text:
As a supervisor, what feedback would you expect from a PhD who quits?
I’m quitting my PhD. The decision has been made. The reasons boil down to diminished interest in the research subject and disappointment with the university’s managerial practices (nothing is done on time or well). A while ago I informed my supervisor about these concerns and gave him the heads up that I may be leaving after a period of self reflection. He found my concerns justified and made reasonable adjustments, what was within his power, but it finally rained down on me that no matter what I won’t pull forward the PhD.
We have an amiable professional relation and I’m sure he may be interested in knowing what went wrong and when. I also want to diminish the blow as I suspect he had put lots of hope on my research, not to mention that I was his first PhD student and my departure will be a hindrance to his tenure. He also has a bit of an ego which I'd rather keep appeased (This is in Europe, in one of the countries with more hierarchy-based academic systems.)
In hindsight, what concrete information would an experienced academician expect to get from a PhD who is leaving?

Expect? Nothing! Perhaps you mean "want"?

FWIW "nothing is done on time or well" describes nearly every org out there, be it private, public, or non-profit. Expecting everything to be done on time and well is a recipe to have a stressful work life. Consider toning down your expectations a bit, reflecting on them somewhat, and then taking a cold hard look at whether the research really bores you. If the primary reason you're leaving is poor management practices, and you don't force yourself to get over it, you'll be in for a hell of a disappointment at your first job outside of academia and a grueling career.

constructive criticism for how he could better prepare the next guy for expectations?

You may also want to consider if there's any useful work in progress you would be willing to hand off to your advisor for use by other students in the future.

I can't say for sure, but I'm getting a weird vibe from your question. I have a feeling there's something - or maybe a lot - that you're not telling us. It's like you sent your spokesman to write this question. Whatever you do, don't leave your advisor with the sense that you're supposedly sharing with him, but not really sharing with him. I might be wrong about this of course, it's just a vibe.

In general, I feel the two items you list already (over-)fulfill what justification you strictly speaking owe an advisor on your way out. You lost interest in your research subject, and you are disappointed with the university's managerial practices. I am not sure there is all that much more to say with regards to the first item, and it's not particularly actionable for the advisor anyway.
For the second item, I am sure he would appreciate some concrete examples of situations that you feel where inadequately handled. At the very least, this gives him ammunition for future discussions around improving managerial processes ("we already lost je_b because of situations X, Y, and Z" is a much easier to make argument towards change than an abstract "we need to improve some stuff").
The only areas where I would tread lightly is problems where he is himself the culprit, or could have reasonably made a difference but didn't. Personally, I would use the common advice from Workplace.SE here on exit interviews - don't use them as a chance to blow off some steam. The chance that you will enact positive change is low, but the probability that you burn some bridges is very high.

This is culturally dependent, of course, but almost all of what you say about him is positive. Therefore it might be a good idea to share it. If at some future time you decide to return to academia, perhaps in a different field or university, it would be useful to have left all bridges standing, with good feelings all around. If he is sorry to see you go and wishes you the best in all things, you have set a foundation for your future. You may need it or not.
But, depending on country and field, he may not expect anything. In that case, a positive statement, especially if written, can be especially helpful to your future.
It is also possible that if he agrees with you on the impediments in place by the university itself, that he may have, in your statement, some ammunition to try to change them.

Had your experience with the advisor been mostly negative, on the other hand, I'd recommend you say nothing. It is a bad idea to leave enemies behind you. Some other folks here leave because of advisor conflicts and even malfeasance. Sometimes silence is the better policy than honesty.

