text:
My advisor wants me to quit the program. What should I do?
Today I've just been told by my advisor that she thinks it would be better for me to quit after this quarter. I asked her why and she told me she thinks I don't have what it takes to complete grad school. I am a second-year Ph.D. and currently, I am doing great coursework-wise. I really really don't want to quit. She told me she'll give me some time to think about it. I wonder what should I do? Would it still be possible for me to stay under her mentorship?
Also, I wonder how I should approach our next conversation.
Here are some additional information:
I am in a 5-year program in the US, I am funded by my department not my advisor. I have passed my first year qualifying exam.

Well, why do they think you should quit? Without clarity on that and how to fix it, how would you approach a next discussion?

Coursework is about the least important part of grad school, I'm afraid

Unfortunately, courseworks performances are to be accounted rarely as "the bare minimum" (i.e. a problem if not doing good, but no bonus points if doing well), more often as "to be neglected" (i.e. good or bad, it does not really matter).
Are you in a lab? doing computational work? doing Comparative literature?
How would you describe your experience outside of coursework? could you find a fundamental problem to tackle? could you understand/repeat the approach tried to tacke the problem in the last 20 years?

Note that this site is easier to use and you have more options if you actually register.

"I am a second-year Ph.D." Can you clarify what this means? Are you at the beginning or at the end of your second year? How many years was the PhD expected to last? If you're at the end of the second year of a 3-year PhD, it would be a huge waste to quit now. If you're at the beginning of the second year of a 5-year PhD, it's a different story. Please give more context. Please keep in mind that the organisation and lengths of PhD programs differ vastly between different fields, and between different countries.

@Stef As a counterpoint, if OP is at the end of the second year in a 3-year PhD, and the advisor does not see it going anywhere so close to the finish line, there is a good chance that spending even one more year would just be throwing good time after bad.

Are you making progress and keeping up with deadlines/getting things done? Has she said anything to you about this before, or eluded to this before or is this the first time she's said anything bad about your performance?

I think you really need an answer to why she came to that conclusion. At least in the US, coursework is not that important for getting a Ph.D. as long as your GPA is not lower than 3.0. PhD students need to do research and publish papers, so I wonder does she question your research ability? Anyway, I believe an honest conversation with her would be the best, and you really need an answer.

In any case, it would be unwise to stay under the mentorship of someone who has bluntly expressed lack of confidence in you. If nothing else, knowing that they think you will fail will be a bad psychological situation for you.
You can still get some possibly-useful information from this person, though. Ask "why do you think so?", and get as many details as possible.
Some of the answer to that could be that you have some misconceptions about either technical things or bigger-picture things, and acquiring that info could help you.
My own philosophy about advising grad students is that a big part of my job is to help them achieve what they want, perhaps despite their own misunderstanding about "what the game is", and/or despite unhelpful intellectual/scientific habits they've acquired somehow. And, really, for youngish people, especially with less-than-advantaged/privileged previous trajectories, it is not at all easy to predict future trajectories, ...
Plus, if you really want to do this, it's certainly worth the risk of actual "failure" (whatever this means), rather than pre-emptively bailing out due to the "prediction" of a not-so-subtle person.

Well, we don't really know how subtle the OP's advisor was. Perhaps they hinted and hinted, and the OP didn't get it?

I would like to contribute just an anecdote from my personal experience that I would like you to consider...
Before I became a professor, I was only really ever around highly talented students. I went to a pretty good school, and I guess I just implicitly assumed that all students were like us. Thus when I started as a professor,  I was under the impression that, "Anybody can get a PhD if they tried hard, and wanted it enough". However, that hypothesis was quickly disproved by one of my first PhD students. After about a year of lots and lots of effort on my part, it was clear that one of my students lacked the fundamental skills (programming, mathematics) needed to graduate during the funding period I had allotted. Although it must be said, they were by far the most enthusiast student, and "really wanted it".
How did I come to that conclusion? After working with them for a few months, it was clear that they had a really bad grasp on some core mathematical principles and were extremely bad at programming, both of which were core components of the work. Still, being young and naive, I thought that I could just do some extra mentoring to bridge the gap. However, after a year, the student was only falling further behind where they should have been, and so I had a sit down meeting to inform the student that I did not think that they would be capable of getting a PhD. But I left the door open for them to stay if they wanted to stick it out and try...
Well long story short... they said that they wanted to stay and put in the extra work. However, years later, the funding that I had secured for them expired, and they did not have a PhD. At that point they transferred to another advisor and to my knowledge, they never obtained a PhD.
After transferring to another group, the student harbored a lot of anger toward me, feeling that I should just "give them" a PhD because of all of the work they put in. In fact, it is not uncommon for professors to do this even if the work is not really up to snuff. But really there is a threshold that should be met, and the fact is that I did not believe that the student met that requirement. People seem to be handing out PhDs freely these days, and I despise the grade-inflation in academia. The insidious side effect of this is that giving PhDs to everybody devalues the degree for everyone else.
I do not have contact with the student anymore, but I wonder what they think now. Should they have heeded my advice?
Honestly, I would expect that they would blame me for their failings, saying that I did not give them enough mentoring. But if you take such an answer at face value, then it ignores the fact that I was already putting much more time into mentoring that student than the others, and it was at the point that mentoring that student was taking away from my other responsibilities (grant writing, teaching, mentoring other students). This while I was already working more hours than most of my other colleagues. I had no more time to give.
One parting thought that I would like you to consider...
Do you think that your professor came to this decision lightly?
It took me a week to finally work up the courage to tell my student this. It was nerve-wracking. It was an admission that I had failed to get the student up to speed, and that I did not think that I ever could. I was devastated. I had failed.
If your professor got the courage to tell you this, I doubt that they did this lightly. I would guess that they came to this decision upon seeing repeated issues. You should certainly talk to them about this. But please take to heart what they are saying. How will you feel if you are there for 2,3,4 more years, and still don't have a PhD? Make sure that you are not just falling into the sunken cost fallacy. And make absolutely sure that you are clear that lots of people do lots of hard work every day. It just does not rise to the level of warranting a PhD.

Hi, thank you so much for your comment. I have a quick follow-up question. I wonder how do you see a student who can catch up vs. a student who just lacks the ability to complete grad school. In another word, how would you determine if a student is behind in progress but they can still succeed if they work hard enough vs. a student who just lacks the fundamental ability to succeed?

Being behind of progress could be due to the social isolation during Covid-19. Studying in an environment without any academic peer to cheer each other is filled with hardship. Humans are not wired to participate in all activities online without actually interacting with any peers .

+1 Thanks for sharing the anecdote. I've been in a similar situation at a much lower level. (Entered assuming anyone could succeed, then seeing that belief smashed to bit in practice.) It's a story that needs to be told, even if not everyone wants to hear it.

@user150145: You need to talk to you advisor about they have seen to come to this conclusion. But... whatever they believe... they already have a year's worth of evidence to support their beliefs. Why should they believe that everything should suddenly change? If you believe that there were extenuating circumstances, then you should state those when you talk to you advisor. And critically, for the sanity of both parties, set concrete goals for the coming months. If you don't meet those, then it is in both of your interests to cut your losses. Don't chase the sunken costs for more of your life

I see this same attitude even in normal courses. Students often complain that their (usually not great) grade doesn't reflect the amount of time they invested. But I'm not grading the amount of time they spent, I'm grading the quality of their work. The distinction is lost on some students.

I was on the other side of this story at some point. My advisor at that point was in a later stage of their career, more cynical, and instead quickly disengaged and offered me a pretty boring project. He became increasingly passive aggressive while I worked under his supervision and finally got rid of me by failing me on my candidacy exam. Flash-forward a few years and not only I got my PhD under someone else's supervision, but I have a good publication record and doing a postdoc at an R1 university. I still struggle mentally when I see posts like this, though. All the best for the OP.

Fair point. The OP should take this possibility into consideration. But the most important first step is to communicate with the professor to understand how they came to their conclusion. If they believe that the professor is vastly incorrect or just making up excuses, then this could be a situation like yours.

@bremen_matt the thing is that the words of a professor (your advisor!) hold an immense amount of weight on a grad student. We don't know the situation well enough, but I would definitely try my options with someone else.

