text:
Took GRE two times, same scores with minor differences - worth sending both?
I took the GRE for the 2nd time recently and unfortunately, after 4 months of studying (again for the 2nd summer in a row), received the exact same score overall as my score last summer.
Last summer, I got a 157 on math, 154 on verbal, and 5 on the essay. Recently, I got a 157 on math, 153 on verbal, and a 6 on the essay.
Is it worth sending both GRE scores to the graduate schools I'm applying to (I know they all, for the ones that accept the GRE, accept multiple scores). Even if they don't superscore, I feel like it may show that I tried to increase my score and went out of my way to take it a second time...also a higher essay score may be worthy to show for. What do you think? It's a very small matter, but I feel that it may be slightly beneficial at best in terms of my overall application, so why not?
By the way, I'm applying to biomedical neuroscience PhD programs that focus on disease therapeutics.
Thanks for your input!

There's an assumption here that the programs you are applying to look at the scores at all beyond a threshold value: "Reject applications below X, consider further those above X without regard to the actual value of X."

I actually think that sending both tests would be detrimental for your application:

it decreases the ratio of signal to noise in your application
[opinion based] it shows the lack of improvement in your math and verbal scores over the year (which would be my interpretation if both results are sent) as opposed to your intent to show the will to improve
generally adds confusion

Since your most recent result is in all aspects better/equal (I don't count 153/154 to be different, while 6 on the essay is much better than 5) than the previous one, I strongly suggest sending only the newest GRE score.

thank you! are you sure a 6 overpowers a 153-154 on verbal? It did change my verbal percentile from 66 percentile to 60. also, I did actually study a ton throughout the summer, but i see what you mean with no improvement. i'd like to blame that on the luck-of-draw with GRE, but idk. I thought i would improve more, but I didn't, sadly.

@JacksonMace I hate those tests personally, so I am just trying to step into the admission committee role. GRE is only a small criterion that is used to assess the application and, from what I know, is sometimes used as a simple "cut-off" barrier.

And improving 153->154 on verbal is much smaller compared to 5->6 in an essay. Some programs look only on math (then, verbal & essay are irrelevant to some degree), some only on verbal. However, when verbal is important, so does the essay.

awesome thank you so much man. and I agree wholeheartedly, the GRE was a horrible, horrible exam. never in my life (even on the SAT/ACT) have I not been able to perform "reasonably well" with all of the time/effort I dedicate to studying...and even after taking it a second time.

I might also consider that since you're going into a scientific field, the verbal may be less important than the math anyhow.  Some of the most brilliant scientists out there would score terribly on the verbal section simply because they are not native English-speakers.

Differences in GRE scores verbal or quantitative scores which are smaller than three have no meaning.  For analytical writing, differences of 0.5 are meaningful.  Therefore your second score is better.  However, for your field of research, the writing score is probably not given much weight.
I do not find Anton's arguments convincing, so I conclude that sending both scores or only sending the last score are equally good options.  The prices are also the same.
Reference:  https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide_reliability_sem.pdf

Anyhow, on the day of the test, you would have given the names of 4 Universities to which you want ETS to send your scores. You would have done the same thing during your second attempt, and most probably you would have targeted the same Universities. So nothing to worry. The Universities will have both your scores. Moreover, since there is no difference in your scores, please send both. Essay scores will not matter much. The Universities will specifically look for research experience in the same field of study that you want to do your Phd

I doubt anyone will see multiple attempts as some kind of evidence of initiative. Unlike grades, standardized tests aren't supposed to be based on your preparation and effort, they are more meant to be a kind of IQ score that predicts how much potential you have to succeed in advanced studies. So multiple similar scores suggest the estimate is a more precise one. On the other hand, a big jump in scores may seem a bit suspicious. We can't be sure why that happened and which is more meaningful.
And personally I find the GRE quantitative test to be a great predictor of students' performance in STEM areas. The verbal test and analytical tests used to be even better (as long as the quantitative was good, which meant a perfect score for STEM), but international students generally bomb these other tests so we hardly look at them anymore.

I've seen quite a few brilliant PhD students that received 150s in the quant, which is basically 50 percentile. So I don't agree at all that the quant section perfectly predicts the potential of a student in regard to how well they can/will perform in their PhD career. The quant test timing is pretty stressful, some "smart" students cannot recall the 100 little facts about triangles/combinatorics and test day...and the list goes on.

@JacksonMace I didn't say "perfect", I said "great". Nor did I say "Phd career", I said "STEM areas". Finally, note that I also said "I personally find". So I can double-check for you, but doubt my data will change in light of hearing about your experiences. Perhaps a more fruitful direction would be to specify what you mean by brilliant and performance versus what I might mean.

"standardized tests aren't supposed to be based on your preparation and effort, they are more meant to be a kind of IQ score" False, and terrible advice to test takers.

@AnonymousPhysicist you'll have to (also) explain more what you mean. I worded my statement rather carefully to avoid getting ensnared in the politics (and downright neo-luddism) surrounding testing. In addition to the qualifiers I pointed out in a previous comment, I also used phraseology like "meant to be" and "supposed to be". This is a direct interpretation of the stated goal of the general test and the definition of an IQ test.

The GRE purports to measure "skills that have been developed over a long period of time."  That is the opposite of "aren't supposed to be based on your preparation and effort."  Any decent test prep book will show that the "long time" part is only partly true.  https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_info_bulletin_19_20.pdf  The GRE is quite different from an IQ test.

@AnonymousPhysicist I was referring specifically to test preparation for the GRE itself, and effort as in the effort spent in taking multiple GRE tests (which the OP was asking about demonstrating by sending multiple tests). Quite the opposite of efforts or preparations over a long period of time. As for what rates as a kind of IQ test, I'd say your definition of IQ test is just quite a bit stricter than mine. Both are tests that try to estimate potential; both focus on verbal and math skills; both purport to be innate metrics that are not supposed to be dependent on time spent cramming.


text:
Mentioning possible PhD principal investigators in graduate application w/o being asked to do so?
My title is pretty self-explanatory, but I was wondering how it looks to mention specific researchers to work with in graduate school via my personal statement/s. I'm applying to PhD programs in neurobiology (neurological disease/therapeutics research).
I know the general consensus is "yes, mention researchers you would want to work with," but I'm worried that this may pigeonhole my application or limit it in certain ways. For example, if a new PI is not listed on the page but does research I like, and I don't list him, I lose that opportunity. Similarly, I'm worried that if I list, say 4 PIs to work with, and none of them care to have me work in their labs, I may get denied all together from the school's program (when I could have gotten accepted if I listed other PIs that may have wanted me).
Also to note, at each graduate school I'm applying to, I have made sure that there are at least 4 labs I would want to work in throughout completing my PhD thesis.
This is a minor nuance in my application's personal statements, but I would appreciate any insight. Thank you very much!

If you do it, make sure you call them "principal investigators" not "principle investigators", or probably more correctly "supervisors". Furthermore, you could just add "I am open to other supervisors as well".

That's a good idea. I also just realized it was misspelled. The person who "edited" my title and nothing else spelled it that way, haha.

Listing PI's is almost always a good idea because it shows you've given some thought to what interests you. It also helps you point out how you fit in a program. You'd be amazed how many applicants don't do that kind of due diligence. So these "listers" tend to stand out in an applicant pool.
If they reject your application because they know that none of the labs you've targeted are "open", they are probably doing you a favor. Working on a PhD is hard enough. It can be harder when you're working on a project or in an area that isn't your first choice.

Very helpful comment and I agree. After spending the past 3 weeks... deeply analyzing and finalizing my list of 3-4 PIs at my schools, I have decided to definitely include it in my personal statements for the reasons you listed above. Thanks!

I believe in this situation you have to decide on a proper ordinal scale for schools, faculty and the program. Since you mention that you have done the legwork and identified 4 labs, it would make sense at this point to possibly write to them and ask if they might have openings in your projects of interest.
Additionally, I don't believe faculty will disregard you for listing their colleagues, unless they have a personal feud. Younger faculty especially, will consider students who might have listed more senior faculty, if they themselves have not made it clear that they are looking for students. i.e, if a new assistant professor has not set up a group website, but sees a student has applied to a senior colleague in the same field, he will most definitely consider you favorably.
The point to remember is that you are looking out to do research you find interesting and in a field where you feel you will be able to make a meaningful difference. It is not a good idea to be vague in hopes of acceptance if you are not sure of working with the PI in question anyway.

completely agreed and valid points. thank you - i'll keep this in mind and forgo my initial thought of listing the labs I want to work in (at least the ones that are listed).

Yes, you need to specifically state which faculty you want to work with, and why.  It's true this does "pidgeon hole" you.  But that is what graduate study is supposed to be; specialized.  If you do not want to specialize, you might not be ready to start a PhD.
In the internet era, if a supervisor is not advertising for students online, you should consider if they will be able to mentor you in professional skills.

