto power on the resulting manuscript. By the sound of this supervisor, she may not necessarily be willing to agree to those terms.

@E.P. I'm not sure what one can conclude about the supervisor's attitudes given only one side of the story. But I agree that all parties need to be clear what has been agreed to.

I disagree with @AnonymousPhysicist - AFAIK, based on US Copyright Act (Title 17 of the US Code), copyright is, by default, assigned to authors of original works, with some exceptions (for details, see the Act or the article linked below). In addition to those exceptions (which, I believe, don't include specific references to academic environment), it is important to emphasize the term "joint work", as it very often is applicable to academic and research environments. For that, you need to check your student handbook and/or other university policy documents. For a brief, but more readable than legal text, explanation, see this page.

I want to mention that my answer above is focused on works, which includes papers and other literary and audio-visual artifacts. Works might also include secondary data, however, determining the original data's copyright is more complicated, as it depends on various factors, such as institutional policies, sources and methods of gathering the data.

The more relevant copyright doctrine is the work-for-hire doctrine which effectively defines the author as the employer. Disney, the company, is the copyright holder for its film. If there was no payment or contract, that seems unlikely to apply here.

@BenjaminMakoHill: I don't see how work-for-hire concept is relevant to the case of research of a student, who is by definition not employed by university.

And the OP made it clear that the work was not funded, so I don't see any way it could be considered "for hire".

The student probably entered into a contract to comply with the university's intellectual property policy when they enrolled.

@AnonymousPhysicist: I highly doubt that the university's IP policy would declare students' (not researchers'!) work the university's intellectual property.

I'm not a lawyer, and I think that this whole discussion over who owns the copyright is pointless
Copyright law gives copyright owner a monopoly over distributing copies of copyrighted work. So if University has that monopoly OP can't lawfully use the data for his own good. Hovewer copyright owner can't (I'm not a lawyer) force anyone to give back a copy of copyrighted work.
University shouldn't also be able to force you to do any work for free (and backing up two years of work is a serious effort), so answer: "I'm busy" should be accepted.
In my university there is no regulation stating that student is obliged have their work properly backed up. So you are not obliged to even have the data on your computer.
So IMO you are not obliged to give back the data. Wheter you should depends on whether you want to leave academia (and you are sure that you'll never want to go back to academia). You need to decide that yourself.
If you give the data back, plesae note that you should, at least, be a co-author of all publications based on your work. On the other hand, even if she promises to give you co-authorship, you'll have no means to enforce that promise.

"even if she promises to give you co-authorship, you'll have no means to enforce that promise" -- well, if your work really appears uncredited in a reputable journal, then you can write to the editor laying out your claims.  If it appears in a disreputable journal, then frankly, who cares?

For starters OP would have to search journals for publications of OP professor and his group, which is hardly practical. Second thing is more important: if they take his work, develop it and then publish (in plain words: if they dont commit plain plagiatarism) --- his claim would be very weak.

"say that due to hard-drive faliure you lost all the data" - as I grow older I find this kind of stuff more uncomfortable.  If OP doesn't want to give the data back then they can just say no.

OK, perhaps it depends on the field.  In my field, preprints get posted on arxiv.org daily, and I skim the list anyway- I'd notice pretty quickly if someone posted something relevant to stuff I'd worked on.  Yes, if the professor develops things so much that it is not recognisably based on the OPs work then indeed the claim would be weak.

@P.Windridge as for the "hard-drive failure", I'm not saying I would do that myself. On the other hand it seems that whole situation is very uncomfortable for the OP already, and if he can find a solution to this situation that is easier for him (and should be less confrontational than saying no) I wouldn't judge him harshly for choosing it. I have slightly modified my answer, so ethical aspects are more prominent.

I gave this answer a -1 for recommending that the OP gratuitously lie in a professional context.  Either the OP is obligated to turn in the work or not.  If he is, then not turning it in and lying about it is two instances of misconduct.  If he is not (which in my opinion is much more likely) then he can just reply negatively or (simpler!) just not reply at all.  Lying in a professional context to avoid being uncomfortable is not a good precedent for the OP: presumably he still wants to be a professional something in the future.