Although we don't have any information about why your supervisor wants you to quit, I find it inappropriate to state to students, or people in general, that "they don't have what it takes" to do something (assuming she indeed said this). This expression refers to a permanent lack of innate abilities and is different from simply assessing whether a student is suitable to a given project or has made enough progress.
First, it's patronizing (who is she to tell you that?), second, it's irresponsible (how would she know? She's not a cognitive profiler), lastly, it's a breach of her authority: she's not there to assess personalities and eternal innate, everlasting capabilities, she's there to assess your concrete past track record and achievements to date.
She could say: "you have not made enough progress, and this indicates you will not be able to complete your PhD in a timely manner under my guidance". But insulting people by saying "you don't have it" is unacceptable in professional situations.

Also, I wonder how I should approach our next conversation.

Again, we don't have enough information to help here, but I suppose by trying to convince her you do "have what it takes". Say these words precisely: "I believe I do have what it takes", and explain in detail why, if you can.

This is wrong because it is the advisor's job to know and assess the student's abilities.

@AnonymousPhysicist, I disagree. My assessment of my PhD students are private to me. And they can change in time. The supervisor has made a clear mistake: she claims she holds the knowledge of the permanent, eternal inherent "abilities" of the students. But her authority is to assess the track-record of the student and whether it's sufficient to continue in the PhD, not to assess his/her inherent consistent traits and future abilities.

Additional discussion along these lines has been moved to chat.

If your advisor says you should quit after the current quarter, it likely means that if you do not quit, the advisor will stop advising you.  That means any funding that comes from your advisor will be lost.
It is likely that your options are to find a new advisor or to find a job elsewhere.

I guess the OP should ask the advisor if that's what it means or not.

@uhoh You're right, but an honest answer is not guaranteed.

Assuming you have an open line of communication with the advisor, they really should give you a breakdown of why they feel that way, what concrete expectations they have that you aren't meeting (publication count, milestones, etc.), and what they think it would take for you to get from where you are to where they think you need to be by the end of the PhD and why they feel you won't reach that.
You said they gave you time to think about it. You can't reasonably be expected to make the decision to leave a PhD program after investing more than a year without being fully informed of why you are making it.
Also, in my experience some advisors are just unreasonable in their expectations or in their assessment of others. Academia tends to reward a lot of people who had some relatively privileged background (went to excellent prep schools, were trained in prestigious departments with lots of resources, had talent nurtured from an early age, etc.), and a lot of those who have had great success in academia have a very self-confident conviction that they are where they are through sheer hard work and talent and merit. These people tend to have a high view of their own intellect. While I was doing a Master's one of the profs in a course I was taking, who had attended a prestigious university starting at age 16 and had a very narrow view of the type of talent required for academia, advised at least two of my friends not to do a PhD. One of them is now doing quite well in a PhD program despite that.
I have no idea if the above paragraph has anything to do with your advisor, but it may be good to get a second opinion if you have a close enough relationship with anyone else in the department.
One more thing, in my PhD experience I found that a lot of issues with my advisor arose from lack of communication, where my advisor was largely out of the loop with what I was doing. At some point they indicated to me that they were concerned about lack of progress, but (at least in hindsight) this was largely due to not communicating often enough for them to have a clear view of where I was, and thus thinking I wasn't getting anything done. I have heard many stories of people who seemingly make little progress during the bulk of their PhD, but culminate in a highly productive period towards the end.
Only you can really assess your own capabilities, and if you do find that you have some personal flaws which are holding you back then it's good to be honest about that and then get help to improve, I'm sure your campus has career resource or counseling services which you could utilize. Personally, I think if you want it and are passionate and feel it's worth the risks (as you judge them to be), then you should pursue it with a clear conscience. Impostor syndrome is definitely a real thing that affects most graduate students. It helps to have a large number of fellow grad student friends who you can commiserate with, so you can boost each other.
In any case I think that if you do want to stay and believe you are capable, you should consider finding a new advisor who doesn't think you are not capable of success, particularly if your advisor's opinion does not change in the near term.

Yes, indeed, I've witnessed many privileged people who somehow failed to realize their own privilege (and would be angry if this were mentioned!), were entirely confident that it was simply their own talent and hard work that got them to their situation, and that anyone else who felt the side effects of less privilege were just untalented or lazy.

this is a great answer

Make sure you understand what it is that makes your advisor thinks this. One possibility that no other answer has mentioned yet is that you do have what it takes but have not prioritized showing that, because you thought different things were more important.
I am just a graduate student, so I have no specific experience to this scenario, but I believe it is important to consider whether it might be mostly a misunderstanding: If you focus on getting great grades in the coursework and your advisor mostly cares about how independently you do research, for example, that will make her think you are bad at it even when you would not be. Clarify what the specifics are that are most important in her view. Ask if it could be worth seeing how you improve when you focus on these.

The assumption of a few of the other current answers is that the advisor is telling you what they really think; that they are giving you a candid, honest appraisal. Another is more agnostic on that point instead suggest that if an advisor says this, then it's probably not a good idea to try to stick around irregardless.
There is another possibility to consider, that the advisor is saying this as a motivational technique or as a test, a bit like being called worthless scum and hopeless by a drill sergeant initiating Stress and punishment in boot camp.
Before you act, give this explanation a review and see if it might fit. Check with coworkers, other students in the group or outside the group who may have some second-hand knowledge to see if your case is unique or perhaps this advisor has given this kind of talk to other students in the past as well.

She told me she'll give me some time to think about it.

It sounds like there is genuine curiosity about how you will respond to this challenge, and there is a possibility that a push back, a doubling down on your focus towards your research and away from classes is the response hoped for, and an "okay, you're right, I'll go" is, despite what was said, not the response hoped for.
See for example Dilworth@'s excellent answer:

...Again, we don't have enough information to help here, but I suppose by trying to convince her you do "have what it takes". Say these words precisely: "I believe I do have what it takes", and explain in detail why, if you can.

Perhaps it's simply a test to see if your convictions and passions for completing your program are strong. Perhaps it just looks like you are not putting enough work into your research or too much on classes and your advisor wants to either drive you to switch the focus of your effort, or if you can't or won't, only then get you to leave or move to another group.

Wow, if that's a "test" of the advisor then I wouldn't want to work with them anymore. I am about as cynical as one can be, and the thought to ask a perfectly fine student to quit to see if they stay anyway hasn't ever crossed my mind ;)

@xLeitix I know what you mean; I'm quite allergic to motivational techniques like this as well. But it's always possible that for some people things like this can actually be helpful. In the (very) old days it was called "reverse psychology". I think that there's a great scene in the film The Horse Whisperer but I can't seem to find a clip of it. However, it certainly can be done poorly, or with great insensitivity as well.

possibly this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRuAo6BUS7Q

This is similar to Paul Garrett's and Kai's excellent answers, but here's my two cents as someone who dealt with a similar situation at some point and managed to survive (PhD, good publication record and currently a postdoc at an R1). I had a really tough time with my first supervisor, which ultimately concluded with them failing me on my candidacy exam. The process leading to that and the event itself were devastating and it's still something I am working on. I don't think your situation should get to that point.
I think you're in a good position given that your funding doesn't depend on your current advisor. Here's an outline of how I would approach the situation:

Take your current advisors words as feedback. Are these things well-founded? Perhaps it's a work chemistry thing? Do they have unrealistic expectations? Are they on a power trip? All these and more things are possible. Advisors hold a lot of power over PhD students, but remember that this is only their opinion. Don't believe everything they say at face value, but be honest to yourself.

Start looking for a new advisor. Let everyone involved know what's going on (including the grad student advisor/equivalent), no need to hide any details. Faculty will talk before making any decisions, so it's better to be open about it with everyone involved. Be open to work on things that are unrelated to what you've done so far. Discuss graduating plans. Ask questions about other possible advisors: Do they have a project that can be finished in a reasonable time? Do you know any of their current students? What's their experience? How often do they meet? etc.
From my own personal experience, and that one of other people in my program, it's more important to have an advisor with whom you have good chemistry and has confidence in you than working with some hot-shot or whatever.

Do your best and don't let this experience take too much of your head space. This won't guarantee you'll get your degree, but I would bet it will improve your quality of life.

I honestly hope everything works out.