I think this depends on the location. And perhaps on the field. I know that it was completely unnecessary in my case: math in the US. In fact, for someone entering a doctoral program after an undergraduate degree this would be unusual in the US. They don't yet have the basis to choose a narrow specialty. However, in some other location-field combinations it is clearly necessary to choose since the PI actually hires the students and controls their admission.

Agreed with Buffy, especially for US and the field OP is applying (neuroscience).

Agreed with the above (for both Anon Physicist and Buffy). However, I do know, as listed in my original post, the main "realm" of neuro that I want to work in. I also know 4-5 PIs from each school that I would want to work with. This goes beyond what many would know now who are starting a PhD in my field. These applications/personal statements do not even explicitly state to list PIs (as mentioned by Bryan/Buffy).

Many times, especially for my major, individuals enter it not knowing the PIs that he/she would want to work with. Hence, rotations are done at almost all PhD programs now for science and each neuro graduate program I looked at will incorporate them. This brings me back to the original question...@Buffy and @Bryan Krause, do you think I should list the 4-5 PIs (that are listed on the website) in my PS to work with? I feel like it would be fine to not list anyone, but then again, Anon Physist's point is valid in that I should know who I want to work with and I think I do for the most part.

Also, I mention "that are listed" because some of these sites are so outdated. For instance, the UCSD neuro website has tons of PIs listed, and their publications only go up to 2010. When I dug very deep, I found 2 PIs that were not listed on the "main neuro page" (with the 80+ currently listed) that do take graduate students and are labs that I would want to work with. That's why I feel somewhat uneasy about just going what is on the page. I could send emails and try to track everyone down, but that's a pain.

I do think though that listing PIs for me will not be binding at all, especially with rotations being required at most schools. Thus, maybe they can grab the "gist" of what I like (e.g. me listing 4 Alzheimer's Disease researchers), and I can go from there.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
faculty interviews - timing/conflicts
I was interviewed on-campus for an assistant professor position and was told that I would be contacted this week for the result. Yesterday, I received an on-campus interview from another university to be done in 3 weeks. I am excited about both positions and do not know how to respond the second invitation. If the first institution offers the position, I am going to accept it as they will not wait for my decision for a couple of more weeks. But I also want to see my chance and the possible offer of the other university. I just don't want to spend their time and resources for me if I receive an offer from the first university. Is it possible to ask for an accelerated interview by telling the truth? or any other suggestion? Thank you.

How did this end up working out for you? Any advice to others who might be facing a similar situation?

You can ask for an earlier interview, but they may have already scheduled someone for that time block and may not be able to accommodate the request.
As far as the resources go, it’s definitely an “early bird gets the worm” situation when it comes to faculty hires. Schools that delay their interviews run the risk of losing out on good candidates. So I would proceed on good faith: accept the interview, but let them know ASAP if you receive another offer that you intend to accept.

I'd even go so far as to ask for an earlier interview date.  Candidates who try to delay the interview process (in hopes that they'll get an offer from their preferred institution) are a bother to hiring committees, but committees like candidates who are eager to interview as soon as possible.  In general, you can interpret it as a sign that a candidate is interested in your offer when they ask for an early interview date and as a sign that they'd rather get a different offer if they put off the interview as long as possible.

Having at least two interviews and offers works in your favor for both negotiation purpose and speeding purpose. If you get verbal or written offer letter from first university, you can mention it to second university at the end of the interview so they will speed up if they don’t want to miss you. Also, you can ask a few weeks of extension for offer letter from the first university without mentioning you are being interviewed in second university. You can mention some factors such as moving decisions, and family decisions behind the extension to the first university. They may honor your request if they are willing to hire you.
Once you receive both offers you can decide where you wanna go. And even negotiate for salary, other benefits, startup funding, and so on. It’s not uncommon to accept one offer and decline others or even decline one of the two accepted offers. Just be professional when declining and communicating with people. You may meet them again or may not as well. Who knows!

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

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


text:
Is it okay to mention the previous submission/review history of a manuscript in the cover letter of the target journal?
Few months ago, I had submitted a manuscript to the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters (PRL). The manuscript had undergone two rounds of review at PRL where it was reviewed by a total of five reviewers. Three reviewers had recommended for its publication in the PRL, while the fourth reviewer considered the manuscript to be more suitable for another journal from the American Physical Society family - Physical Review
E. Unfortunately, the fifth reviewer had rejected the manuscript without citing any reason. In fact, the editor of the PRL had even agreed that the manuscript warrants publication but following their rule that allows a manuscript to be reviewed for a maximum of only two times, PRL chose not to take the reviewing/publishing of the manuscript any further.
Is it okay to mention the above information in the cover letter of the next journal that I am targeting for my manuscript? Could the editor get a negative vibe from it? Could it backfire?

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/118541/submitting-a-paper-to-a-new-journal-with-responses-for-the-rejection-to-the-firs Does this answer your question?

@Allure thank you for the tip, but my situation is quite different.

Are you transferring to another APS journal, or submitting to an entirely different journal/publisher? Also, depending on the reports, this might be a case where it's worth considering an appeal.

@Anyon, I had made an appeal, but the rule as I was told is that if a manuscript is rejected from an APS journal, then no journal from the APS family will consider it for review/publication. I am submitting the manuscript to an Elsevier journal.

Reviewers are generally expected to judge a submission on it's own merits. Reviews of prior submissions (to completely unrelated venues) are not typically a part of that.
I'm not sure what you expect to accomplish by including it. A rejection letter, even a complimentary one, probably isn't going to give you an edge in the review process (but it could certainly backfire).
Just follow their normal submission process. Having been on other side of the table, it would definitely rub me the wrong way if an author tried to gain an advantage with something like this. Let your work speak for itself.

Thank you so much! I truly appreciate it.

Just a follow up - Is it okay to mention the name of an undesired reviewer in the cover letter?

As in, asking to avoid a specific reviewer? Unless you have a strong reason that could undermine the legitimacy of the review (e.g. conflict of interest), I wouldn't recommend any attempt to interfere with the review process. There's a reason blind reviews are common practice, and non-blind reviews are still expected to be objective and unbiased.

I am quite confident about a particular reviewer who was probably contacted by PRL.  I have even shown that his equations are incorrect! I guess, he is the one who rejected the manuscript without mentioning any reason. His group had contacted me a couple of times for collaboration which I had politely declined. I am afraid it did not go down well with him. Till date I have not understood why my paper was rejected when four out of five reviewers were in favor of the publication of the manuscript in PRL. Why such a bias? Bad luck? I wish to avoid that particular reviewer in my next submission.

The paper has finally been accepted today in the Journal of Power Sources, impact factor > 9.  The suggestion to not include the PRL revision history in the cover letter to the new journal was a wise one.


text:
Dilemma: Where to publish?
I am an early career researcher from India. I had earned a PhD from a top European University four years ago and then I moved to my home country early this year. I have been working on a century old problem, in the area of dielectrics, almost past five years. I believed that I had finally solved the problem and hence wrote the manuscript and submitted it to the prestigious APS journal, Physical Review Letters (PRL), as a single author. The manuscript has undergone three rounds of review and in the final round, number of reviewers were increased to six. Three of them recommended the manuscript for PRL, other two because of the specialised content of the manuscript recommended it for the journal, Physical Review E (PRE), which is another good journal from the APS family. The sixth reviewer rejected the paper without giving any reason.
I was elated to see the reviewers comments and almost majority of them were in my favour. It would have been great for my career if as a single author I had published the manuscript in the PRL. However, the editor said that the manuscript warrants publication but PRL may not be a good venue for it. He recommended Physical Review Research (PRR), a new open access journal from the APS family. I had then resubmitted the paper to PRR, but they rejected the paper claiming that it does not fit into their journal. I then transferred the paper to the PRE and explained the history of the manuscript in my cover letter. However the editors of PRE rejected the paper citing that a manuscript that has been rejected by PRL and PRR, cannot be published in the PRE, though the editor suggested that I could make an appeal against their decision. If I do, an editorial committee will be set up to look into the matter.
After I had uploaded the paper on Arxiv, I had received emails from well known researchers of the field praising my work. I am not sure what is wrong? My theory predicts experimental observations quite well. This has been almost heart-breaking for me. Why they do not want to publish it?
In the last two weeks, I have received two emails from an Editor of an open access journal, Condensed Matter, MDPI publisher. I had not contacted them at all, I believed someone informed them about my paper, or they themselves found it on Arxiv. The editor has offered me to publish the paper without any publication charges. Normally, they charge around 1500 USD as article processing charge (APC). The journal "Condensed Matter" is indexed by ESCI (since 2017) and Scopus (since 2020). Its a new journal (2016), and has published only 265 papers so far in last 4 years. The editorial board has got Profs from Universities of British Columbia, Oxford, Max Planck, MIT, Rome, Penn State, Tel Aviv, Tokyo, Minnesota, Waterloo, Los Alamos. But, they have not released the impact factor yet.
So which direction I should go?
Please share your opinion.

I would not publish with MDPI.  They are dodgy.  If it's a century problem, why can't you go to journals such as Nature or Science?

Tried Nature. They said, it is too specialized and technical for them.