The fact that you're leaving the Ph.D. program altogether is different from switching Ph.D. advisors (or changing universities).  I switched Ph.D. advisors and it caused some hard feelings, but I didn't have the concerns you evince (which is commendable).  I informed my advisor that I was unable to get sufficient traction in the research topic he proposed and left it at that.  He was struggling to get traction in his own research, so I don't think any further feedback would have been helpful.
After a career in academic and corporate research that is approaching 40 years, let me offer my perspective.  The academic world is brutal, and I suspect it is about to undergo a serious contraction.  Academicians for the most part don't really know very much, and most of them couldn't survive outside the academic environment. Getting out now is better for your future than getting out later, so you've made a smart move.  Capture whatever you can from the experience, some of which is useful, and try to preserve some of the attitude that attracted you to academic research to real world problems - they actually offer more opportunities for meaningful work, and ultimately they're more interesting.


text:
Conducting a Podcast with A Star Researcher In Our Field
I am doing a podcast on a voluntary basis with researchers in our field! I have been asked to try to reach the X star researcher in our field who is highly respected in the field. I feel excited, however, I am afraid that podcast could not go well which could leave a bad impression, the podcast would be through Skype, so I don't know how to start breaking the ice before the interview. I prefer to be in person, but in that case, Skype is the only option.
The question: How can I break the ice before the podcasting interview with a star researcher? I am afraid to do counterproductive actions that could affect my career due to the fact that we already in a very small research field.

The answers to your last question were basically to go for it, so it is with this one, if you want a list of questions then talk to your advisor... Last question for reference : https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/132170/72855

This podcast is not related to my advisor, this is not his job, I am doing that on a voluntary basis, the question is completely different, I am asking how I can start breaking the ice or how I should start talking before going to the podcast.

You seem to have a lot of issues understanding... I did not suggest that it was your advisors job... But your advisor should be aware of what you are involved in and, as they are involved in this topic (as they are your advisor) they should be able to discuss possible questions with you that could "break the ice" perhaps more for you than your "guests"...

okay! Thanks for this suggestion! I would try and see whether they have time for that.

I have only been on one podcast, but in my experience there was very little ice breaking. They just confirmed a few pieces of information they wanted to make sure they got right during the interview, made sure I was aware of the audience and goal length of time for the interview, and then we jumped right into recording.
Similarly, when I have interviewed people for my class (I do video interviews with people in the field), I don’t do any real socializing beforehand. We may say a few small pleasantries, but we jump right into the work of preparing and creating the video content.
If you do feel like you need a warm-up question, “what inspired this line of work/this paper?” is always nice.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How many postdocs should one usually do before it is realistically possible to get a faculty position?
I am interested in the amount of postdocs one usually has to do before one gets a "good" faculty position while considering the apparent differences in various academic disciplines.

This is too variable to have any reasonable answer. It depends on what you do as well as the general economy and various field related issues. Somewhere between zero and infinity.

It's too difficult to answer a question like this, there are so many parameters at play.

In most fields, in the steady state, the answer is infinity.  Many more new PhDs are hired as postdocs than postdocs are hired into research-oriented professor positions, so, on average, simply by dint of numbers, the new postdoc will never get a research-oriented professor position.

@AlexanderWoo but most, if not all, research professors were post-docs, so that means your premise must be false...

@Solar Mike: Alexander Woo is talking about selecting from a sample space consisting of postdocs, not selecting from a sample space consisting of research professors. What he said and what you said can both be true if, for example, the process begins with 1000 new Ph.D. graduates such that 800 obtain postdoc(s), 30 go directly to a research-oriented position, and 170 go in other directions that never lead to a research-oriented position, and eventually of the 800 who took one or more postdoc positions, 150 obtain a research-oriented position.

@AlexanderWoo Most postdocs don't become faculty, but you've answered the wrong question. The better answer would address how many postdoc positions were held by postdocs who later became faculty. Sampling the number of postdoc positions held by people who never become faculty isn't particularly relevant.

If you mean a tenure track position at an R1 school, the simple answer is "one" (no more, no less).  And often you will have had preliminary interest (e.g. invited for talks) with some R1 target schools even before the start of the one post doc.  IOW, people already know you are "in the mix" for plum positions.  And you know it, too.
Of course, if you can get such a position with zero postdocs, go you.  But this is still rare, even for superstars.
If you are heading to your second postdoc, the bloom is "realistically" off your rose.  Look for teaching school positions at best.  Or move to industry or government.  You have too much to offer to wander around doing postdocs for your life.  Academia is a "tournament" job system (Google it) and you are one of the vast numbers of "many are called but few are chosen".
[Note for pedants, the word "realistic" in the question title...]