We really need more information. Your current situation, previous plan, country and field would be helpful.
From the United States:
What is your current status? Did you receive a Masters degree? or straight to PhD program? If you dont have a Masters, now might be a good time to 'pull the parachute cord', drop the Phd program, leave with a Masters and regroup. You can still pursue the Phd after reaching that milemarker. Do not waste the last 2 years (sheesh). Even a second masters would be preferable to leaving empty handed. I emphasize to not view this option as failure but a very good option professionally and personally. PhDs are simply not that valuable outside of Academia.
What is the comprehensive/qualifying exam situation? If you can pass that exam, you (unofficially) have earned the opportunity to finish. Your committee --for practical purposes-- should move on from you staying or going if you pass that exam. If that exam exists in the future, I would hinge everything on that exam... not by choice... but you are running out of options. quick. Pass and stay, Fail and get a Masters. Its a simple conversation to have.
What was the original plan? was this a 2 year program? a 5 year program? The context here would definitely inform the tactics and strategy of the path forward.
What is the funding situation? transparent? lacking? abundant? There are a lot of variables that contribute to your fit in that program.
Your situation seems awful and I wish you the best. Dont let your program consume you. One day the program will be over and you will still be here. Take care of yourself first. If you stay, its likely to get worse before it gets better.
With the additional information, you stand at a crossroads. If you are going to succeed in your program, I suggest you change your posture. Your school isnt giving you a Phd. You are taking it from them. Phds are masters of their own destiny. They are masters of their own research, their schedules, all that they survey. Everybody wants a PhD until its time to do Phd stuff. Now is that time. If you are here to stay, and your advisor pushes you. You push back. You meet requirements as they are laid out. You identify areas of weakness and you develop them. Carve your destiny out of your will. Just put one foot in front of the other until all options are expended. Theres no other way. Or quit. Like I said, its simply not that valuable, and the cost is very, very real.

"PhDs are simply not that valuable outside of Academia" [citation needed].

@astronat personal experience (USA). the number of phds produced vastly outnumbers the positions for them, both in academia and out. a phd is a person that knows too much about too little. my job is unrelated to my phd. of course, i have the personal growth, but the applied content is almost completely wasted. your phd might help you, but "fully realized" phds are very few and very far between outside of academia. i am not saying they arent valuable. i am saying the most value is to the phd recipient personally, and not to the employer of.

@astronat i can prove it. are you hiring underemployed phds?

At least in CS, PhDs are highly valuable.

I would reevaluate what you are best at in terms of research skills and repivot to that. I will say from personal experience that I started a PhD in a more theoretical discipline 10 years ago. I struggled and eventually dropped out. I didn't get to the point that I was told that a PhD is not for me, but I started getting comments about being not as good as the rest of the students in my cohort and I also failed half of the qualifying exam (it was comprised of two sections).
I did not want to give up on the dream of a PhD and after a 4 year break from academia, I found a program where the research was more applied. This was a much better fit for me. I passed the qualifying exam in this program and am now working on my dissertation.
Try to talk to other faculty with funding in the department or in adjacent departments. Look at the research you have done so far and figure out what parts of the research you found more rewarding.

I feel I simply lack interest in applied fields, so don't feel it easy to learn them. When I couldn't find a job in theoretical fields after completing my MSc, l accepted a research assistant position in an applied science research center though I knew I was not that interested in applied sciences - l just thought maybe I could also be interested in applied fields, but after l started working there l felt none of those applied subjects interests me greatly and often felt nostalgia for my MSc research about theoretical fields.


text:
How to study theoretical physics deeply but efficiently?
I'm currently starting a phd program in theoretical physics, specifically in quantum gravity, but
I have a problem with my self-study method.
For me, it is always better to study things by myself instead of going to a class, however I have realized that my method is not efficient enough.
I always start reading a book, article or something. Then, I try to explain by myself what I read as if I were trying to explaining it to someone else. After that, I summarize the main ideas writing them in a notebook, but with enough detail to review what I wrote, even many years later, and to be able to understand the topic again. In other words, I try to simplify what I read using my own words. Finally, I do exercises, many exercises.
I have filled many notebooks using this method since I was in highschool (there, I used this method only to study physics). During my undergraduate studies, I didn't used this method, and it was pretty difficult to pass my subjects. My grades were very good, but they were only numbers, not reflecting my real knowledge.
Now, during my phd, sounds strange but I have more time to study things by myself, and I am trying to learn a lot of different topics, but my method is not efficient enough.
It is very difficult to learn something without summarize it in a notebook, and impossible without doing exercises. I have tried to apply some methods like the "Feymann method" or the The SQ3R Method, but I always end up using my own old method.
Is there any way to study theoretical physics deeply and efficiently by my self using a different method?

I’m in pure math, and the writing approach you are describing is basically identical to my method for studying and working on research, which I’ve used for many years. Other successful mathematicians I know also take a similar approach. (Some of them do at least some of their writing in the form of a blog.)
I think you are right that writing things out yourself in a fair amount of detail that goes beyond the textbook/paper and adds your own perspective and observations, is simply necessary to gain a deep understanding of a subject. There’s simply no way around it. In my experience, just reading someone else’s writing, no matter how well-presented or detailed, will give you at best a superficial sense of the subtleties that difficult mathematical and physical theories have. As a friend of mine (a mathematical physicist) once said, mathematics is like riding a bicycle: you can’t learn it by watching someone else do it, you have to do it yourself.
In terms of efficiency, the only potential room for efficiency gains I can think of is the choice of medium for your writing. I used to write mainly on paper notebooks, now I also do some of my note taking electronically (in LaTeX, personal wikis etc), and also combine note taking with calculations in Mathematica notebooks. But for certain types of notes, nothing I’ve found beats plain old handwriting in an old fashioned physical notebook.
To summarize, you are doing what you need to do, at least for the important subjects that you want to specialize in, so don’t worry too much about efficiency. For other subjects without immediate relevance for your research goals, you can perhaps afford to just read articles and books without doing the whole writing thing to quickly gain familiarity with those subjects and broaden your knowledge. That will be useful in case you ever need some of those subjects in the future for your research, at which point you can revisit them in more depth.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Should I change my phd supervisor?
I'm currently starting my phd program in theoretical physics, specifically in quantum gravity.
I completed my masters studies in exactly the same field, under the supervision of Professor X. During that time, he proposed me a project of research. I didn't know if the project was important or useful, because my knowledge about the area was pretty limited.
I found the topic of quantum gravity extremely interesting, but the perspective and the project that Professor X proposed looked to me not very interesting or useful, but I thought that was because of my little knowledge about the area. Even with that, I succesfully completed my masters and even I received an award.
After that, I was searching for phd programs. In the end, I decided to continue with the project that I started during my masters, but now during my phd. I insist that I thought that my belief that the project was not very useful was only motivated by my lack of knowledge or experience.
Now, that I have advanced just a little bit more, we are up to publish our first research article. We have been discussing and talking, and all our work finally cristallyzed into a research paper. The problem that I have is that I still do not see why our project can be useful or interesting.
The examiners that approved my master's thesis looked interested in the project, and one of them congratulated my supervisor for involved me into a project that is different from other projects done during the masters.
What pushed me to publish this question is that, during one of our last sessions of discussion, my supervisor told me that he doesn't know how to justify the project properly, specially for the examiners that are going to read the paper before being published. And something in my mind said: well If YOU don't know how to justify your own project, how the hell am I going to know it?, I mean, are you sure that the project is useful?, will this project give me the opportunity to search for a GOOD posdoctoral position in the future?
Another problem that I have with my supervisor is that It is pretty difficult for me to understand his explanations. He explains things in a very bizarre way. I can perfectly understand the explanations of other people working in quantum gravity, specially the explanations from one of his colleagues. But the explanations of my supervisor are very very difficult to understand, specially when he tries to give examples.
The positive things are that he is patient, and he is always trying to help me. Moreover, he gave me financial support from the budget that the university gives him to go to a conference some months ago. He doesn't have any problems with my own way to work, and doesn't pressure me.
I have been thinking in change my supervisor, maybe start working with his colleague. But I would feel embarrassed If left my supervisor now, abandoning our project, specially if I do it to go with one of his colleagues. Another problem is that I have hear that his colleague, Professor Y, doesn't pay much attention to his students. One of them told me that he felt a little abandoned during his masters.
I received an offer from Professor Y to work in another perspective of the problem of quantum gravity. He didn't gave a specific project, but he offered to help me, but what I need to do in this case is to study more and to think in a project by myself. I mean, I have to study, to think in a calculation or something that I think that It could be interesting to develop, and Professor Y will tell me if the idea is correct or not, and he will give me hints to do the things by myself.
Professor X gives horrible explanations, but he pays attention to me. His project doesn't look very interesting to me, but he is there to help me.
Professor Y makes more interesting things, and explain things in a better way, but I'm not sure if he will pay attention to me.
What should I do?
I have been thinking of trying to develop a plan for a project with Professor Y, and after that explain my concerns to Professor X, and to convince him to join our project with that of Professor Y. That would imply to abandom our current project, but not to my supervisor. Both are very good friends, so that could help.
I insist, I am not sure if the project of Professor X will give me the opportunity to search for good posdoctoral positions. And the posibilities in the area proposed by Professor Y seem extremely exciting to me, but I'm not sure if this just an illusion, because, in the end, I'm still a student.