Typically students' work belongs to the university.  The professor is responsible for keeping track of it whether she wants it or not.  The professional thing to do would be to provide the professor with all the records of your work.  In fact, your supervisor should have told you to do that on a regular basis when you started, not when you left.

In what sense do you mean "belongs" here? For instance, in my experience, it typically hasn't been the case that the university holds the copyright to work done by students.

Having had to deal with this issue first-hand (in my administrative capacity, not in my lab!!), I can tell you that at most if not all US institutions any data collected in a PI's lab belong to the PI. However, the student holds the copyright to her written work.

It is generally accepted that universities have some claim to products and inventions created by students as part of projects, but I'd need a lot more convincing before I'd accept your assertion that my theses belong to my university and not to me.

I'm sorry to hear about this difficult situation and your resulting depression. It sounds to me like you feel like you're being taken advantage after a few semesters of bullying and put-downs. Do you think your former supervisor is a narcissist? If so, you might want to read up on that disorder before deciding how to respond. Here are some options to consider:
If you give her your material, that represents a significant amount of time to back up the work. You won't feel great while doing it, because you'll probably feel like you're being non-assertive and bullied again. That said, you might feel better knowing that by doing so, she's less likely to contact you again and that you can close that door and begin to move on. If she's a narc, this is probably the least dangerous option, and that might make you feel better about taking this option - knowing that you have other choices to ignore/decline her, but that you're choosing to do this for yourself to minimize damage. If you go for this option, you will want to politely email her the information and also indicate that you're not interested in continuing communication with her in the future. You'll want to give a lot of thought into your response, but something along the lines of: "Attached is the information you requested - I trust this meets your expectations. I am currently moving into a different direction, so we don't need to stay in contact, but I wish you all the best with your future research."
If you are feeling too down for that, then you might temporarily feel better to ignore the request. That might solicit more emails from her, which probably won't help you - you'll probably feel guilty or bad about yourself every time she writes. She could also get increasingly aggressive. This therefore wouldn't be a long-term solution - only if you are too down to deal with it "right now".
Another alternative is an honest "no" along the lines of: "I'm afraid I can't attend to this at the moment - this represents a significant time investment and I'm currently quite busy doing other things at the moment. I am currently moving into a different direction, so we don't need to stay in contact, but I wish you luck with your future research." This is all true, because you're busy trying to recover and presumably find another route in life. Like the other options, it isn't great, because if your former supervisor is in fact a narcissist, she might get pretty toxic (mean, slanderous, etc), and she's in a position of power while you're not.
This is a tough call - there is not easy or right answer in my opinion. No matter what option you go for, remember to be polite. Also try to be compassionate to yourself no matter what you decide. Good luck!

I am a professor (UK).  Ordinarily work produced by students belongs to the University - I believe our policy is that submitted work belongs to the University which is a subtle distinction.
In practice, if you don't provide her with the work they aren't going to do anything about it.  So if your professor was as unpleasant as you suggest, just keep the work in spite.

Which is it -- "work produced by students belongs to the University" or "submitted work belongs to the University"? And a big, fat -1 for advocating spite as the overriding principle.

Personally I vote for spite over taking the doormat approach. Maybe she will think harder about maintaining a good relationship with students in the future if she wants favors from them after they have left. I know I have zero use for the efforts of students who I would fail. I also wouldn't even expect my emails to get a response in her case.