Actually I have been frustrated by how editors are dealing with my manuscript. It has been more than six months in the review process. I am time bound too. I guess my only fault was to directly criticise a famous researcher who seems to be the sixth reviewer. I had put his name as a potential reviewer. He had tried to collaborate with me which i had politely declined. Also I am not sure what exactly to write in my appeal?

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/141657/should-i-appeal-my-papers-rejection-in-prl

MDPI physics journals are all low-ranked.

I can only suggest to "round up the usual suspects." Look at journals that publish similar  material and start with the one that seems most prestigious. And try to keep smiling.

Off the top of my head, a few other possibilities might be: PRApplied (if this research is more practical), New Journal of Physics, Nature Scientific Reports, or Science Advances (if you can afford the APCs, which are substantial for all three), or SciPost Physics as mentioned by Sylvain Ribault.

Usually appeals are not a good idea, but in this case it might be your best choice.  It is very odd for an editor to "suggest" appeal.
https://journals.aps.org/authors/editorial-appeal-procedures
Appeals can only be on the basis of procedure (not science!).  The procedure says decisions are based on review by referees.  Five of six referees said the paper should be published in a physical review journal.  Therefore at least one of the three rejections is in error.
If your appeal is not successful, find a good journal elsewhere to try.

Instead of a new answer I comment here. It looks indeed that this ms should be published in a paper belonging to Phys Rev family. The point is to whom / which journal the appeal (a big step) should be made to. The decision of PRL editor seems to be fine, the decision made by the PRE seems unusual as for the two journals would have to be identical. Also an Editor suggesting an appeal is unusual... Unless you were told as a mere information about your "rights". Isn't there a good physics journal beside PRL? I would do a totally new submission, in the latter case.

I am going to make an appeal today. I will keep you updated.

SciPost Physics would be an alternative: good quality, open access, free to publish. However, you might first want to check if your subfield is adequately represented in their editorial college: https://scipost.org/colleges/physics


text:
What are the Pros and Cons of Pursuing a PhD after 5+ years in the Industry?
I am sure this is a quite subjective topic, but I haven't been able to find clear advice or info about this particular situation. Also, I'm going to give some context; therefore, you could understand my dilemma.
I've been in the IT industry for a considerable amount of time, but I have always wanted to get a Ph.D. since this is a life goal.
For the last 4+ years (in Europe), I've been working in a technology company between a software engineer and a kind of IT consultant where I have developed software, introduced new technologies, good practices, and techniques that allowed me to promote a couple of times, but that feeling of getting a Ph.D. in a new country (kind of requirement, preferably Western Europe) is still there alive, I still would like to go beyond.
When I started to work I was more open to any Ph.D. since I was finishing my master, but 3+ years have passed and I have seen so many changes in IT from web development, desktop development to Robotic Process Automation and Machine Learning and many more (DARQ) that are coming that create thousands of doubts of this decision since I have no friends or relatives with a similar story who I can talk about it.
Also, most of the advice is connected to early studies, not after working for a considerable amount of time.
Pros & Cons of a Ph.D. in Computer Science
Furthermore, I need to add an important point, I want to come back to the industry since I really enjoy it, but I'd like to read your opinions about this situation. What Pros and Cons do you see? Have you ever experienced something like this? Or maybe you know someone?
As Scott suggested about my personal goals (excellent reminder since we need goals in our lives):

To relocate to a new destination.
To establish my own business.
To develop new technologies.
To build a successful network of contacts.
To improve the lives of my fellows in Latin America.

I could have more goals that I'm working on them (I'm not waiting for them to happen, I take regular actions). Also, I would like highlight one point, I'm aware that for my goals, I don't need a Ph.D., I could go higher in my company without a Ph.D. since it's not a requirement in almost any organization, the only place that I have seen where they ask you for a Ph.D. is in the Academia that as I said I don't see myself as a lecturer, perhaps, per hour.
Thanks for any advice that you have.

Where in Latin America?  I have some friends in Peru working on spreading an enterpreneurial approach to engineering education, to help their infrastructure and reduce brain drain.  Feel free to ping me in chat, if this is relevant to you.

Related to your goals (but not to the question of Ph.D.), you might model your approach after what http://www.fundacion-jala.org/ has done in Bolivia.

Hi @ScottSeidman, my main target would be Central America in its moment :), it's not the moment yet, but we could be in touch.

Hi @shoover, I already have an idea of what I'd like to work in Central America and I have some contacts in my region :), but thanks for the idea.

As with most people asking such questions, your approach is exactly backwards.  You shouldn't be thinking about the pros and cons of going for a PhD -- you should be thinking about what your career goals and long term goals are, and whether you need a PhD to reach them or not.
Once you understand the answer to that, all your other questions will then be in context.  For example, If you long term goals are to retire at age 55 with $2M US in a retirement account, now you can actually do the math based on current salaries, starting salaries in a new position, living on a stipend, ....
Without us knowing your goals, because you haven't told them to us, there is zero context for answering this question.  Unless YOU know these goals, you can ask about pros and cons all you like, and not really understand the answers you get.

Thanks for the reminder Scott. I added some of them.

In Germany, for becoming a professor at a "Fachhochschule" (University of applied sciences) a period (3-5 years) of industry R&D I heard is very common and wished. Also for normal universities you will often see in CV's of STEM professors that they had such an period in an industry research lab (IBM, Phillips,...).
You also have to see that industry has sometimes a quite big advance in knowledge, but they neither publish it as a patent or article. A company like Intel, Samsung will not give away their secrets of nanofabrication etc. Having such knowledge or just seeing how industry researchers work can be a big advantage in disinct fields and topics for an academic career.
In Germany funding programs in which Postdoc's develop together with industry R&D departments and several companies demonstrators or prototype on the TRL ladder are very common and necessary to bring newest results and methodology from fundamental research into industry.
There are always pros and cons to a distinct decision, but when thinking about a job career or decisions with long term consequences, I suggest to rather think in maximizing options and diversifying risks instead of looking on short and mid-term pro's.


text:
Paraphrasing course titles on resume
Under the Education section of my resume, I have relevant courses listed for a position I'm applying for. Some of the courses have titles that are vague and do not convey their relevance well. Is it acceptable to paraphrase the course title in a way that does?

If it's sufficiently important for you to list the courses taken, and a transcript may be sent, then it's probably best to list the original course titles. Any summaries of the content should be placed as a comment afterward. For instance:

Widgets and Doohickies (Whatchamacallit Theory).


text:
How to get an updated list of SCI journals?
The Science Citation Index(SCI) is a citation index originally produced by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). Currently, the indexing is done by by Clarivate Analytics.
But, currently only the list of SCIE journals are provided by Clarivate Analytics via Web of Science (along with a few other indices). Hence, the question
How to get an updated list of SCI journals?
Also, I would like to know whether there is a quality assurance difference between SCI and SCIE presently. If there is no difference in terms of quality, then that means SCIE has practically replaced SCI and the above question (in bold) would be irrelevant.

@Arno. I am afraid not. The problem is that the top two answers to the linked question (1 and 2) are at odds (e.g.: according to one answer, the only major difference is the storage media).

@Arno. Oh, they are not at odds really. The other answer also says "This is because of the constraints of the CDROM and print media there is no difference in the selection process for Science Citation Index and Science Citation Index Expanded journals". Then, there is no qualitative difference between the two. So, yes, this is practically a duplicate question. Sorry for the trouble.

Why are you worried about SCIE and SCI? The difference lies in how the documents are saved. Both SCI and SCIE are considered possessing to he highest possible standards of quality.
Regarding the updated list, kindly go to the master journal list section to see the list.

In the master journal list, only list of SCIE journals is available now (but not list of SCI journals). I am worried about the difference because our institute has conditions on the number of SCI journals before we submit our PhD thesis.

In case your institute accepts papers published in SCI journals, it will accept those published in SCIE too. The difference lies in storage, not in quality or standards.


text:
Free and easy-to-use tools/softwares to draw scientific diagrams for physics
I am typing some physics lecture notes for which I am using TeX. What good options are available to draw freehand diagrams easily and also convert them easily to pdf, png, jpg, etc that I can attach to my TeX document. I do not need very sophisticated software like those that would be needed, for example, for writing a textbook. I need to draw schematic, understandable diagrams, for example, the kind of diagrams that one draws on the blackboard of a physics classroom. Thanks in advance! :-)

https://texample.net/tikz/examples/tag/diagrams/

Why do you want it to be online?  Inkscape is the obvious option.

draw.io could be useful

Does this answer your question? Software to draw illustrative figures in papers

I recommend making neat pen and ink diagrams, then scanning them to pdf, or taking good pictures with your phone.
It's good for students to see that you don't need fancy software to create informative diagrams. Then you can ask for diagrams in exercises.
I would even recommend this for a textbook. There's nothing unprofessional about careful handwork.


text:
Is it normal to feel too rushed to publish as a PhD student?
I feel I am in a strange position as a PhD student. On the one hand, I understand that the sciences have become much more fast-paced in terms of publications. I completely understand this.
On the other hand, I am feeling extremely rushed into publishing, not being more than a year into my PhD. The pressure is quite immense, considering that I used the whole first year just to build a foundation of knowledge so that I could stand on my own two feet. But being pushed to publish immediately after that year is up, with threat of termination of my candidature looming so suddenly and without warning - simply: My PhD students need to publish ASAP or leave - has really made me suffer as a student.
As far as I hear from other students in my field, it's common to have no papers published until even the third year. Sooner is better, of course, but the vast majority of other PhD students I've met or spoken to tell me their supervisor is significantly more relaxed. I really feel that this is making me suffer in that I don't have time to build myself as a researcher because my time has so quickly been reallocated to only doing the grunt work for someone else's project for 3/4 papers a year. At times it really feels like this is a bit of a paper mill and I can't become a successful researcher in my own right like this. Maybe in terms of quantity, but not quality.
Is this situation common? If so, how can I do about it? It is causing huge issues in my life and making me sincerely question whether this is in my best interest.