I have advanced just a little bit more...I still do not see why our project can be useful or interesting.

Sounds like a natural progression: rather than just trying to understand it, you have now reached the point where you can put the project in context and form an opinion on it. And also, you've now done enough work that it is becoming clear to both of you whether this idea will bear fruit.

I have been thinking of trying to develop a plan for a project with Professor Y...and to convince him to join our project with that of Professor Y

I am not a theorist, so I may be off the mark here....but I think this is exactly right. It is not clear to me that Prof. Y has actually offered you a position, or that he would do so if you asked. And even if he did, formally switching your advisor/project is likely to be a hassle and even cost you some time. On the other hand, pursuing a second project (or even better, an extension of your current project) with an additional collaborator is a natural part of the research process. If possible, I would avoid formally jumping ship on the old project, but instead, consider this project with Prof. Y as a natural continuation (or complementary approach, or at worst a secondary project) of your ongoing work with Prof. X.
It sounds like Prof. X is reasonable, so I doubt he will complain. On the contrary, he will probably be happy to see that you are taking ownership of your research agenda rather than expecting him to spoon-feed you each step. The worst not-unlikely outcome is that he personally has little interest in the new direction and is worried about imposing on Prof. Y, so if you do have to get formal approval from Prof. X, you should be prepared to respond to these kinds of concerns.

Hi. Unfortunately our more recent article received the following criticism:  The obtained results, even they look rigorous from a mathematical point of view, do not provide, in  my view, any significantly novel, or deeper insights into the problem of the understanding of quantum gravity, or of possible avenues that could lead to a quantum version of general relativity.

Sorry to hear this. But, I'm not sure why you are telling me this. Is this the work you were doing with Prof. X? In this case, it sounds like the reviewer agrees with your assessment of Prof. X's project. Did you pursue any collaboration with Prof. Y?

This make ask, even stronger, if I am in the right research project. It is very very difficutl to formulate a motivation for our project, and Professor X tries to give some motivations, but his explanations are not very clear.

Well. I tell you because, perhaps this is a good reason to change my project, or my supervisor. Regarding Prof. Y, I have been studying a lot to achieve the right level to start something with him. However, the topic is technically difficult and I'm just getting to the point where I can pose a question and a project on my own, which is what Prof. Y wants.

and yes, the article was produced as a result of my work with Prof. X

Hard to say. It certainly sounds like your project with Prof. X is not going anywhere, as you suspected. My suggestion was to gently pivot toward more promising areas, possibly with new collaborators such as Prof. Y. This still seems like a good idea, if you can manage it. But it may be that a graceful pivot is not possible and only a more drastic course correction will get you where you need to go. As a stranger on the internet, I cannot tell you exactly what to do -- though I'm inclined to agree that you should pursue some course correction, whether graceful or otherwise.

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


text:
What is the long-term professional status of a spousal hire?
I have some questions about the process of spousal hires, particularly in US academia.
As I understand it, the system is as follows: when two married academics Ann and Bob enter the job market, they often wish to work in the same place. If a university makes an offer to Ann, the university might also extend an offer to Bob, even if on his own, Bob may not have received an offer for this particular job. Depending on the scenario, Bob may be given a reduced salary; in some cases, if Ann and Bob work in different departments, the department in which Ann works might even subsidize some of/all of Bob's salary.
I am curious as to what Bob's status is in the university long-term, potentially years after this hiring process is over. Essentially, is Bob treated any differently from a regular academic in his position?

If Ann's job offer is tenure-track (or already tenured), will Bob's be, as well?
Assuming both jobs are tenure-track, will Bob's case for tenure depend at all on Ann's (and vice-versa)?
If Ann and Bob get divorced, or Ann leaves for another university, will Bob's job be affected?
Is the fact that Bob was a spousal hire in any way visible to the general public, in his official job description or resume? What about unofficially?
In a completely unofficial capacity, does being a spousal hire in any way hurt the academic's reputation within the field, in your experience?

EDIT: I'm glad I asked this question and I'm happy to see the discussion in the comments. One big point that has been made is that no university would hire somebody who they consider unqualified for a role; it's not like Bob is obviously underqualified for the job, but rather that there's a massive surplus of completely qualified applicants, so Bob might need the extra edge. My apologies for strengthening misconceptions about spousal hires being weaker/less qualified than their partners.

I do not know a single spousal hire who got a TT position. I would think it's fairly rare, as it is a huge investment and very hard to do cross-department.

Of those spousal hires I am thinking of, it would be hard to identify them (different last names and/or departments), but if you're scrolling through a directory and see two people with the same last name, one faculty and one lecturer, it's kinda an easy guess.

Bob's status is whatever the job says it is. "Spousal hire" isn't an official position; it's just an informal description of the scenario that led to Bob being hired.

@AzorAhai-him- I know of five TT spousal hires in my department. (In each case the spouses were equally strong candidates.) I agree that it's much harder to do cross-department.

@AzorAhai-him- I know of a case where a spouse was hired in a different department.  The spouse got tenure.  Then the spouse's former supervisor was also hired into a named chair.  The spouse's former supervisor was allowed to hire more assistant professors as part of the deal.  At least one of those two is now tenured.  This happened at a rather wealthy university.

I think the real answer to this question is "The answer depends on individual circumstances, but for most couples a spousal hire is not an achievable goal."

@AnonymousPhysicist I don't see what the spouse's former supervisor has to do with it?

@JamieRadcliffe Damn, that's quite impressive. I imagine that's a bit of an outlier (plus my dept only has 14 faculty to begin with ...)

@AzorAhai-him- I do think it's exceptional.

@AzorAhai-him- and others. In small colleges cross discipline spousal hires may be easier to manage and some such things are non-academic professional positions; say in the counseling of admissions office.

Two main points:
a) This is almost entirely up to the specific offer the university makes. There are no official rules. The university decides how badly they want to hire Anne and how generous they have to be towards Bob to make Anne sign the contract.
b) There are practially no work contracts for Bob that are somehow conditional on Anne or his relationship to her. Almost anything in that direction is illegal. Bob just gets a job offer that he may not have gotten otherwise, the actual contract doesn't mention Anne or his relationship to her anywhere.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

The important thing to understand here is that universities will generally not hire someone whom they consider unqualified for the position. So sure, Bob might get hired in this situation when he would not have been offered the job otherwise. But, now that he is hired, a well-run department and university will treat him like any other employee holding the particular position that he holds. At least, that would be the rational thing to do (and the way I have always seen it done) - one can always imagine that in some places people don’t behave very rationally.
Now, to your specific questions:

If Ann's job offer is tenure-track (or already tenured), will Bob's be, as well?

It may or may not be. That depends almost entirely on Bob’s qualifications, and maybe to a very small extent also on Ann’s negotiating power/leverage.

Assuming both jobs are tenure-track, will Bob's case for tenure depend at all on Ann's (and vice-versa)?

Absolutely not.

If Ann and Bob get divorced, or Ann leaves for another university, will Bob's job be affected?

Absolutely not.

Is the fact that Bob was a spousal hire in any way visible to the general public, in his official job description or resume? What about unofficially?

Officially, no. Unofficially, sometimes people may gossip so it’s theoretically possible that word might spread. However, most academics would regard this as irrelevant information and would judge Bob based on his own achievements.

In a completely unofficial capacity, does being a spousal hire in any way hurt the academic's reputation within the field, in your experience?

No. Bob’s reputation will be determined largely by his own achievements. His reputation may get a minor boost from the fact that he has a job at a university that he might not have gotten a job at if it weren’t for the spousal hiring situation. But that will be a small effect that will mostly involve people who aren’t familiar with Bob’s actual work and are judging him based on superficial status indicators.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

The answer is actually the same as any other basis for being hired. Say you got hired because of your research in a trendy field, what is your long term status if the field stops being trendy? Possibly not good, but it depends.
Hiring and long term employment are different. In the first case, you are evaluating a stranger based on indirect evidence, in the second case you are able to draw on your experience of working with them. Once you get hired as "X's spouse", you have the opportunity to use the resources of your position and accrue your own accomplishments. This would secure your long term professional status independently of your spouse. In this case you would not be treated differently.
Conversely, if you've been working for several years and the most interesting fact about your career is still that you're X's spouse, then it's a different story. Obviously your independent status is not great - arguably worse, because now you've had an opportunity and made little use of it. Although just as your spouse was once reason enough to hire you, they may now be reason enough to continue employing you or even promote to a more permanent position.