There is a lot of room between R1 and "teaching schools at best". It certainly isn't a binary world.

Sure.  Depends on how you defined "good" from the student's question.  At least I specified, how I defined it.  (Basically "a professor like my advisor during my Ph.D.")   And the answer is useful in reference to that restriction.  [But I bet you're also out of contention for upper end non-Ph.D. schools like Williams or West Point, once on second post-doc.  If you couldn't get it first go, what changes from more research experience?  They don't even need that, that much.]

This is not true everywhere, and probably not true in every field.

Or in every instance.  But the POINT is generalization.  "Realistic", from question statement.  OP is not asking for real analysis, all cases precision.  But for insight.  BTW, yes, I agree, it will vary from field to field and area.  But still useful to have a starting point.  Why not give an answer that says which fields/regions tolerate more/less.  That would add real content to the discussion.

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


text:
Submitting Workshop Proposal by A first Year PhD student
I am interested in submitting a workshop proposal for a top-tier conference related to my topic. I don't know whether this could be a good idea but this year I co-organized a workshop in a top-tier conference. I handled the speaker, funding and I really enjoyed although it was for women who made a contribution in the field .
I had quite good relations with some professors. However, I don't know whether asking them that I want to submit a workshop proposal is an acceptable idea. Of course, I am doing my research and trying to come up with a paper, but I want to lead a workshop in the field since it still emerging.
Another problem, my ex-supervisor who is bully still got recognition. I found that he is going to be a chair at the conference for a specific category and cannot hide anymore and have to face him anyway.
The question is: Is it a good idea to submit a workshop proposal by a first-year Ph.D. student?
P.S.I had two years of experience in this emerging field and I have been invited for a talk the last month and feedback was positive by professor attended the workshop.

What did your current advisor say when you asked them?

My current supervisor is not specialized in my field, they brought as I had the experience they looking for, but they are fine since I co-organized another workshop the month before.

"Is it a good idea to submit a workshop proposal by a first-year Ph.D. student?" is a question you should ask your advisor. They do not need to be specialized in your field (as odd as it is to me that anyone would do a PhD with an advisor not in 'their field' I appreciate that in some areas people have a narrow view of what 'their field' is).

Could you please read my question again, I think you miss my point. I said my supervisor is fine, however, he doesn't know my story and about the ex-bully supervisor, he is going to be the chair at this conference. My supervisor is still young and not recognized in the field, but he is good, that's why I need to make proper actions before approaching the professor I know, I am taking the responsibility of each action, not my supervisor as he is completely hands-off and no one knows him.

Monika, I did read your question. If the issue is your former supervisor, that is not at all clear, because that information is not until the third paragraph and is listed as "another problem" as if it is parenthetical to your main question. If your current advisor doesn't know about your history you probably need to make that history known so that they can advise you, especially since it seems to be so central to your life.

I cannot tell them, as this ex-supervisor could destroy me literally, and I think it is good that my current supervisor is unknown and he also does not know anyone in this narrow field, it like shooting myself. Anyway, I will try to figure this on my own, I know it is not easy, but I will try.

Why would telling your current advisor lead your ex-supervisor to "destroy" you?

That doesn't sound a good idea, you don't know how many doors were opened closed because of this PI, he told me, no one will accept you, forgot this topic and go to industry. I am not afraid, but I don't want to tell this bad history to my new supervisors, why I have to bring those nasty experience and make  them suspicious, if a student tells you I was forced to leave, what could you think, I was blamed and if I not I was not selected out of 400 applicants for the current position. I think I have to figure out on my own.

Ok. Is there some resource at the university you are at now that you can take advantage of for counselling or mental health advice? It might be good for you to be able to talk all these things out with someone sworn to confidence and not involved in your field.