If you are about a year into your PhD, if you start thinking about publishing now, it will probably take you another year until that paper is published. There is planning and writing and waiting for reviews to do, it is a time-intensive process. I have seen the other happening: people not feeling any inclination to publish and then in their last year rushing to publish the minimal number of publications they need to have their thesis accepted. There is no harm in starting to plan early, a first paper is a long journey.

What field are you in?

I don't mean a plan, I mean 3 papers out or at least being reviewed by a journal by the end of the second year.

This is mathematics

Usually we are considered applied mathematics, because of the physical relevance. I think it is due to the relatively new topic we are studying (but to name it would be essentially to name myself and the supervisor explicitly) so they want as much of the easy groundwork as possible. Actually I have been asked to present a draft paper for submission for about a month or two now. The first is already overdue and this is why is causing some stress, I feel it leaves no time for me to develop a proper ground for my own future research.

I've had the same pressure, and have performed as they said, but as I've gotten older, I've fought against that pressure and refused to publish prematurely. I'd speak with the graduate coordinator/general adviser about what is normal/about when you need to have a manuscript to send it, etc.

Is this situation common?

I suppose that it is a common situation among PhD students. I am almost in an identical situation with a constraint on that is left to submit my thesis. I have (only) 3 years to work-write-submit papers so that I can stitch them as a thesis. I am in computer science. If I don't publish at least 2 or 3, my university would not even allow me to submit my thesis and my stipend would vanish leaving me screwed up for sometime.

Is this situation good?

Yes and No. Yes, because it would put some stress on your mental and physical capabilities, but would result in sooner fruitful results. I think that matters. No, because, this is not research I feel. You can't just think of productivity and at the same time think of science. I do understand that the world is fast-paced w.r.t. publishing and stuffs, but, this is contradictory to the properties of research and science isn't it.

Is this your best interest?

I feel so given the situation is identical. But, I console myself on the fact that "wait boss, just 3 more years and you are done!". Best is to make friends and go out in weekend and talk to new people around and forget work for some time. Go for date, movies. Just, don't think negatively about PhD.
P.S. I belong to Computer Science community, in late second year of my PhD, has submitted an article to a conference.


text:
How do you reference Amazon - the company?
How do you reference Amazon - the company - in a bibliography?
The guides online have examples for citing a product on Amazon, but how do you cite the company itself?

Do you mean a publication authored by "Amazon"? Different style guides will have different ideas, with the APA Publication Manual IMO being on the most breathtakingly anal-retentively precise end of the spectrum. If you are told to use a specific style guide, look there; if not, I would recommend you use some reasonable way of citing.

Think of this this way: you don't cite Maarten Buis, but some article written by me. It is the same way with Amazon; you don't cite Amazon, but some technical report, press release, or something else written by that company.

I'm trying to understand how to reference an entire company, for example when making an analogy such as "the Amazon of the Victorian era," - how do you cite Amazon?

This looks a lot like an "XY problem". Why do you think you need to cite Amazon the company?

@ina Why would you need to cite Amazon for that statement? It's not like Amazon made that claim.

It’s Amazon.com, Inc.


text:
Arxiv Endorsement from Conference Moderator (for someone not from academia)
I'm presenting some of my independent work (in industry) at an academic conference. My paper has been accepted to the conference, but since I am from outside of academia, I'm having difficulty posting it on Arxiv. Would it be appropriate to ask for an endorsement from the panel moderator?

Yes. It even happens to people inside academics that they are not endorsed for a particular subsection of the arxiv.
If your only contact is the panel moderator, I would not hesitate to contact them in a polite email. However, you can and probably should first look whether they can endorse you (find one of their publications and click on their name—it will say for which areas they can endorse) and change your message accordingly.


text:
Improving work conditions of student assistants, PhDs, Postdocs etc
I have been following threads on this website for a few months now. However it's my first time posting. I am a postdoctoral researcher from a Western European country who has done reasonably well since my PhD a few years ago in terms of attracting funding, publishing, teaching etc. My professional situation for the next 2-3 years is secure (I have won a competitive European grant) and I am very happy with what I am doing research-wise. To be clear, this is not a rant & it isn't about me specifically.
I have recently completed a three-year postdoc in Austria in a humanities subject. What I have witnessed there has greatly upset me: I saw careers being shattered, research being stifled or appropriated, young researchers being exploited with promises of jobs that never came or work conditions that were so bad that they never finished their degrees, students 'bound' to their supervisors in ways that I would not have imagined possible in the 21st century, etc. In short, an incredible waste of talent and resources...
Now I am moving to another European country but I still feel very strongly about my experience in Austria and I wish I could do something about it. I know that what I have witnessed isn't unique to Austria, although things are perhaps worse there than anywhere else in Europe. In Austria I felt a sense of hopelessness I had never experienced before - people were just afraid to speak out and lose their jobs; in fact it was so bad that several co-workers turned to me for advice and support, despite my own situation being precarious.
At the time I realized that we had no-one to turn to for help. Works' committees were mostly for people with permanent jobs in the institute - not for students or people like me on short-term contracts. So here is my question: do you know any young researchers' professional associations or unions, perhaps at European level, with whom I could share my concerns? Surely the sort of problems described here are common in academia and there must be structures to represent us?

As a fellow Austrian with a PhD from TU Vienna, I wonder what makes you feel that Austria is "worse than anywhere else in Europe"? I don't doubt that the issues you mention exist, but my impression was that the situation is really not worse (actually: better) than in many other countries. Not trying to discount your experience, just trying to understand better.

I don't really want to go into specifics. The situation may be different from department to department and from discipline to discipline. If you think that Austria is unfairly singled out, I am sorry - that is my experience, and I have studied/worked in several EU countries. Anyway the point is: what can we do as young researchers/academics against an oppressive system when we are not even being represented in works' councils? Who to turn to for help and support? Are there pan-European research associations that we can become involved in to take up these issues?

It's not clear what your question is. It is about how to improve or associations and unions?

I understand your desire to avoid specifics but, to be honest, I find it hard to give constructive help without any specifics. I’m also confused by your assertion that you had “no-one to turn to for help”. I’d expect all institutes in Europe to have appropriate support structures in place (though these may of course fail, and I’ve witnessed that).

As I said my question wasn't about Austria specifically. xLeitix has pretty much summed up the problem with the chair structure in Austria, which is also what I was referring to (students 'belonging' to their supervisors, forced into subordinate or unwanted roles or deliberately blocked in their academic progress because it is cheaper to hire and dismiss them at this level - I am talking about 800 EU/month contracts for 'students' in their early to mid-30s!). Work councils would be the obvious place to turn to for help, but student assistants are not always considered part of the workforce.

@KonradRudolph: I suspect the structures are there, but young researchers don't know this. E.g. I think I only learned of the ombuds-professors (Vertrauensdozenten) when I once applied for a scholarship.

In Europe there is Eurodoc
http://eurodoc.net/

Eurodoc is the European Council of Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers. It is an international federation of 32 national organisations of PhD candidates, and more generally of young researchers from 32 countries of the European Union and the Council of Europe.
Eurodoc’s objectives are:

To represent doctoral candidates and junior researchers at the European level in matters of education, research, and professional development of their careers.
To advance the quality of doctoral programmes and the standards of research activity in Europe.
To promote the circulation of information on issues regarding young researchers; organize events, take part in debates and assist in the elaboration of policies about Higher Education and Research in Europe>
To establish and promote co-operation between national associations representing doctoral candidates and junior researchers within Europe.

and EuroScience https://www.euroscience.org/

EuroScience is the non-profit grassroots association of researchers in Europe.
Open to European researchers across disciplines and countries, EuroScience undertakes to advance science and innovation in Europe, thereby promoting the interests of its thousands of members.