If Ann's job offer is tenure-track (or already tenured), will Bob's be, as well?

It may or may not. This depends on a combination of how desirable a candidate Ann is, how (un)desirable a candidate Bob is, and how Ann and Bob negotiate the offers. Ann could always ask that Bob's offer be made tenure-track as well (and the hiring committee could always say no).

Assuming both jobs are tenure-track, will Bob's case for tenure depend at all on Ann's (and vice-versa)?

Officially it would not, and for obvious reasons, the committee will probably not say "you did okay but let's see how Ann does, if she fails we'll deny yours too". They could possibly be biased in favor of Bob out of concern that Ann will leave if he is denied tenure, or they may be less likely to approve him before Ann becomes tenured than after. At this point it depends entirely on the personal feelings of individual people on the Ann/Bob situation (and institutional policy, if any).

If Ann and Bob get divorced, or Ann leaves for another university, will Bob's job be affected?

Officially it would not, and I doubt they would fire him "because" he got divorced, but they may fire him and give some other reason. More commonly, I think what would happen is that Bob would continue in his present position. The consequences would be more obvious if Bob attempts to advance (tenure review) or if funding deteriorates and the department must choose who to let go. Then it will come down to what Bob has achieved since being hired.

Is the fact that Bob was a spousal hire in any way visible to the general public, in his official job description or resume? What about unofficially?

I have never heard of any official "spousal hire" title, and I doubt it would be spelled out in the contract, as it would accomplish little besides opening up the institution to various lawsuits.
There may however be rules about relationships between employees in general, so for example Bob is not allowed to be Ann's postdoc, so HR may need to be notified about the marriage (not necessarily about whether the hire was connected with the marriage).
Unofficially, of course the hiring committee is aware of it, and people talk (even when not supposed to). Academics are no exception and have their share of gossips. Besides it's not like it's hard to tell when two people are married.

In a completely unofficial capacity, does being a spousal hire in any way hurt the academic's reputation within the field, in your experience?

I think it's a bit like asking, "if Bob shaved his hair and grew a beard, would it help or hurt his reputation"? Certainly you could imagine ways it would do either - many of them would depend highly on circumstances. But in my experience, academics today rarely consider spouses or beards as significant factors when evaluating someone's career. So I would expect that on the whole, they have very little effect, unless perhaps the person in question blatantly disrespects social norms.

I know (2nd hand knowledge) of a case at a major US university where Ann was hired into a tenure track position, and Bob got a post doc and a "don't worry" hand-shake agreement that he'd eventually get a more permanent position.  Four years later (and a year after their divorce), Ann continues in the TT role and Bob's looking for work.

What is this meant to illustrate, other than the well-known fact that “hand-shake agreements” are worth exactly as much as the paper they aren’t written on?

tl;dr: Ann has poor negotiation skills, Bob is gullyible (if he put any weight to the hand-shake agreement from an US-american university administrator).
Please do not forget that US university are among the weirdest for-profit company in the world.

My experience as a spousal hire, who came with four years of being tenure track faculty (independently hired at first university) under my belt, has been a nightmare. On the surface everything looks fine but it has been 5-6 years at this point of passive- aggressive slights, additional hoops, and hyper-scrutiny. A nod and a handshake finally turned into tenure after much heartache, but I'm still dealing with resentment and so many otehr problems. I've had to switch departments because there were senior faculty in my first department spreading rumors that I was a post-doc even though I would have had tenure a year from starting at the new university if I'd stayed at my old job.  I would not recommend it to any woman. The men who are brought on as spousal hires seem to fare a bit better at my R-1, but women, especially mothers, are treated very poorly and you can't prove yourself enough it seems. I am more highly cited and known than my partner outside of my university, but it doesn't seem to matter. My husband and I have grown apart because of all the drama, if I had it to do over again I never would have left my former position.

"Two-body" issues can become VERY complex.  I believe the only one of your questions that has an answer anywhere near straightforward is

Assuming both jobs are tenure-track, will Bob's case for tenure depend at all on Ann's (and vice-versa)?

Unless Bob and Ann's are one another's only collaborators, this certainly shouldn't be the case.  Evidence that a tenure decision was based on such issues would be a clear matter for a procedural grievance in any US university  (though what filing a grievance means, or what the outcome of that process will be, is not always perfectly clear).  If the couple are, in fact, one another's only collaborators, they collectively and individually don't have a very good tenure place for many universities, anyway.
All the other questions are just too specific to whatever the individual case is to answer with any conviction.
I've seen a number of spousal hires, and many, if not most of them, have been successful.  My personal observation is that the situation often (but clearly not always) arises when one extremely competitive candidate is identified, and that candidate comes along with another academic (or maybe even just a close collaborator).  How the case for a dual hire progresses then grows around how much the university wants that candidate, what's available in terms of slots and resources, and how much all the parties are willing to compromise.
I think the key issue really is how important it is to the couple that both of them thrive academically, and if that is super important to them, they might think twice about accepting a situation where one of them is not likely to thrive  --  recognizing, of course, that the better dual offer may or may not exist for them.


text:
Graduate School Topic
I am an undergraduate student with math and physics majors and I plan to go to graduate school. I am interested in both math and physics, but I want the stuff I work on to have some practical / tangible side. If I go for math graduate school, what are some potential topics should I study. As I stated before, I want to work on something that is a blend of pure and applied mathematics (perhaps with some applications in theortical physics). What are some fields in math that I should look into?
Similarly, if I go to physics graduate school, what are some specific and general topics I should look into?

Why do you want to go to graduate school? Find a topic that interests you first, then decide if that interest is strong enough to warrant 3+ years further study and research.

Let me encourage you to think more broadly and longer term. Contributing to math and science, even in the purest of pure fields, is a contribution to humanity. The effects may not be seen for a long time, but they will come.
If you think too narrowly then you may choose a problem that is intractable and you won't find a solution (though something may come of it later, after you've left the scene).
The obvious answer to your direct question would be to study applied math and/or something in, say, zero emissions power generation. Nuclear Fusion power would be a benefit, of course, at the moment.
But longer term, think of the contributions of Newton and Leibniz to the creation of the Calculus. It was pretty useless at the time, but enables much of engineering today. I worked in a field like that. It was so esoteric that I predicted at the time that no one would ever find a practical use for it. Well, guess what? About ten years later someone told me that my thesis work had been applied.
My advice is to choose something interesting and do a good job of extending knowledge in that area. If it is applied in some way, fine. If not, then eventually it will be. And pick something for which you will get good faculty support as you get started.
Another example is the Standard Model in physics. Hardly anything is more pure or theoretical than that. There are a few known holes in it, which if plugged will give a better idea of how "Life, the Universe, and Everything" actually works. Over time, that should lead to tremendous advances in, well, life, the universe, and everything.
To continue my advice, in working on what you love, provided you have the opportunity, as not many do, and you find some opportunity to do something practical and short term with what you and your colleagues know, then take it on as a project, or encourage others to do so.

Is string theory practical?

Relax. Get into a good graduate program and then look for something to specialize in.

Does it make more sense for me to apply to a Master's program than to a PhD program?


text:
Can I do a PhD in applied mathematics where I want to apply mathematics to mental health. is
I want to do a PhD in applied mathematics where my focus is on mental health.
I honestly don't know how I can do that,

do you already have a research proposal, or you are looking for PhD programs that (somehow) focus on studying mental health problems with mathematical tools?

I honestly do not have a proposal yet, I am looking for Applied Mathematics PhD programs that focus on mental health

Let me reassure you: applied mathematics is everywhere. I mean it. Every science research lab in every domain offers PhDs for applied math students. In fact, "mental health + applied math" is incredibly vast and vague and regroups a ton of different domains, each of which has tons of opportunities for PhD. It could be image analysis for neuroscience. It could be statistics for social sciences. It could be a ton of very diverse topics. Write a list of topics that interest you, search for labs that have PhD programs in these topics, and submit your application for the job.