In theory, since your advisor agrees, there's nothing which stops you from submitting a workshop proposal as a PhD student. Your proposal will be evaluated by the conference organizers and they will decide whether they want to go forward or not with your workshop. If you submit this proposal completely on your own, I think there's a good chance that they will doubt that you can pull a successful workshop, and consequently reject the proposal. So in order to make the proposal more convincing you should probably partner with some experienced researchers who already have a reputation in the field. You will probably need an editorial board anyway. You seem to have good contacts so it should be reasonably easy, since they should be happy enough to co-organize if you tell them that you're going to take care of the logistics.
The problem with your ex-supervisor and his presence at the conference is something that only you can decide. If he has enough influence in the community to convince the organizers to reject your workshop, it's a shame but that would end things there. If not, it's for you to evaluate how much damage he might cause to you, to your career and to your workshop. But hopefully you and him would just behave professionally and leave each other be.
If you have friendly contacts with experienced researchers in the fields, I'd suggest that you discuss your concerns with them. Their advice would be precious as it would save you investing time in this if they think it's not reasonable, and save you some sleepless nights if they think it's completely fine.


text:
Is it possible to complete a PhD in CS in 3 years?
I have always wanted to get a PhD. I'm in my thirties now and have a full time job. I don't necessarily need to get a PhD for my job, though it could open doors to a few research jobs that I can't apply for now. A few friends and colleagues have gotten their PhDs in about 5 years, they tell me that some have even spent 7 or 8 years.
Is it possible to complete a PhD in 3 years? Why or why not?
This would be a post-masters PhD in the US or Canada.

It's a good idea to ask any institution that you're considering how long it takes (min/max/average) to complete the degree.  In many places in the US you'll find that the average is five to six years, much longer than you want.

@BrianB - To piggy-back on what you said, sometimes this varies not only from department to department, but also from advisor to advisor. It’s definitely best to ask a lot of questions up front.

Are you looking for a quick PhD because you assume it would be full-time and you can't afford to take more than 3 years off work? It is often possible to study for a PhD either part-time or distance learning - obviously this will take longer, but you can carry on working and earning. Alternatively, if your first Masters was a taught degree, you could consider a reasearch-based Masters (again, part-time or distance learning).

I have always wanted to get a PhD Unless you want it badly enough to see it through regardless of how long it takes then don't start one.  You cannot control how long it may take - it could take years longer than the best plan you design - this is outside your control.

I think the best choice for me would be to start a PhD part-time while still working full time. Though I don't know how useful it would be after 8 years of research.

I don't necessarily need to get a PhD for my job, though it could open doors to a few research jobs that I can't apply for now  Don't underestimate the financial cost of leaving a full time paying job at your age to return to academia.  Unless you really, really want to be doing research-level work that is inaccessible now (for self actualization reasons) and that stream change is really, really worth the immense financial sacrifice I would seriously consider how badly you want this.  This will be a very expensive career move.

A friend of mine completed his PhD in CS at a good UK university in 2.75 years. That is not the norm, however.

@AndrewBate UK PhDs are typically ~3 years.  In Canada/US they are typically longer.

@J... In the UK PhDs are typically ~4 years. Few people complete in 3 years. All UK funding councils provide either 3.5 or 4 years of funding.

@AndrewBate I spent years in academia in the UK.  Everyone I knew had 3-year funding.  Some extended and finished in 3.5 or 4 years, but the expectation was that they would finish in 3.  (Top 5, STEM, 10-15 years ago if it matters).

@J... I can only speak from my experience from Oxford (where I did mine in CS two years ago), and also Imperial, and UCL. EPSRC provides 3.5 years funding, unless you go through a doctorial training centre within the university, in which case it is 4 years.