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


text:
How to leave graduate school without pain
I am an international student in one of the top universities in Canada.
The graduate admission in Canadian university is a little bit different from other countries; if you want to pursue Phd, you have to have a Master first, and Msc program here is usually admitted with funding (everything paid by supervisor). Currently I am second year of a Computer Science program and going to get my Msc degree within the next six months.
The problem is that before I came here, I told my supervisor I will do a PhD with him. After I came here and dig more into the area, I found out that I am not very interested in his current research. Additionally, my supervisor is not really giving me much support, the funding for the project is actually paid by another PI not in CS. My supervisor is a full professor and does not care much about what research his students are doing, he really enjoy his life a lot (often leaving the office very early). I think what he wants is just to produce some phd students to show he is still active (I can see this because every meeting he seems to talk about phd stuff, and he is kind of really pushing me into phd because he only has one phd student right now, two student in total including me).
Because of this, I want to leave with only a Master degree. The process is that before you finish your Master, you have to fill a form to indicate whether you want to continue Phd with current supervisor or not. This form has to be signed by the supervisor before you graduate with Masters. I think if I directly tell my supervisor I am not doing phd, he will be mad at me and prevent my getting Master degree.
So, should I get admitted in the phd program first and then quit later, or just leave now? If I do the former, I can search for a job first and then tell him I am not interested in academia career anymore. How can I leave with Master degree peacefully?

High, and welcome to Academia.SE!  I'm afraid I'm having some trouble understanding your question.  Can you please try to organize it a bit more clearly?

Could  you clarify whether there is a separate admissions process for the PhD program, or are you automatically admitted and/or enrolled if you indicate a desire to continue on the form?

I tried to clean it up, leaving as much of the original text as I could to keep the flavor.

Thanks a lot for helping me to organize the words more clear. And response to Pete L. Clark's question:   Yes, I will be automatically admitted in the PhD program with current supervisor if I indicate a desire to continue on the form. If I don't want to continue, I also need to indicate this in the form. And the supervisor has to sign it in either situation.

Some thoughts:

Don't decide what you want to do with your life on the basis of not annoying your current supervisor. If you really want to stop at an MSc then do that, but if you really want to do a PhD with a different supervisor then see if you can do that. Or you might decide you prefer the freedom of a supervisor that doesn't much mind what you do.
Your supervisor is a professional. There's a chance they'll be really nasty, but it's more likely they will behave properly and sign the form, even if that isn't what they personally want.
Lying is not a good path in Canada (well, not for most people at least).

I'd say: Lying is not a good path in Academia, and neither is in any environment that cares about ethics. You simply shouldn't lie.

@yo' I don't have enough experience of the whole world to rule out the option that there's somewhere where lying currently helps people. It would be better if that wasn't the case, but I don't think the world is perfect. That place might be closer to home than you'd like to think.

Have a conversation with your superviser. Having an unfounded fear that "he will be mad at me and prevent my getting Master degree" is not a good basis to make decisions.
I'm saying this because:

Faculty are people too. We know that students' interests and plans in life change.
What would your faculty adviser stand to gain by preventing you from getting a Master's degree? In all likelihood, this would simply yield a lot of follow-up work for your adviser, without any extra gain.
You use the implicit assumption that faculty members are vengeful and mean ill. I think that there is little empirical evidence for that to be true, but it is also generally a poor strategy in life to expect negative attitudes from anyone unless you have concrete evidence to the contrary. If you treat people as if they were evil, they will treat you negatively. If you treat them as if they are partners in your journey through life, they will treat you as a partner.

This is a question for the director of graduate studies in your department, or your department chair.
Administration might advise you to wait with the form, or put a white lie on the form.  They will probably appreciate your letting them know your plans in advance.


text:
Is it allowed for a scholarship beneficiary in Australia to earn more than a stipend?
I am a PhD (research sector) student with full scholarship. I normally work 4 hours every day (Mon-Fri) which means I worked for 20 hours per week and 40 hours in 2 weeks, from 7pm-11 pm shift. According to my scholarship I am only permitted to work 8 hours per week and 16 hours in 2 weeks between 9am to 5 pm.
According to recent work limitation, student can only work for 48 hours. This month my professor offer a casual research assistant position for 3 months. when I calculated my earning it would be more than 1,200 stipend i earn every week.
Because of this offer I have reduced my night shift to 16 hours per week and 32 hours in 2 weeks with addition of 16 hours from the offer granted to me in my faculty making it 48 hours in 2 weeks.
Now here are my concerns, I need clarification on the following:

As a PhD on research status, I think I have no work limitation but people said it is only for phd or master by research on self funding that do not have work limitation. Please kindly let me know the fact on this matter

The second question is that the casual research assistant salary and my second job salary together is higher than my stipend, please Is it right ? Hope I'm violating any rule?