In Italy there is the
Associazione dottorandi e dottori di ricerca italiani
https://dottorato.it/

Thank you! I think that's what I was looking for. Any other suggestion welcome

As mentioned in my comment, I am in full agreement that working conditions for young scientists tend to be somewhere between precarious to downright terrible, but I do not share your impression that this is an Austrian, or even a European, problem. Still, I agree that the situation is dire and needs improvement, independently of whether it is the same or worse than elsewhere.
I have by now moved to Sweden and my impression is that working conditions for young scientists here are quite good, much better than in most countries. What seems to help are the following:

Flat management structures and a fairly consequent implementation of the "many eyes" principle. Unlike in Austria, where people tend to be at the mercy of a single chair or full professor, a young scientist in Sweden tends to work with many different faculty members, both in research and teaching. PhD committees have multiple internal members, all of which meet regularly with the student, providing realistic ways to escalate issues with the main supervisor.
Part of this are also yearly one-on-one meetings of all students with the head of the PhD school as well as with the head of the division, where problems can be raised (really, it is expected that issues are raised here, and this is not seen as an attack against the main supervisor, as it may be in Austria).
Fairly generous paid vacations on all levels, and an expectation that this vacation is indeed taken yearly.
Clear rules for hiring. There are no vague promises of jobs - all positions need to be announced and run through a hiring process in which HR is involved. This is quite transparent, and internal hires are rare to start with.
Explicit support for mental health. Our university has a contract with a mental healthcare provider, which all employees can consult if they feel stressed or depressed. Usage of this provider is anonymous and encouraged by senior faculty.

It helps that the faculty/student ratio here is much lower than what I have seen in Austria (about 1:2 in my division, versus about 1:20 in the group where I did my PhD), and that the Scandinavian culture tends to de-emphasize hierarchy to begin with.

what can we do as young researchers/academics against an oppressive system when we are not even being represented in works' councils? Who to turn to for help and support? Are there pan-European research associations that we can become involved in to take up these issues?

Realistically, what will be needed to substantially improve working conditions will be to break up the chair structure. As long as a single professor is the sole authority over a student or postdoc, mistreatment will happen and continue to happen.
I am afraid, neither external associations nor students can do much to make this change happen - it will need to come from within. Short-term, the only thing that students and employees can and should do is vote with their feet - don't go to universities and groups that have a history of treating their employees badly, and warn others from going there if you feel you have been mistreated.

I agree with everything said. Still, I am surprised that there is no-one to represent young researchers/academics both at national and European levels. All reputable European research institutions (including Austrian ones) have signed up to the European Charter for Researchers on EURAXESS, but how is it enforced? Who holds them accountable? Are there no pressure groups or unions specifically dealing with improving the working conditions of early career researchers?

@Xam1968 I leave in a country (Italy) where there have been similar complaints for many years, but I've never heard of unions at national or European level protesting for this. I don't know the situation in Austria, but I have to say that in my country there is a large gap between STEM fields (richer) and the humanities (poorer). Generally speaking, researchers in the humanities may not have enough funds to buy a few computers.

@Xam1968 How much influence could such a "pressure group" really have? At least at TU Vienna, even deans have only limited influence over their own professors. I think this is not the right place to put your hopes for change. The only entity I can imagine putting significant pressure on the universities to enact change is the government, and I would not get my hopes up too much there either, at least not right now.

Ok - so basically the situation is hopeless? You say vote with your feet: I already have. I left Austria and I placed my funding elsewhere. Still it's sad for all the students and colleagues involved. What will become of them? A pressure group would allow us at least to be represented and to raise some of the issues at higher level without fear of retribution. There are genuine issues here: decent wages and work conditions, research freedom, academic independence, intellectual property etc. I don't see why early career researchers shouldn't be represented like any other workers' category.

@Xam1968 There is a Universities and Colleges Union in the UK (which afaik any researcher from Master's students to department heads can join), but whether there are equivalent unions in other countries or at the EU level I don't know.

@Xam1968 I've heard of departments in Vienna where it is customary for students to work as unpayed assistents for several years with the carrot being a payed assistentship as soon as one opens up. And people thought they were given a treat to be unpayed assistents. The only solution is to leave such an abusive system - how can you represent workers that don't even have a contract?

It seems that your answer is answering not the main question but rather some questions in the comments. This is confusing.

@Xam1968: just had a glance at EURAXESS, but I don't think there is much that can be enforced (in the context of this question). I didn't see much that helps in solving the conflicts that arise even from different sentences in their recommendations.

It is (and probably always will be) a very group-local cultural thing.
So in the end vote with your feet remains the only option.
I can speak only for German universities, which in recent years have established quite a number of structural components to prevent misconduct and exploitation of young researchers. From mandatory letter-of-intents regarding supervision over formal documentation of the process. From stronger regulation regarding contract periods up to PhD assemblies on the university level.
With very limited success.

Most measures first and foremost just increase bureaucracy. The Professors who have always treated their PhD students and post docs well, lose flexibility and have to spend a lot of additional time in dealing with administrative regulations. Those who have always behaved like a*holes, still do so. They stress the regulations as far as possible and find creative ways to weasel around them – despite the additional paper work, the actual situation for their subordinates has only marginally improved, if at all.
PhD assemblies / unions are a nice idea, but also a hopeless attempt for many reasons. Because the situation and environment is extremely different among disciplines and groups already at the university level, there is little to fight for that realistically can improve the situation for a majority of young researchers. Furthermore, it turned out to be extremely difficult to find representatives who want to do the job: During the 3 to 6 years of a PhD, you have lots of other things to do. It would take at least 3 years to be able to understand university politics and even longer to influence it – and then you are already out. How should that possibly work better on a nation-wide or even european level?
The only measure I personally consider as partly successful is the establishment of formal ombudspeople for young researchers that have difficulties with their supervisors. I have seen several times that consulting the ombudsperson helps to find individual solutions in cases of misconduct (and sometimes the solution is to quit). But it is a measure for individual solutions and not general regulations – and, honestly, I think that is the reason for its success.

So while I strongly sympathise with your intent, the only advice I have: As you progress with your career, establish and live your own positive culture of treating your subordinates well. Tell you colleagues about it, fight for it as a criterion in hiring committees, and show the world that such culture does not harm the success of a research group.

I'm also somewhat ambivalent about the PhD employee contracts. While it is certainly nice to be paid for the PhD, it increases the  dependence as the professor now gets all the rights an employer has. And it limits the possibility to vote with your feet: if you do (PhD) research as employee, this work stays at your old institution. Whereas, if you hold a scholarship or earn your living by working somewhere else, you may not need to start from zero at the new institute.

BTW: in most German Länder, the students are always unionized. So if you are PhD student and signed up as student (which is not necessarily the case), talk to the StuRa/AStA.

I can answer

do you know any young researchers' professional associations or unions, perhaps at European level, with whom I could share my concerns?

not at European level, but for France. There exist at least:

the "Guilde des jeunes chercheurs" http://guilde.jeunes-chercheurs.org/
a group of precarious workers in higher education and research https://precairesesr.fr/ (with a n active twitter account from the Lille groupe https://twitter.com/PrecairESRLille)

@NajibIdrissi I am not sure how active the guilde is, and my link might not be the most recent one. As far as I know, there is no permanent union for young and precarious HE+R staff.

A few thoughts in addition to the existing answers (German perspective, I believe very similar to the situation in Austria).
Unions etc.

PhD students (enrolled as such) in Germany are unionized via StuRa/AStA although (as students are not employees) they are not unions in the sense of wage negotiations etc. But they do offer legal consulting and know all the structures and rules of your university.
ver.di is the labor union where university employees belong.
(young researchers are obviously only a tiny fraction of their clientele, and I'd suspect very few young researchers are members - but it's definitively worth trying to talk to them)
My professional society (or rather the field-specific division I'm member at) has a "young professional" subgroup. While they are probably not very powerful in terms of changing things, they'd be very useful in terms of networking as in finding out how things are in other places, possibly finding a new university/group where one could move, and in developing a concise set of ideas how things should change.
There are ombudspersons at universities for various kinds of conflicts. StuRa/ASta/Fachschaft should be able to locate the right one.

What can OP do

Strive to be a good supervisor. In particular, being aware where your students are vulnerable in order not to (accidentally) hit there.
Educate your students also about this aspect of being a researcher.
Openly discuss these weak spots and possible remedies with them.
Depending on your position: as a post-doc, do stand up for your rights and be an example for other post-docs and students.
As a professor, strive to have an atmosphere where open discussions are possible. I.e. it happens that people contradict you.
As professor/group leader you may even be able to provide a bit of a safety net to young researchers who move on (see far below) by clearly communicating your intention to have them back in case their next move fails.
The position of the young researchers is only half as precarious if you communicate your intentions openly and clearly, e.g. "I'd like you to stay in my group - Would you like to? - If you agree I'll see where I can find money."
There's sometimes fear that if you let people know early they cannot stay they won't work well (but then IMHO if they did work well, you'd not want them to leave or if it's purely because you don't have money, you'd want to help them find another position) - but in my experience, an atmosphere of uncertainty may cause pretty much the whole group to not work that well, and of course, the good people will leave.

I've also seen and agree that we have severe problems due to abuse of power.
Personally, I think the now typical employment contracts (50 % or 65 % part time in my field) for PhD can considerably increase these problems.