In theory, yes, it is possible. In practice it depends on many things. Let me try to list a bunch of the variables that have affect the time required.
The minimum requirements that you are likely to find for a doctorate are (a) pass a set of qualifying exams and (b) write a dissertation acceptable to the faculty. There may be a few exceptions but most of the exceptions will add requirements.
To pass the examinations, you normally take certain courses. You may already have the knowledge needed to take the exams from your masters, but many courses are designed specifically to ready you for the exams. If you don't have the knowledge you need to get it (courses or elsewhere) and that takes time.
The examinations normally guarantee that you have a solid but broad knowledge of your field. Research, on the other hand requires deep but narrow knowledge of a small sub-field. The graduate courses are also fairly broad, but also start to take you into the depths of some subfield and many will stress recent advances in some field.
To write a dissertation requires that in a small area of your discipline you become a subject expert - world class. That may require additional course work in the form of seminars with faculty and a few students. If you start out close to the boundary of the known world in the area in which you want to do research then you can move quickly. Otherwise it may take time and study to gain the required focus.
To write a dissertation, requires some knowledge of research process and in some fields that can take time to master. It is less likely to be an issue in mathematics, say, or in some parts of CS. But if you lack the knowledge of how to do the specific sort of research required of you, it will take time to gain it.
To write a dissertation requires a suitable problem. That problem can come from you or from a suitable advisor. But if there is no problem at hand then it will take time and study just to find a problem. Moreover, the problem has to be suitable. If it is too easy to solve or too hard then it isn't suitable. I worked, briefly, on both too hard and too easy problems in my math degree. But disposing of them and coming to the right problem only took several weeks of study. But it is hard to put a time limit here as research, by definition, is an exploration of the unknown.
To write an acceptable dissertation you have to produce some valuable work at the boundary of knowledge by solving the problem(s) posed. You also have to write it up and make sure there are no gaps that might invalidate the work. This can take time.
You have to make your advisor happy. Sometimes this is easy but sometimes not. Usually, however, there is the question of "How much is enough?" This is a value judgement, of course, and you and your advisor need to come to agreement.
Finally, you need, in most places, to defend your dissertation before a committee or the public and you need to handle a fair amount of paperwork. This can take some time, also, but isn't normally a big issue.
Note that lots of these things take time, but most of them require an amount of time that is hard to estimate and impossible to bound. If you are well prepared for exams and research and you have a suitable advisor and a suitable problem then three years is feasible, provided that the problem itself doesn't have hidden traps that aren't apparent at the start. Again, the existence of those traps is impossible to predict since you are extending the known world.

A literature review is generally required and this can take quite some time (months).

There are countries where the standard duration of a PhD is 3 years so yes it's possible, but it usually means that the PhD is structured differently and the expectations differ. Even there it's very common that PhD last more than the standard duration: a PhD is research work and even in the best conditions it's often difficult to anticipate how the research is going to pan out. There can be all sorts of unexpected obstacles: somebody might publish some new finding which makes your approach obsolete, insufficient data for an experiment, an initial assumption might not be verified, etc.
So overall it's quite risky to set yourself a hard deadline from the start, as things often take a bit more time than expected. On the other hand, thinking of a serious PhD plan from the start can minimize the risk of delay.

In a US program, it is certainly possible, but it is substantially faster than average. It is easier in some areas (e.g. theory) than others (e.g. systems) where having a few brilliant ideas is sufficient, without the need to build an actual working piece of software. There are two ways I have seen it happen in theory:
1) Be a star: solve a few long standing open problems in your first couple of years, and write them up. This is obviously very hard; if you can pull it off, no need to stick around in the PhD program.
2) Publish a few mediocre papers and decide that research isn't for you. If you have enough material to barely clear the bar for a PhD, you can get out of the PhD program in 3 years, but not with a strong PhD. Usually the people who go this route just take software engineering jobs afterwards: so this isn't the kind of fast PhD you would want if you already have such a job.
Short of being a real star, good PhDs take longer than 3 years.

I did my MS from a public university in US. In my university, since PhDs were government funded, they wanted us to leave early.
So if you did MS from my university, then if you desire to go for PhD further, they’d let you be done in 3 years.