Please kindly help me I need clarification urgently.

My professor is not aware that I do other job because I go to school everyday and I am making remarkable progress in my research as I have published few articles within one year of my commencement.
Thanks in anticipation of your response.

You need to check whether your visa has any work restrictions and whether your scholarship restricts you to only work for the university or related to your studies. From what I can tell masters/PhD by research students do not have any work restrictions unless their scholarship or visa has restrictions.

Your scholarship limits your work. You're exceeding those limits. I don't know how it works there, but where I'm from the penalty for that could include loss of the scholarship and even needing to pay back what you already received.

@mkennedy Thank you for your comment. Here is the condition on my visa: The 48-hour requirement does not apply if:
● you are the holder of a Student visa granted in relation to a masters degree by research or doctoral degree and you have commenced the masters degree or doctoral degree.  According to visa 48 hours are allowed but for the school 16 hours are allowed in 2 weeks. All together I am within 48 hours. I maintain 8 hours per week within 9am to 5pm, while i do shift from 7pm to 11pm night. My concern is about the income  if there is rule not to earn above the stipend

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


text:
How to find a good part-time programs by reputable business schools?
I have a bachelor degree and work for a marketing research company as a senior research analyst in Morris County in NJ. Having this day-time job, my options for further education remain part-time programs only. However, I do want to get a formal degree from reputable part-time programs, such as part-time MBAs/Master degree. Not just some random courses or certification training offered by community colleges or education institutions.
I work till 5:30 everyday so I am only available after that or on weekends. And the place of lecture has to be close enough to my office/home. Not some place too far away.
I am wondering if there are any programs meeting these criteria. I am not sure where to find, who to ask or which website I should look at to search for these kind of programs. Where should I start? What are the other things I should consider when I plan my further education and choose the programs?

Baoye,
There are plenty of accredited online MBA programs at accredited institutions. In Maryland, where I am, Frostburg State University offers an AACSB accredited MBA fully online. University of Maryland University College also has a good online program. A little effort on Google should find other programs, perhaps even on New Jersey.


text:
Information in my Thesis incorrectly represented in another publication
Recently I came across a publication that referenced my PhD Thesis in a literature survey. The citing is correct, however, the information that they sited is incredibly erroneous. In a table, they claimed that my thesis (in Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting) reported values that it simply did not. The only information apparently from my thesis is reported in a table (Table 3) and nowhere else.
This is the publication in question.
Given the journal and publisher, is it worthwhile to attempt to contact the authors to fix the error?

Volume 1, Issue 1... and the PDF is created by convertonlinefree.com. Ha. I think it's fairly safe to say that no one of any repute is likely to take anything the paper says seriously (because the writing and formatting are so bad, if nothing else), but an error is an error. It will be interesting to see whether a predatory journal actually cares, but these articles are usually published without any peer or editor review whatsoever so I wouldn't bet on it.

I've never seen a byline refer to an author by "Mrs." before.  (In other news, I have never heard of "piezoelectric energy".  There are an awful lot more things on heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy.)  Also, the opening sentence is: "In this modern world we are finding solution to many problems with the growing technologies." I would prefer "It was a dark and stormy night."

Looks like this publication isn't on the predatory publisher list only because it's so new and crappy.  Ignore it.

@PeteL.Clark I needed that laugh this morning.

Yeah. I was thinking along the same lines, but wanted some other opinions.
Thanks guys!

No, there really isn't any value in you trying to pursue a correction here, given how sloppy the presentation of the articles is, and how poorly presented the linked article in particular appears to be.
Basically, it would be much ado about nothing; very few people, as the commenters have pointed out, will try to take the published work seriously; even fewer will bother to check the references and dig through them to figure out that they've apparently been grossly mischaracterized by the authors of the paper in question. So, I don't think there's any besmirching of your scientific reputation to worry about.
Moreover, trying to go after these authors or the publisher to make them make changes will most likely prove equally fruitless. There is no quality control or standards involved with the production of the articles, so it seems unlikely that any request for an editorial correction would be honored in a timely manner (or at all).