The advantage is obviously that the PhD "student" receives wages
However, in the context of this question, some disadvantages that make leaving for another university much more costly/difficult become important.
If the PhD student isn't employed for doing the research work, they own their results. And in Germany, you can hand in your thesis pretty much at any university where you find a professor that considers the thesis an appropriate piece of reasearch work. There is usually no obligation that the research must be done at a university at all, and also coursework is typically not required and/or can be transferred by some burocratic procedure.
I think this used to be an offset against the abuse of power discussed here. But:
A fixed-term employment contract cannot easily be cancelled by the student.
If the research is done by an employee, basically the employer owns the results. I.e. employed PhD students probably cannot take their results or already acquired data with them, nor any software or inventions. Not even their lab book or notes related to the project.
Then, leaving for a new position means to start again from zero.
In contrast to the employment contract, a research scholarship leaves the PhD student as owner (and scholarship funding agencies often have mentors/ombudsprofessors with whom one can discuss trouble with the supervisor - they may even help to find a new professor)
But I've seen constructions where a so-called scholarship was given not as a personal scholarship to the student but the money was paid to the university who then employed the student.
(Students were told that this is better for them as they get full social insurance as employees which they wouldn't have with the scholarship - however, while the social insurance is paid before the employed student ever sees any wages, the scholarship holder could also get similar social insurance coverage with a scholarship equaling the gross amount the university pays without much difference in the net wage [some insurance fees somewhat higher, some volountary and adjustable to personal need, but no income tax due].)

One aspect of the power abuse difficulties I have not seen mentioned so far where I do have ethical doubts/difficulties is: I'm OK with a 100 % work contract meaning that the employer pretty much can do as they like with results such as inventions (we do have laws dealing with extra payments that become due for this). But if students are pretty much forced to enter employment contracts where these rights to the results of their research (we do sign that our thesis is exclusively the work of the PhD student...) are signed over for a fraction of comparable industry wages puts them again in a precarious position: there is the danger of the student getting their PhD and then the professor starting a spin-off on the basis of the research. Or, because the professor wants to think about commercialization, the student is not allowed to publish (again a right that comes from the employment contract).
I may add that up to masters exams and thesis, the legal point of view in Germany is that contracts "in the vicinity" of exams are easily either void
(because of undue pressure/ abuse of power) or even corruption of the professor - e.g. possible patent rights can be transferred only after the Master student received their final marks. Not so for PhD students, apparently.

Personal Anecdata

When I started my PhD it was still in the "old" scheme: PhD research is your private fun (but I had much more freedom in choosing my topic than any of the employed PhD students I know now), but I got fixed term contracts for teaching (my professors policy was that the available positions which came at different wages were rotated so everyone should over the years get roughly the same, I started with low paid short term contracts, and was later upgraded to a longer-term fixed contract with better wage).
When I had a 50 % industry offer the professor would not let me out of my teaching contract. Said, they cannot forbid this, but the consequence would be that I'd be working 100 % for money and would need to see where to find time for my PhD research... Fortunately, the industry boss was very understanding, and I worked ≈ 10 % in that company for a while.
I have to say that I very keenly felt the disadvantage in my negotiation position. In consequence I put very high priority on having a plan B ready (started freelancing a bit as a side line) and building up a safety fund (this was helped by the luck of my university being in the east, so we shared a cheap flat with coal furnace, and by the luck of having cheap hobbies: hiking and wild camping in the beautiful hills nearby, drinking at your own BBQ/camp fire as opposed to pub going; from a global perspective of course also by the luck that we basically don't have tuition fees here). Both helped considerably in taking independent positions in negotiations or discussions/disputes.
I do realize that a number of lucky circumstances helped my savings. But some lucky circumstances are available to most PhD students, e.g. that it is socially acceptable to go on living like a student when earning a half wage.
This is something that I consider a very personal decision, but I like to spread the word that something is possible here. Obviously not full financial independence, but enough to buffer, say, several months which should allow for quite some scouting for a better position in case things turn out to be bad.
I later got a scholarship, so the teaching contract became dormant for that time (still had to help with the teaching - everyone had to as we were drowning in students)
I did leave that university without finishing my PhD (because I got a position abroad), and much later after I returned to Germany handed in the thesis at a different university.
I've been working for a couple of years in Italy basically as a post-doc on 1-year-contracts (that was an administrative limit to contract duration). However, the professor there was very open about this and always asked me 6 - 9 months before the contract ended whether I'd like to stay for another year and that they'd like to keep me. Even though the situation there was objectively more predictable with longer term project contracts in Germany, there noone bothered to talk about prolongation sometimes until a few days before the old contract expired. Just this difference in communication did make a huge difference in working atmosphere.
My experience with such autocratic professors (yes, plural) is, however, that it pays to stand up for your rights and negotiate at eye level. My experience is that these autocrats are not at all used to anyone contradicting them, but when I did (contradiction was well founded, not trouble making) and stood up for my rights I ultimately climbed considerably in their esteem (after some time for cooling down).
I also met very good supervisors, and learned a lot from what they explained to me. One of them even said when I was about to leave their group (for private reasons) that if for some reason the new position doesn't work out, I should let them know and they'd look for money so I could return there. I still very much appreciate this: such a safety net adds considerably to the young researcher's negotiation position in the new place (it turned out to be a place where I did clash with, let's say, local culture - and did gain by standing up for my rights - and I do hope that my example may also have been encouraging others there). I didn't need this safety net, but it was good to know it is there.

Thanks for sharing your story with its various zigs and zags; glad things worked out for you.  One thing I found missing from your story: what was happening with your peers.  But I suppose that might make the story too long....

@aparente001: well, some left because they found the situation unbearable (one did their PhD somewhere else later on), some got industry jobs (for chemists it is completely normal to do a PhD if you want to work in industry) before handing in their PhD thesis: this may be due to a good offer as well as due to bad situation at uni. There are some who always complain about the situation but don't actively work at changing neither the general nor their personal situation. Some worked very smoothly and rather unquestioningly with the "autocrat" and gained a smooth (though not independent) career.

Sounds like a bit of a minefield.  Congratulations on making it through to the other end.


text:
How do academia and graduate advisors deal with the fact that the cost of living is dramatically higher but graduate wages is stagnant?
My supervisor got his PhD in the 1970s while having two kids and a house. He spent 25k on the house. Everyone from that era, even the 80s or 90s, said that their degree was dirt cheap and they were very easily transiting from academia to work life post graduation.
Fast forward to the present day, my graduate wage is 25k/yr (most of which is spent on tuition) and the housing prices in my city are 70k-100k for tiny small apartment. Almost all the housing prices are rising due to speculation and price for even basic daily necessities such as food or even a hair cut is rising.
I am going to a conference but I can't go because the plane ticket alone cost $1000 dollar. Uploading a paper cost $100, an additional one cost $300. Registration $300. All the conference prices are rising and many students are frustrated but the conference organizer insist on places such as fancy resorts or islands. It feels like a hustle.
How do academia rationalize the reality that the cost of living has risen dramatically, yet graduate wages are stagnant, making the graduate degree nowadays a very costly and risky journey. How do academic advisors support students in these times when their students are all living around the poverty line, the same bright students who could easily make 100k-200k working as a programmer?
I sometimes wonder if the only reason I am admitted is that I am from a third world country and people assumed we are satisfied with less and unequal pay. Not unequal with respect to other graduate students, but unequal with respect to people who has citizenship with the same skill.

Usually, travelling costs of PhD students are covered by some form of funding. E.g., in my university, PhD students have a travelling fund from the PhD school and when this is finished, I pay from my research funds. Further, I'd say that now, at least in my university, PhD students are paid much better, compared to the cost of living, than I was when I did my PhD 20 or so years ago.

@MassimoOrtolano My university has a lottery system that has a maximum travel support cap of $500 dollars and you can apply once during entire graduate school. I don't know anyone who has ever won the lottery. I guess it does depend on the university. While mine is a very big one, it is not some top 4 or top 5 university like Caltech, Stanford or MIT. They probably pay better there.

@SanjayGupta That sounds like the rule set for some department-sponsored travel grant or the like. In most universities, advisors also have their own funds (or grants) from which they can reimburse their students for travel costs connected to conference participations. Perhaps your advisor ran out of such funds?

There are usually many different opportunities to get travel support: many times the advisors have travel funds from various sources, some programs exist at the department level, some at the university level, some at the state and federal level, there are private foundations that offer grants, the organizers of the conference may offer grants.

Are you asking about paying for a conference, paying the cost of living? purchasing a house? or are third world students treated differently?

"the conference organizer insist on places such as fancy resorts or islands"  Whoa, what field are you in? The only conferences I see that are at fancy resorts are fake conferences. The only island I've ever been to for a conference is Puerto Rico and it was a cheap conference that my Uni paid for. In the fields I know (sociology and computer science) the good conferences are in normal, practical locations.

It's weird that your tuition comes from your wage. It's also weird that the costs associated with attending conferences also seem to come from your own pocket. As far as I've heard there are no graduate programs that make students pay for these things themselves.