Would be curious to see a list of universities by average time of completing a CS PhD.


text:
Is a request to book a business flight ticket for a graduate student an unreasonable one?
As a Ph.D. student from a (pretty rich!) European research group, I'm about to attend a conference in New Zealand. The second leg of a potential flight takes 16 hours to reach the destination, and it seems to be the hell of discomfort to spend all that time on an economy seat (I once had a 10-hour-flight experience, and I was in trouble because of my relatively long legs despite time-to-time walks in the plane's aisle). The cost of a business seat is around 4 times the cost of an economy one, something around 3500 Euros. Thus, I'm just wondering how reasonable the request to have such a seat is.
PS. I do know that a first-hand approach is actually asking my supervisor what he thinks about it. But I'd rather not ask such a question if it would sound silly and unreasonable.
Any experiences and thoughts (particularly from those who had already been involved in any side of such a situation) are welcome!

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

Have you considered getting an exit row seat? These have ample leg room, and the upgrade is typically far cheaper than moving up to the next class of seat, and probably cheap enough that you could just pay for it yourself. I always opt for these on long flights.

Would you be willing to cover the cost difference to upgrade from your own pocket?

@DavidK: It literally depends on the difference! I would if that is reasonable in view my income and expenses.

Are there any "premium economy" options? That might be a better middle ground.

what do you mean by "in trouble"? Note that the comfort level in economy class can vary quite a bit for different types of planes, even among the big ones for international flights. I have had experiences that were great (comfort-wise) and ones that were horrible.

Definitely look closer at the premium eco options. As a tall PhD student I usually try to get those as the fares can be very cheap. About 50/50 I pay the difference myself.

In Canada it is illegal to get anything but economy fare (including trains) and charge this to any one of the national tri-Council grants (there are exceptions if there is no other availability but this is rarely the case.)
The best you can do is buy an upgradable economy fare and hope for the best, or pay for an exit-row seat.
Overall your request will be perceived not only unreasonable but also blatantly unreasonable, unless you have special conditions or a rich sponsor.
I can say more.  Some years ago a candidate for a position where I work insisted on getting a business-class ticket for the interview and he was just removed from the shortlist.
Edit: is this a direct flight?  This wiki list of long flights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_flights does not include European-Asian city pairs.

They're not on the list of longest flights because Europe and East Asia are relatively close to each other.  For example, from Frankfurt alone you can fly direct to Beijing, Chengdu, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong, Taipei, Changsha, Guangzhou, Qingdao, Shenyang, Singapore, Bangkok, Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, and seasonally to Ulaanbaatar

@NoahSnyder It subsequently turned out that the asker meant New Zealand, not East Asia.

+1 for pointing out that the funding source will have rules and restrictions on travel. If the funding source is internal discretionary funds, there may be a policy allowing upgraded travel for flights over a certain duration. The OP might want to search around their institution's intranet policy archive for this. It will at least indicate what leeway their supervisor has, or doesn't have.

You could also try deliberately choosing a flight at a busy time a day or two before you'd otherwise be leaving, in hopes the flight gets overloaded and you can volunteer to be bumped for an upgrade or a voucher.

This is the same situation at my university in the UK (fairly rich university).

I'm confused about why an answer that leads with what's legal/illegal in Canada has so many upvotes when the OP indicates they're traveling from somewhere in Europe to New Zealand.

@aroth the OP did ask for thoughts and experiences...

@aroth I think putting blatantly in italics is what won people over here

@smcs IMHO in Europe it's not "blatantly unreasonable". From my experience in Italy professors regularly take non-economic fares for trains or other means of travel, all paid by universities, moreover they do not sleep at youth hostels but take 4 or 5 star hotels. Obviously there is a limit to everything but 3.5k for a to-and-fro flight ticket to new zealand seems absolutely reasonable to me.

Shame that the country's leading scientist are treated with such disrespect compared to business professionals. No wonder there's a shortage of scientists in academia. A PhD traveling in business might be a stretch, but I'd expect professors to always book business class for a long-haul flight.