Then your question is what we call a shopping question, thus is off topic (therefore it was closed). I would suggest you to better shape (and narrow down) your idea and interests, I don't think you can find an advisor (let alone a PhD program) that is willing to discuss with you if your interest is the vague statement of "something related to mental health". I encourage you to search on Google some math/engineering departments that focus on research in the medical field.


text:
Did they do some of the project without telling me?
So I am doing this bachelor thesis for a research institute and they wanted me to do different kinds of development.
Like conversions of files and implementing a system (I call it system A for mentioning later) and right now I am developing the main system which need to be connected to system A. Or at least I thought that was the plan.
So recently I found out they developed a similar system to system A, (it wasn't a big part of the project but it took me a lot of productive time to research and develop it) and this new version has to be integrated with the bigger system that I am building for them.
I asked them whether they used or will be using my implementation (system A) anywhere; They said no and it was more of a proof of concept, They said in my thesis I can write that it was 'initial implementation of the new one". How is it initial implementation if nothing is the same and they did not tell anything about it to me.
Does this situation make any sense? I am still developing a system for them which is quite bigger than system A and I still need to use some part of system A to integrate it with the new version that they totally developed themselves.
The reason of course is that their new system has a better outlook and design but they could have maybe told me from the start that they won't be using my version as I had told them from the start that I won't be using time on design and it was something we talked about on day 1.
I am not worried of what I should put in my thesis but is this really normal? If not, What did I do wrong?
Thank you in advance.

Who is "they" in this story?

Yes, it makes sense. No, you didn't do anything wrong. Write up what you did for your thesis along with the necessary supporting material, but avoid complaining about what the institute did.
I think the key misunderstanding here is that they were giving you an opportunity to interact in a real system and that they might be able to take advantage of what you learned, but made no commitment to do so. The opportunity is the important part.
It may be that they used you as a low cost way to make an exploration. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Had they told you at the beginning that they weren't committed to what you were doing it might have lessened your enthusiasm at the time (as it does now). But, even for their own regular developers they don't make a commitment to accept any particular piece of work, especially before it is attempted.
The purpose of the "exercise" was your education, not their system. You did a good job of that ("productive time to research and develop it"), so you learned some things.
I don't have any advice about the "larger system" as there is too little information.


text:
A question for UK academics and students: How will UK universities respond to a professor showing controversial religious images to class?
Over a month ago, a group of Muslim parents protested for several days at Batley grammar school, in West Yorkshire, England, after a teacher at that school showed in a Religion Education class the 2015 caricature of the Prophet Muhammad by Charlie Hebdo. The teacher apparently showed that picture to his students, who were between 13 to 14 years old, to educate them about islamophobia. Nevertheless, even before an independent inquiry into the incident started, the head teacher's response was to issue an "unequivocal" apology for the teacher's actions and suspend the teacher. (To know more about this incident, please click here.)
If a university professor/researcher in the UK showed the same image in, say, history or moral philosophy class, to stimulate an intellectual discussion between mature students, would the university tolerate it? And, has this (or at least something similar to this) ever happened in a UK university class? How did it go?
I ask these questions because I'm planning to do my PhD in the UK, and my proposed research topic touches on the said issue.

my proposed research topic touches on the said issue Vote to close as off-topic.

This is quite dangerous. Images of The Prophet are inherently insulting to believers. They don't make images themselves and treat it as an offense when others do it. It is very hard to do such things in a "context" that respects cultural sensibilities.

There are far better ways to educate people about Islamophobia than showing images which are completely offensive to Muslim people, especially when there's a fair chance that many of the students in the class are themselves Muslim.

If the audience comprises 13-14 year old children, one wonders whether the instructor does this for his or her own personal gratification-by-shock. Who knows. To me the bigger concern is the verbal narrative he or she provides the youngsters whilst introducing and explaining the images.

Generally speaking, Universities in the UK can exercise their own judgement on how to organise their curriculum and how to deal with sensitive matters while encouraging academic debate and educated discussion. There is no single answer which is valid for each and every University in the UK, as customs and approaches differ from one place to another.
Typically, every University will have a quality assurance process for their teaching and research. Within it, they will have Ethical Panels/Officers responsible for deciding whether a proposed research / education module is ethical and safe. If you feel that your research can be controversial and/or cause ethical issues and/or make you or others feel unsafe, you need to contact the designated people and discuss with them whether and how to proceed. Normally, they will assess the risks and suggest appropriate measures to ensure that your program of research is legal, safe and ethical.
If you don't contact the designated Panels/Officers, and proceed with your potentially unsafe/unethical research, the University will not be happy. After all, they put all these systems in place for a reason and expect all academics to make use of them when necessary.
Note that all the above has very little to do with the exact reason why your research may be considered unethical/unsafe/inappropriate. The approach remains the same, whether the potential issues are caused by use of human biological materials, by research requiring access to children, by research involving toxic materials, or by research on social/religious issues. Anything that is potentially unsafe or problematic should be discussed with appropriate people first, before the activity starts. As long as you agree to that, you will likely have no issues doing your research in the UK.

In addition to @DimitrySavostyanov's excellent answer, I'll just add my thoughts on what is likely would be considered reasonable and what not at places I have worked.
Firstly, is showing these images strictly necessary? If your aim is to "stimulate discussion" are there other ways to do so that would upset fewer people? Remember that an upset person is unlikely to be able to contribute at their highest intellectual level. If you wish to have a discussion of censorship and religious sensitivities, it seems to me that mature scholars should be able to have the discussion without having to be provoked by the image. We can all have a discussion about whether pedophilia is a moral failing or a mental illness without having to be shown pornographic images for example.
But sometimes it is necessary to see material to be able to have a discussion, be that disturbing images or first hand accounts of upsetting incidents. The material is there because there is no other way of understanding the content.
The distinction between these is a fine line and one must proceed with care and humility, and remember that your purpose is always to work in the interests of a student's education. A distressed student will not be learning, even if you believe that they shouldn't be distressed. There is no point in trying to teach in a particular way because you believe it is how students should learn, there is only how students do learn.
Finally, there is a big difference between what your research is and what your teaching will be, and the two are unlikely to be as related as perhaps your post suggests you think they might be.


text:
How can an old research paper published before the Internet be made available online to prevent plagiarism?
I want to upload a scanned copy of a research paper that isn't accessible online to demonstrate someone else's significant contribution to a field. Internet was not widely available when the study was released. I intend to upload the paper on Research Gate to make its abstract indexed by Google Scholar.
I want to do this to prevent plagiarism by researchers who know about this paper and make use of the fact that it's not in English and not easily discoverable to write their own research papers without giving credit to the original author.
Therefore, I plan to upload the paper on Research Gate to make abstract indexed by Google Scholar search engine. I do this to make it discoverable and cited. And to be able to prove that the man, whom I am trying to help, is the original author. I also intend to upload the paper on other academic search engines.
The main text of the paper is not in English, while the title and abstracts are in English but are poorly translated. My questions:

Is it acceptable to upload to Research Gate the scan of the original paper and attach an English translation of the main text?
Is it acceptable to provide a better translation of the title and abstract in the attached translation if the ones in the original paper are poorly translated?
Can I enter the improved translation  in Research Gate field for the abstract instead of the poor one, so that it is indexed by Google Scholar search engine?

For those concerned about copyright: I am the copyright owner.

Your title ("present") implies that you plan to present it in a conference.

why research gate?

@EarlGrey Because Research Gate abstracts get indexed by Google Scholar. Otherwise, no way to add an abstract from within Google Scholar

@JoelReyesNoche: I mean to make available publicly online, to make discoverable and cited by authors who find it valuable and thus to prevent plagiarism by the few who know about it and make use of the author's idea.

Yes it is precisely about copyright infringement if you make a published work freely online. You don't have to earn money from an infringement. Perhaps that is your misconception. The publishing rights to the work are held by the copyright holder. Making it "freely available" is publishing. Likewise for a translation. Almost certainly this is the publisher of an older work.

Google scholar is just a (crappy) collector of reference. A work has no scientific value just because it is on Google Scholar. A work of scientific value will probably end in Google Scholar, but the opposite is not true, nor it is a worthwhile goal.

If you are the copyright owner (and perhaps you'll forgive me for being quite skeptical of that, given the foundation of the question), have you or a previous owner of the copyright granted anyone a license that assigns them any exclusive rights to the work, such as rights of publication?