I think this is too broad and variegate to be answered and involves lots of country politics. Of course a form of discussion is possible. My former boss adjust by legally tricking with his budget to equalize the payment of all phd students independently of the individual source. He even launched a two times yearly integration before Christmas and summer. He escalated related issue even to the government level. But I doubt this is affordable by most. ..

Which country is the question about?

@Ben10 there's many programs in the US that will admit students without funding, particularly large state schools which leave it to the student to find their own advisor. Then if you get an advisor without funding that's your own fault. Also programs where the MS is the first step towards a PhD will let you pay out of pocket (if you weren't picked up yet by any labs) while you buy a MS and prove yourself. I believe Stanford was operating this way in the past at least.

And aren't international students required to prove they are financially able to handle tuition and living expenses before getting the visa?

"How do academia rationalize the reality that the cost of living has risen dramatically, yet graduate wages are stagnant?"  -- probably the same way they rationalize stagnant wages to adjuncts. With all of the administrative bloat, there isn't much money available for those who do much of the grunt-work in academia.

@A Simple Algorithm: Sure, you can be admitted to a PhD program without funding, and why not?  One size doesn't fit all :-)  I've known a couple of multi-millionaires who went back for PhDs after making their pile.  Indeed, while I'm not in that range, I certainly could have covered the costs from my consulting work.

My supervisor got his PhD in the 1970s while having two kids and a house — I smell a false dichotomy.  At least three of my PhD students bought houses, and two had kids, while they were PhD students; the most recent birth was in 2017.  On the other hand, my sister and I were both born while my father was a PhD student, but my parents couldn't afford a house until Dad became an assistant professor, in the early 1970s.

Uploading a paper cost $100, an additional one cost $300. — Huh?  This looks a scam to me.  (Not in the cynical philosophical sense that "all conferences are scams", but rather in the more focused sense that "legitimate conferences don't charge for uploading papers".)

Why are you spending your stipend on tuition? Why isn't your university paying for your travel? What city has rent in the $8,000 range? Not even SF is that bad.

@Ben10 In poorly funded fields those things are common.

The premise of the question is wrong.  In the USA, graduate student pay has risen quite a lot.  Inflation has risen more.  But this is true of pay in almost all jobs.

This might prove controversial but I'm going to reverse the question: why do PhD students accept being underpaid? As long as academic institutions find candidates willing to be underpaid, they have no reason to raise the wages. If the PhD students themselves don't defend their claim to a better compensation, who will?
In some countries PhD students are staff with a proper employment contract (I'm aware of at least Germany and France, probably others as well). The advantages of this system from the PhD student perspective are:

Access to health, pension and unemployment benefits in accordance with the country regulations
The PhD counts as a professional experience
The salary is usually indexed on some public employment salary scale
Symbolically improved social status, e.g. when being vetted for an apartment or a mortgage.

Obviously this option is more costly for the academic institutions, which means that they had to reduce the number of PhD students hired in order to increase the salary.
In France, the transition from student stipend to work contract happened at the beginning of the 2000s. The movement originated from the PhD students themselves and was driven by the Confédération des Étudiants Chercheurs (students researchers federation, later appropriately renamed as the Confédération des Jeunes Chercheurs, junior researchers federation). The central claim was that even if PhD students are researchers in training, they actually carry out productive research work, as illustrated by the fact that 50% of scientific publications have a PhD student as first author. Therefore legal cases were brought that their work qualifies as regular employment, and that the student stipend system was simply illegal according to labor laws. Institutions and funding bodies reluctantly complied over the next decade or so, for fear of legal challenges and/or bad publicity.

I like your answer, but I think it comes down to a question of power and politics. The supply/demand equation is not in the students' favor, so the only way they would be able to increase their salaries is through some sort of 'socialist' collective bargaining type of action. Unfortunately for the US though, that conflicts with the prevailing free-market capitalist culture.

I got my PhD in France and I can sign everything I'm reading in this answer. However, here's a (sad?) tidbit - apparently some countries (the only specific example I've heard of is Spain) have reverted back from work contracts onto student stipends so apparently the system hasn't lasted at least in some places.

To "why do we accept being underpaid?": Even when you do unionise and try to fight for better conditions, you often end up with results like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_York_University_strike

@penelope: from my (German) point of view, a scholarship of adequate size (i.e. correctly figuring social insurance costs) is better than an employment contract as the employment contract increases the power disparity / dependence between supervisor/employer and PhD student. To me the more disconcerting revertion is to look at PhD students as still being in training as opposed to fully qualified professionals doing an independent piece of work. This of course coincides with the lowest-level employee point of view.

@Time4Tea: To me, "collective bargaining is the only way out" is only one symptom of the system being broken due to power disparity. There would be other ways to break that power disparity, though: e.g. imagine a PhD thesis could easily and in practice be handed in somewhere else in case things go wrong between PhD student and supervisor (theoretically this is possible in Germany, but it never happens. I seem to recall that Swedish universities have some checks & balances in place for this?). Imagine also that it would be OK to work a normal part time job besides doing the PhD research....

@cbeleites from my (European; too many flavours collected at this point) point of view, some of the benefits that came from being a salaried employee were indispensable: I was able to draw on the French social security system in the last month of my PhD and a few months following, not feeling a pressing need to look for employment when three different medical professionals told me to rest up (very stressful PhD finish...). I have to admit I do not understand from your comment how a salary increases the disparity while a scholarship would not (assuming both are of adequate size).

@cbeleites There were also other benefits: any government job in FR guaranteed covering half of the public transport expenses which was important to me due to a bi-localised PhD (1h by train between the Unis). Based on the fact that they were employed rather than regular students, out-of-EU PhD students obtained the right to stay for ~3 months after their PhD to look for employment (not possible after regular student visa expires). Finally, you also pay for pension contributions from a salary but not from a bursary - which might not immediately affect your living standard but might later. etc

@penelope: here in Germany, with a scholarship you either have to have just the same social insurance as an employee (health insurance) or you can get it at the same conditions (pension, unemployment insurance is a bit more complicated in general as that interacts with the basic social insurance everyone has anyways). So the difference boils down to scholarship holders getting what we call the employer's gross wage and then themselves taking care of which social insurance gets how much, while for an employee the employer takes care of this   and the employee "sees" only the employee net wage.

OTOH, an employee has to do what their employer demands and IP rights of their research will belong to the employer (university) - which is not the case with a scholarship. When push comes to shove, this means that it is much easier for a scholarship holder to change university without needing to restart their work from 0. (And when I had a scholarship, they did actually ask us whether we need help in terms of finding another supervisor). Public transport: Hessen has a public transport ticket for their employees but afaik they are the only Land so far to do this and this would not be available

to sholarship holders. But any student (student status is independent of university employee/scholarship status, and volountary for PhD students) gets a public transport ticket for ≈ 265 €/year with about the same coverage. AFAIK student visa here do already have a possibility to get an extension of up to 18 months to look for a job after they got the degree. While in most places where I have been the IP questions were settled very amicably between researchers and universtiy/prof/supervisor and PhD students were also quite free in choosing their own research, ...

I've also seen situations where that was not the case. And of course the bad situations were bad in all/most of those respects, making it basically impossible for the PhD student to get out there short of realizing the loss of $n$ years' work and having a PhD dropout in their CV...

Oh, and the scholarship had an expense account to make me attending conferences or buying books or small but necessary things a bit more independent of the institute's financial situation. Not like a full grant, but definitively better than nothing - and the travel budget which was bound to me in person definitively allowed me to visit more conferences during my PhD than any other PhD student in my group (together with my decision that hostel dorms are perfectly fine for a PhD student if that sqeezes another conference out of that budget).

Cost of living differs dramatically from city to city and country to country. So the problem you describe is not as uniformly present as your question suggests. The way the payment is organized (stipend versus salary, tax rules that apply, health insurance, etc. etc.) differs a lot from country to country and over time. Such changes could easily lead to a (hard to see) improvement of the situation of PhD students, instead of the deterioration you report.
However, it is generally true that as a PhD student you will earn less during their studies than if you started to work immediately. However, those with a PhD degree tend to get on average slightly better labor market outcomes (slightly higher pay, less unemployment, etc.).There is some indication that a PhD degree on average pays of in terms of life time income, but I don't think the advantage is large. Again, this differs a lot from discipline to discipline and country to country. Depending on the specific circumstances you could easily be one of the persons that would have earned more during their entire life without the PhD degree. So if you are doing this for the money, then it is not quite as bad as you describe, but there are probably better investments you could have made. However there are other advantages: For example, if you want a career at a university or a research position outside university, then a PhD degree is pretty much required. Those are the things that you "buy" by excepting the lower payment now. Whether or not that is a worthwhile "purchase" depends on the kind of jobs you want to pursue.