@Bakuriu Many senior researchers easily reach top tier of various airlines, hotels or other programs and as a result of buying upgradable fares get first/business class seats or room upgrades without actually paying for these enhanced ameneties.

@Bakuriu Professors, yeah, completely different story though. Paying four times as much as necessary is luxury, period.. I mean maybe I'm envious because I have to fight for months for a new 2000 Euro PC in the budget... :) (Also Europe)

@JonathanReez can you provide evidence to support your claim that there’s a shortage of scientists in academia? That sounds completely untrue to me. It also sounds untrue that leading scientists are treated with disrespect, but I suppose that’s a subjective thing and if you feel that not being offered reimbursement for business class airplane travel is a mark of disrespect, no one can argue with your subjective feeling about this. Personally I don’t feel disrespected however - business professionals can have their perks, and I have my own that are worth a lot more to me.

@aroth perhaps the upvotes are because Canada is respected by many as an extremely sensible country. If they have a policy about something, it’s probably the right one to have... ;-)

I worked in the scientific instruments business at VP level for 20yrs and went to many conferences where everyone from PhD students to Nobel Prizewinners were there. I can tell you without hesitation that almost NOBODY goes business class unless they are the invited Nobel keynote speaker. Please don't even ask your supervisor as you risk being branded negatively for the rest of your time there. Instead, plan the flight times to minimise cost and maximise the time you have up front of the conference to recover from the flight and get your bearings, including an extra night in the hotel as a previous contributor suggested. On the way home, don't extend your stay on the back end as there is no "compus mentus" justification and anyway if you have worked the conference fully you will want to get the hell away by then! Book a return flight for the time you would be most likely naturally asleep to maximise your chances of being unconscious. Good luck and keep a clear record of your expenses and the reason for them as someone could put you on the spot at any time. Bear in mind that research funding often comes from charities etc. so assuming you are 'rich' and acting like it is both immoral and consequently very unpopular.

"research funding often comes from charities etc." In Europe almost all engineering projects are funded by one or more industrial bodies! Anyway (+1)

@Roboticist Although your username is probably a give-away, your question says nothing about engineering, and engineering is not the only subject in which research is done. A lot of medical research, for example, is sponsored by charitable organizations.

@Roboticist: in regards to the charities comment, I worked at a research institution that received very large grants and received huge amounts of money working with pharma companies...and also received a lot of money to start pilot projects with money from charity, with the hope that the projects would be picked up by pharma companies. So receiving huge amounts of money from industry does not prevent one from receiving money from charity, although the different sources tend to have different requirements attached.

On the way home, don't extend your stay on the back end (...). At my university, doing this is actually very common (especially if you would get to go to new zealand!!). Of course, you pay any additional hotel nights and if it makes the flights more expensive, the price difference. I also don't see why you would "want to get the hell away". Of course, check with your university/funding policy whether this is allowed.

It's rather far fetched to say that in Europe almost all engineering research is funded by industry. Unless this group is doing contracted research only there is very, very likely a large portion of public funding (read tax payers money) in the game... with restrictions on how to spend the money. So the same reasoning applies as would for money from charity.

The term is "compos mentis", not "compus mentus", you might want to change that. (And I don't quite see how it applies here.)

@user53923 Although I know someone who attached a 4-week vacation to a 4-day work visit to New Zealand, not all funding sources allow for this or make it very limited.

@gerrit Of course you should ask for permission (and depending on the university it may be allowed/not allowed), but I think it is a reasonable question to ask, since it doesn't cost them anything extra (thankfully, my university indeed sees it that way, I know others don't).

Each Google search is 0.2g of CO2, so I used that for everyone here who does not, like myself, know what compos mentis means :) This is an adjective meaning able to think clearly and be in control of and responsible for your actions (source/ Cambridge Dictionary). Which does not help me to understand what it means in the context of this answer.

You can potentially break even or even save money by extending your stay if the later flight is significantly cheaper (for example due to staying over the weekend), covering the increased hotel/car expenses. Hence examples of other people extending their stays don't prove much without knowing all the details. Certainly it is sometimes prohibited. I do agree it is viewed nowhere near as negatively as splurging on business/first class.