If you are not asking about copyright (which doesn't make sense to me), what does "Is it acceptable" and "Can I" refer to? Acceptable to who, and why does that person/entity's acceptance matter?

since you are really focused on Google Scholar, please note that you can upload your paper/translations/whatever to arXiv
https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/103508/google-scholar-citation-problem-with-arxiv#:~:text=However%2C%20Google%20scholar%20doesn't,to%20the%20already%20published%20papers.&text=This%20is%20a%20little%20unclear,doesn't%20recognise%20it%22.

Somehow I think you aren't being honest about owning copyright. Sorry. If you were, then there is no basis for a question here.

@EarlGrey but I am not asking about arXiv. Besides arXiv is domain specific.

@George sure, you are asking about the most complicated way to get "something" in Google Scholar for goals that are known to you only. However, you may find a preprint server that suits your goals here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preprint_repositories

How are you the copyright holder if you are neither the author or the publisher.  What does the author want you to do?  Why is the author not taking this action?

What you propose is covered by copyright law, both the uploading and any publishing of a translation. First determine if it is a copyrighted publication. If so, ask the publisher or other copyright holder. If not, then it is fine.
Note that copyright protections still hold on many things done before the internet. Also note that copyright law varies.
If you have no rights or license to the work, then you can reference it and work within fair use as defined in the appropriate copyright law.
Note that a paper doesn't need to be internet accessible to be cited, or even to be found.

For your changed question: 1 is almost certainly copyright infringement, provided there is still a valid copyright held by someone else. So, no, not ethically acceptable and unlikely to be legally acceptable. 2 is probably fine under fair use. (Probably fine.) 3 is a judgement call, but you don't get to make the judgement. The copyright holder, if any, will judge that. If they disagree with the action they may take an action of their own under applicable laws. But even as much as a paragraph could be considered infringement.

Copyright is not part of my question. This is a published work of a relative of mine, which is largely unknown but I think, important. I want to make it available online, so that nobody can steal without giving him credit. People who know about it, use it without mentioning that he is the contributor. I want to stop this and to prevent future plagiarism.

If it is published then no one can "steal" it. If the copyright has been given up to a publisher then your relative has only limited rights which almost certainly don't include giving you permission for this. Whether it is your question or not, it must be considered for ethical practice. You can write "about" it, of course, making it more visible. But publishing and translation rights are normally part of copyright. Talk to the publisher. Make a proposal there.

@George See https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66377/what-is-the-xy-problem - it's far, far better to ask about the problem you have rather than your guess at a solution. If you want to ask about preserving/publicizing old works by a relative, that's an entirely different question than the one you've posted. Is your relative living?

@BryanKrause I am giving context and I am asking 3 specific questions. Please answer them, if you can.

@George You've left out a lot that is important. The latest edit is much better than the first one, but you seem very confused about what copyright is in the last sentence: "Please keep in mind that the question is not about infringement of copyright on my part if I make a published work freely available online." If the work is copyrighted, which it probably is, making a published work freely available online is definitely against copyright. It's one of the most basic ways to be against copyright. I don't see how anyone can answer your question without addressing that.

@BryanKrause You are shifting the question from my 3 questions to a copyright problem that does not exist for me. I am not asking if I will be sued if I publish this work. This is just out question/ irrelevant/ I don't care.

@George StackExchange is about building a repository of Q&A. If your question isn't useful to anyone else, this is the wrong place for it. Copyright issues are certainly not irrelevant to what you're discussing, to the contrary, copyright is at the very heart of what you do next. Your question after all is "what is acceptable", how is that not copyright? If you mean that you aren't worried about your relative suing you, it's important to realize that they almost certainly wouldn't be the person doing it, it would be the original publisher who is not likely to be as glib about it as you are.

Write a short technical note, or a review paper, or a short contribution to whatever journal relevant and related to the topic publishes them.
This way you defend your bibliographic work (you publish something in your name), you respect the original developer (you cite the pre-internet era paper), you make the link with the current practitioners (you should cite some very recent progress and/or publication) so your work may be picked up (or not, but you must do your best to reduce the effort to do so for everyone).
Otherwise it is just a +1 "fact" circulating in the internet saying "hey, ancient sailormen already knew that the Earth revolves around the Sun" without much backing nor strength and with some issues regarding copyright&intellectual property.
Ps: please note that I am not downplaying the importante of Galileo work, nor I am ignoring the fact that ancient sailormen knew the Earth was rotating around the Sun.
Ps nr. 2:  when I say

but you must do your best to reduce the effort to do so for everyone

I do not mean that you have to upload your better translation and spam its URL to everyone interested, this approach would be the best effort to make everyone ignore you and the original paper.
UPDATE after your comments:
Just write a short technical document, describe briefly why the old paper is relevant, provide translations to the main points of the paper (citing it) and then publish your document on arXiv. Then you are all set, you can step into the future claiming plagiarism for what you wrote in the arXiv submission or hunting citations for the pre-internet era paper.

Again, the rights to publish translations are held by the copyright owner. The OP should deal directly with them.

@Buffy I don't care about the copyright owner. I don't ask this. Let's that I am the copyright owner.

@Buffy I mentioned explicitly translations of main passages of a paper, not translation of paper. The translation of passages of the paper are paraphrase and not direct quotation. So copyright conflicts can, in that case, be avoided.
https://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/translations/#:~:text=Luckily%2C%20the%20solution%20is%20quite,in%20the%20in%2Dtext%20citation.

@EarlGrey You are confusing issues of citation with issues of copyright law. Under most copyright law I am aware of, translations are protected as property of the copyright holder. You can't get around copyright of a work just by translating it. See https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/13241/are-there-any-laws-on-copyrighted-material-preventing-them-from-being-translate for example.

@BryanKrause please read my answer, then draw your conclusions and go after all the review papers in the world.

Review papers aren't translations. They discuss a given work, not paraphrase it. Review papers are also limited in how much they can paraphrase.

@EarlGrey I have read your answer, it seems fine to me though I could also see how it would be misread. What is definitely wrong is your comment: "The translation of passages of the paper are paraphrase and not direct quotation. So copyright conflicts can, in that case, be avoided". If a passage is short enough to be translated and included without violating copyright, then it's also short enough to be reproduced in the original language (citing the original of course). The translation step doesn't do anything to avoid copyright infringement, the brief excerpt as fair use does.

@BryanKrause have a look at peer-reviewed english paper of let's say, german hip-hop music:
Schaub, Christoph. "The Transnational and Multilingual Feature Song in German Rap Music." German Studies Review, vol. 44 no. 1, 2021, p. 107-125. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/gsr.2021.0005.
There are intere verse translated. They are short enough that they could be left in original, at the same time they may represent 20% of the song ... and still they are translated aka paraphrased. On the contrary, what you suggest, reproducing in the original language, that would be copyright infringements.

@EarlGrey If it's enough material that it would be infringing in the original language, then it's infringing in the translation.


text:
Can my supervisor force me to publish my master’s thesis?
I defended my master’s thesis in engineering. My advisor didn't help me much.
Now he wants to publish the thesis as a scientific article. Even if he will write the article, I don't want the project to be published for several reasons:
I didn't like the topic that much and I don't have time, energy and interest anymore. The method has some serious issues and needs more work. I don't feel comfortable with publishing the thesis as it is now because I think it's really bad honestly, but at the same time I really don't want to spend energy explaining what to further work on, cleaning the code etc.
This thesis was really psychologically stressful for me, I felt desperate and alone; and I would like to just say no and close this chapter forever. I don't know if I am obliged to send the codes and data or if I can refuse doing so.
Does someone have any suggestion on how I should proceed?
I am 100% sure I will not work in academia, so I don't even care about publishing in view of a possible PhD.

Publication ethics require the permission of all authors to publish.  So no, your supervisor cannot force you.  This ethical requirement applies even if your supervisor holds the copyright for some reason.
That said, there is probably no downside for you to allow your supervisor to use their time to publish the paper.  If your work is not medical and not on a controversial social issue, it's likely any real or perceived methodological issues will not impact your non-academic career.  If the supervisor wastes their time on a rejected submission, that won't impact you.
Refusing permission will hurt your reputation.

I don't know if I am obliged to send the codes and data

Providing them would be a more ethical choice.

Publication ethics require the permission of all authors to publish. – You should add that it also requires the asker to be an author. (I presume you took this for granted, but the asker may not.)

Good answer. The complete answer to I don't know if I am obliged to send the codes and data requires knowing the funding source and university policies/local laws. But, you are correct, providing is the ethical choice.