Following is a US only perspective.
In most fields, advisors have no control whatever over the conditions of either their grad students, nor the general economy. In a few scientific disciplines in which advisors hire their students, usually from grant monies, this can differ, but university policy may still put limits on what can be paid.
What an advisor may be able to do, is to try to make the length of the doctoral program as short as is feasible, getting people out more quickly. But, since scientific breakthroughs can't be scheduled, this is an aspirational policy only.
Universities may also be limited in what they are able to do, for complicated financial reasons. Legislators have not been especially generous in funding education in the US at any level (actually it is rotten). Funds are limited for most disciplines and the funds increase slowly if at all. But a certain number of grad students are needed to provide TAs to make the undergraduate education system work at all. The tradeoffs are difficult to manage. We could pay graduate students better if there were fewer of them. But then (a) you wouldn't be likely to get a slot in a grad program and (b) the undergrad program would also suffer. Hard choices and no effective way to overcome them.
But if you are in a doctoral program for any reason but love of the discipline and a burning desire to live your life there, then you are probably not in the right place. Money is seldom the main driver of those who seek PhDs.
As other here note, the living cost in many places in the US is insane. Near Stanford it is so expensive to live that it is difficult for the university to attract faculty, much less graduate students. But the value added by an education there is worth it for many. And note that it is also true that Stanford had something to do with creating the conditions that led to that cost of living by fostering the rise of major tech firms. This is one reason that young faculty can be (many places) judged primarily on their ability to attract grant money that keeps the whole system in (delicate) balance.
Long term (lifetime) if you want to make a difference, support spending public funds for education at all levels. The alternative is to guarantee a poorer future for everyone. An uneducated populace isn't an especially productive one.

It's supply and demand setting wages, not socialism, not "living wage".  As long as they get slaves, oops grad students, coming in at the bottom of the pyramid, why worry about the wages?  If they need to raise wages, they will.  If they don't, they won't.  You already see this with postdocs or even grad students from field to field.  Those where it is harder to attract students pay more.  In general, engineering > science > humanities.
Immigration.  Massive amounts of imported grad students.  Some departments of U.S. science and engineering are more than 50% non-native.
Articles in APS and ACS about encouraging kids to do STEM, when hard science Ph.D.s struggle to get desirable jobs.  Big lab profs are in the business of staffing grants.  As long as they get the grant, they won't stop a project because the grads don't get hired.

One reason to worry about PhD pay is that paying below a living wage shuts out students who aren't from well-off families or are otherwise "nontraditional." This is already especially evident in the humanities. So if a program cares about attracting students to the field who aren't rich, white, traditional-age, and educationally privileged, then they need to care about what they pay people at the start of an academic career.


text:
I did not earn my Master's degree. Do I mention it in my Ph.D. program and onwards and on my CV?
I started my terminal Master’s degree program in Fall 2017. My plan was to graduate Spring 2019, and if successful, enter a Ph.D. program  Fall 2019. My Master’s program is a more general program and not one that is necessary to obtain in order to proceed to my specific Ph.D. program, however, some like myself, use it as a stepping stone especially if we come from other fields (I hold a B.S. in biology which is not my current field).
In short, I did not obtain my Master’s. Due to the fact that I was immersed in a highly toxic, dysfunctional (no one has integrity and conducts unethical research) and borderline abusive department, and that both my thesis chairs left in the process, my graduation date was delayed. There were also 3 others in my cohort who didn’t graduate, and many others dropped out along the way—all for similar reasons as I. I was accepted to my top choice Ph.D. program in a different state, and thus decided to not stay behind and try to complete my Master’s (which was my back up plan). My new school does not expect me to complete my Master’s; in fact, I’d almost say that they don’t care, as they did not ask 1 single question about my program nor seemed remotely interested about it during my interview. Not needing my Master’s was confirmed by both the Admissions Department and the Records Office at my new school, and after this, I formally withdrew from my former school. My experience was so negative that I have zero plans to return to complete the Master’s at a different time. Also, at my new school, you earn a Master’s (which is in my specific field and credit based) along the way, which is nice.
My question is, is it necessary to mention my Master’s program on my CV? I’m assuming the answer is ‘yes,’ but I am unsure of how I would go about mentioning it on my CV. I was 3 credits away from getting my Master’s, and while I’m not ashamed of it, I am unsure of how I should handle it when it comes up in convos, esp. when applying to internships, etc. Do I say “degree not conferred” or is there a better way to convey this?
I’d appreciate any tips and advice. Thank you!

"I guess my question is" If you are still guessing what your question is, how would you expect that some strangers will understand your question...

why the need to be so bitter, alone programmer? not necessary at all

Possible duplicate of Academic dismissal from PhD program. What next?

@flyfroggy don't take it personally... I'm just asking about the way that you described the question. My main purpose is to keep it short and informative and as clear as possible.

(I know the duplicate is about a PhD, but it covers the general case of a failed graduate program in applications to further programs)

You don't need to emphasize or even mention such things unless asked to account for the time you spent. In general, it is a poor choice to mention things you think are failures. In any application you want to emphasize your suitability for the position and the high likelihood that you will be a success at it. Stress the positive.
But be prepared to give an honest and sensible answer if asked what you were doing for a period of time longer than a few months. It is probably fine to say that you pursued a dead end and changed course, which sounds accurate. It is also fine to say that you escaped a dysfunctional environment after being caught up in it for a while. But that isn't something for your CV or your SOP.
You will probably be asked to supply transcripts of all academic programs in some applications. You need to do that, of course. But you don't need to characterize the situation as a failure unless the institution considered it so.

This answer seems to conflict with your previous answer here: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/133524/will-anyone-know-if-you-fail-out-of-a-masters-program and Nate's here: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/14971/academic-dismissal-from-phd-program-what-next/14983#14983 ...it's normal for PhD programs to request all past academic records. Omitting some of them is dishonest.

@BryanKrause, the OP has not stated that he failed out of an MS, only that it wasn't completed. There is no need to make it sound worse than it is.

I agree with Buffy that there's no need to list/mention incomplete studies unless specifically asked; I'd only add that it might seem worth mentioning if you had any relevant and unique training while you were at that program that you might like to acknowledge for job applications down the line. If that's the case, you could always put a line on your CV (below and separate from your EDUCATION section) that says ADDITIONAL STUDIES, and maybe list a few relevant courses that you took. But I'd only suggest this if such training significantly adds value to your CV/you'd like to be able to reference that training in the future, like in a cover letter or job interview. If not, I wouldn't worry about it. At the end of the day, job search committees (academic ones anyway) are most interested in the terminal degree.

I would treat it like a transfer from one program to another. Once you were accepted into a new doctoral program that includes a masters along the way, the only sensible thing to do was to get started as quickly as possible. That would be the case even if your original masters program was great, and not dysfunctional.
Transfers are fairly common and happen for a lot reasons. When it involves going to a stronger program, though, it does not need much explanation on its face, so there is no reason to feel uncomfortable about not finishing the first program.


text:
What makes a good engineering PhD topic and is this one?
(I don't know if this is the right place to post this, but it's the best I could think of)
I am soon to graduate from my MEng and I am contemplating doing a part time PhD in the future.
PhDs always seem very 'research' focussed, while research is certainly something I do, it has always been a secondary thing behind the doing (designing making etc.), the engineering.
How does one do a PhD where the goal is to make something? (and can one do a PhD where the goal is to make something?)

Now the more specific question about my current idea.
A C++/Rust like language with a parallelism checker that natively compiles to run segments of code on a GPU (and possibly other ASICs).
Rust's borrow checker runs anaylsis to check memory safety, a parallelism checker would run analysis to  check code is as parallel as it can be, warning when code is not and how it may be best made so (via multi-threading and/or gpgpu), even in very complex scenario. From a more mathematical perspective could a perfect algorithm/model be devised and proven that would never miss when parallelism can be implemented?
In the simplest example, giving a warning for something like:
int a[100000]={1,2,...,100000};
int b[100000]={1,2,...,100000};
int c[100000];
for(int i=0;i<100000;++i) {
    c[i]=a[i]+b[i]
}

In general, you can do a PhD that is closely tied to the needs of the industry; i.e., a research problem may come from an industry partner.  The only requirement is that the problem/widget/solution must be new with respect to the state-of-the-art.   You can start with the 'parallelism checker' idea.  Check what has been done in the literature, is it new? is there an equivalent concept, if so, then it is old.  Time for a new idea.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_parallelization_tool

How does one do a PhD where the goal is to make something?

This is country specific, and needs approval from your PhD advisor.
But the lab I am working in at CEA in France has several PhD candidates working on Frama-C. In the UK see also this.
You could also continue or take advantage of my work on Bismon (funded by CHARIOT & DECODER projects; see this DRAFT report). You may consider (with approval from your PhD advisor) implementing your ideas as a GCC plugin, or as an extension of the Clang static analyzer, or something generating OpenCL.
Of course, the ongoing Brexit is adding issues at end of 2020 (e.g. end of Erasmus, no more European funding to UK research labs)

From a more mathematical perspective could a perfect algorithm/model be devised ?

Probably not a perfect one. Be however aware of Rice's theorem and of the Halting problem.
Read also J.Pitrat's last book on Artificial Beings - the conscious of a conscious machine, which is closely related to your topic. Also become familiar with abstract interpretation and type inference techniques. Consider generating C code.