You don't say where you are located. In Germany, you are the author of your thesis, so you hold the copyright and can decide what you want to do with the written expression of your research. If you were paid for by the university, you may have signed away a right to use the results research, so you will have to check anything you have signed. This is a complex problem, it is usually better to get this sorted out before you begin working, but it crops up usually when the research is over.
If the professor publishes without your permission, you then may want to publish a paper discussing this issues you have identified :)


text:
How are academic writing conventions decided?
Suppose one would like to propose a new way of performing a specific task in academic writing, for example, a different/new way of citing. I realise this example is vague, but the example is not the focus of the question.
How would they go about doing so? Would they publish an article explaining the method in a journal dedicated to academic writing conventions? If such a journal exists, could someone share it here?
Alternatively, what other ways are there to propose new conventions?

I doubt there is a journal of academic writing conventions, or if there is, if it gets many readers. One question is, does the convention address a real concern? "Indirectly citing future work" seems, well, pretty fuzzy and ill defined. Particularly the "indirect" part.

I think what you are looking for is called an editor.

What do you mean "indirectly cite future work"?

Welcome to Academia SE! it seems to me that a question like this is too vague to be meaningfully answered here. You are giving, vague, generic examples of what you mean by new writing conventions, but an appropriate answer requires a clear, concrete case of a legitimately new writing convention. Otherwise, answers will be all over the place. Perhaps you could submit a new question with a concrete case? But if you do not want to reveal your new convention publicly here (which is perfectly understandable), then this might not be the right forum.

You might be better off asking an experienced scholar whom you can trust with your ideas.

@Tripartio Thanks! Yes, the example is somewhat vague in part because I have not fully developed it yet, and was more focused on how to go about "putting it out there" once it is developed.

Suppose one would like to propose a new way of performing a specific task in academic writing, for example, a different/new way of citing. I realise this example is vague, but the example is not the focus of the question.
How would they go about doing so? Would they publish an article explaining the method in a journal dedicated to academic writing conventions? If such a journal exists, could someone share it here?
Alternatively, what other ways are there to propose new conventions?

As noted by others, conventions develop through time.
Furthermore, academic fields such as the history of science and philosophy of science study these trends and why these trends occur.
I would encourage you look into these fields more.
Regarding proposing new scientific norms, work with groups of scientists to establish your proposed methods as norms within your field.
Professional organizations have their own standards and guidelines.
If you can convince your peers that your ideas are good, other will adopt them.
Publishing your proposed methods would be one method to do this.
However, persuasion and consensus that your method is complimentary, or even better than existing methods requires other be aware of your idea and want to use it.
Sharing your results with your peers through meetings and working groups would help to raise awareness.
Examples of professional groups with standards include:

The American Chemistry Society
The American Fisheries Scoeity
IEEE

These standards are often written by senior members in the field, working group members (often a somewhat thankless volunteer committee work), and editors/editorial board members.
Hence, becoming active as a professional would help to you to raise awareness about your proposed methods, and, maybe even give yourself a chance to change the method!
Lastly, formal groups of groups exist such as the Council of Science Editors (homepage here).

Convention means "the way it is usually done". As such it is pointless to try to initiate a new convention, it can only become a convention when it reaches sufficient support. So, what you can do is to suggest a new way to perform a certain task and then wait, or argue for its merits, until your idea aggregates sufficient support. This may take some time or if it is a great idea attracting attention, it may be fairly quick. It will simply depend on the merits of your idea and how it is perceived by your peers.
One can perceive the slow reaction of the academic body as both positive and negative. The positive is that ideas will never be accepted until discussed and disseminated to a degree where a majority subscribes to the idea. The negative is of course that also necessary changes takes time. In some cases this balance is on the good side and sometime on the negative side. Which is best is still up for debate and certainly depends on the indivisual question.

Thanks! I probably used the wrong word with "convention" then. "New way to perform a specific task" is indeed what I meant. I will edit my question accordingly. Where does one "suggest a new way to perform a certain task and then wait, or argue for its merits, until [their] idea aggregates sufficient support."? This is why I was asking about potential academic journals dedicated to this.

I won't make any assessment of the merits of your idea, but yes, if you want to propose a new convention (e.g., a new way to cite items) then you could publish this as an academic paper.  I'm not aware of any academic journal that is tailored exclusively to academic writing conventions (probably too narrow a topic to sustain an entire journal) but there are plenty of academic journals on language and writing in general.
As to the substance of what you would need to do to establish a new convention, publishing an initial paper on the matter will require you to show how your proposed method works, what advantages it has over the existing (conventional) method, and what kind of drawbacks it might have relative to that method.  Your paper should give a substantive contribution to the field of writing, and it should anticipate and deal with any obvious critiques of your method.  If you are able to make a strong case for your new method then other people might start to adopt it; if it is adopted at a sufficiently large scale then it may become the new de facto convention over time.

Editors in chief are the ultimate gatekeepers of how things are done in journals. If you wanted to suggest, for instance, a different citation format for a journal, or adding video highlights, etc., then your first task is convincing an EiC to make the change in their journal.
The second challenge is for the EiC to convince the journal publisher to implement the change; and there is often a lot of inertia with traditional publishers like Springer or Elsevier.
Unfortunately EiCs are almost always busy people, so the best people to attract their attention are fellow academics that are already in their circle. If you are an outsider with little experience and publishing history it's going to be difficult to make your voice heard. The best people to change something are those who already know how it works, in the end.


text:
Can I cite two different sources before and after the comma in one sentence?
For example, if I want to write the sentence like this:

Although researchers have proved [first thing]（name1, XY), [second thing] is also confirmed effective (name2, XY).

Both the first and second thing belongs to the "although" sentence. I do not want them into two separate sentences.
So can I cite in-text like this? I need to follow the APA7.

Who would stop you? Are you following a specific style guide? If you've seen this done, why do you think you'd be prevented from doing it?

Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking.

I need to follow the APA7. And my question is all about if the in-text citation like this is acceptable. Because I have never seen the intext citation like this, they are always at the end of a full-sentence like ……（Name，XY）. or Name（XY）…… .  So I don't know if I could put two citations in a complete sentence consisting of two sentences.

What APA 7 references/resources have you consulted so far?

There is no problem other than style and readability. I suggest you try a couple of different ways of saying what you want to say and make a decision.
This is one situation where citations in footnotes has a readability advantage since they disrupt the flow less.
It is also possible that a reviewer will make a suggestion about it no matter what you do. But write it the way you think it should be done.
Note that ending the sentence at the comma and then starting a new sentence with "Furthermore..." is probably just about equivalent to what you want to say.

Thank you for your help.


text:
How to delete a version of an arxiv paper but keep some of the versions?
I've been searching this a long time but found no answer.
Suppose I have three version
[v1] Fri, 1 Apr 2022 19:59:40 UTC (5,413 KB)
[v2] Sun, 10 Apr 2022 01:50:29 UTC (5,668 KB)
[v3] Fri, 15 Apr 2022 02:27:34 UTC (5,440 KB)
I want to keep v1 and v3, can I just delete v2?
Anyone has done that before?

You cannot.  That is the point of ArXiv.  https://arxiv.org/help/withdraw  https://arxiv.org/help/replace

interesting. what is the logics of this? version management should be fine. There are other versions there. Why limiting this function?

Archives keep things.  That is the whole point.

What if someone read and cited your v2?

I see. Then it's deleted :)

@hsh If you want to delete preprints at will, post them on your website.

As stated in the comments by @AnonymousPhysicist, you cannot delete any versions of your paper. As the name suggests, arxiv is intended as an archive and that includes archiving and permanently making available all versions of the material. The intent of course is citation stability. E.g. if someone wants to cite your argument on page 2, then they can cite the specific version with the right page number and do not need to worry that the argument might have moved to page 3 or been replaced entirely in a later version.
The only exception to this is copyright. As a disclaimer I am no lawyer, but from what I know, if a certain revision did include someone else's material and you submitted it without permission and past the limits of fair use, then arxiv is required to remove it. Please keep in mind though that this is legal territory and do not try to abuse it. Uploading copyrighted material without permission can land you in court, as can falsely claiming that you or someone else did so.
With all this in mind, there is no need to worry about past versions. People will almost always look at the newest version only. Even if there is an error in one of the older ones, owning up to that error is better than trying to hide it. In fact, if you corrected a bigger mistake, you should state that in the comments-field for the new version, so that those who for some reason need to look at the old version know.

You can't! That's a property of arxiv :).