Yes, the request would be unreasonable.* But let’s try to look at this from a different angle: think about how very fortunate you are to be doing your PhD at a “pretty rich” European research group, and to have an opportunity to travel to a beautiful place like New Zealand. The fact that under such happy circumstances you are focusing on the discomfort of travel, describing it with words like “hell”, seems like a missed opportunity to me. Why not use the occasion instead to remind yourself of how lucky you are, and how good your professional life is compared to that of pretty much... everyone else?
I’ve been on many long flights and have been doing academia-related travel for many years now, in all but a few occasions on economy class. I still find travel a magical experience, and whenever I board a plane to go somewhere far away I always find myself thinking about how lucky I am to have these sorts of opportunities. It can be a bit uncomfortable of course, but honestly I think that is a completely negligible part of the experience. So maybe you can find a way to adjust your point of view and look at your situation with a similarly positive mindset? Just a thought. Hope you enjoy New Zealand in any case!

*Since you mention that you have long legs, you may be medically justified in asking your research group to pay a modest fee to upgrade your ticket to economy plus, so that you can get to sit in an exit row or other location with more legroom. At least that would be a reasonable thing to ask your supervisor about. But business class? No, it’s not a good idea to bring it up...

I appreciate your euphemism (+1) :), yet this question is raised because I do remember the muscle spasm corresponding to my former 10-hour flight after which I had to get to a series of physiotherapy sessions for a week. I just wanted to figure out a way to minimize what I would face with after the flight.

@Roboticist if there's a medical issue you may want to edit that into the question, it does put a slightly different spin on things (not that it changes the answer, but at least it makes the premise of the question seem slightly less weird).

@Roboticist: Is it a medical issue in the sense that if you went on this trip, you could see yourself having a high chance of getting medically harmed and then suing the school, with no way to avoid it (by walking or whatever on the plain)? If so, and you can justify/prove it, I imagine maybe the school would like to avoid that possibility in which case maybe it's worth asking. But I imagine if you have to ask about it here then this doesn't apply to you...

You say that you were "in trouble". Do you mean that you experienced, or feared, some diagnosable medical condition?
If so, you might consider visiting a doctor. If you get a doctor's note saying "Roboticist is at elevated risk for XYZ, and I recommend that s/he fly premium economy or business if at all possible", then you might be allowed to book premium economy seats.

This is formally correct, but I think the likelihood of this approach leading to the outcome "business class" is negligible: from a medical point of view, the "window" between should not fly at all for medical reasons and can be mitigated by less expensive measures than business class (exit row seat was mentioned, getting up to do some excercise, possibly anti-thrombosis stockings)  plus the university as employer cannot risk roboticist's health anyways and they could send 2 other people to the conference instead for the same money. I do think it is a good idea to talk to a doctor, though: +1

@cbeleites For several years before I got my knees replaced I had a problem with arthritis limiting my range of motion after even about 20 minutes in one position. If I had flown ten hours in economy I would have been in pain and needed a wheelchair to leave the aircraft, but my life and long term health would have been in no danger. Fortunately, I was retired and paying for my own tickets, so I could go business or first, never economy, on long haul flights.

@PatriciaShanahan: good catch - I was thinking more along the lines of things like thrombosis. Still, I think the employer argument would just be the same for causing short term disability. Such a condition may mean that you should not be in the exit row, but the corresponding inner row may have more legspace as well.

A colleague of mine successfully uses this strategy to book premium economy. The university is legally restricted from questioning the doctor's recommendation (USA).

@cbeleites I'm not a doctor but from what I've been told, it is currently believed that thrombosis risk has nothing to do with your comfort level or seat class.

In my (also European) country, business class travel for PhD students is just as unheard of as for the other countries that we have answers for. More precisely: reimbursement for that is unheard of.
And even in the rare cases here where the PhD student has their own budget for travel, the usual outcome is that they keep the costs as low as possible in order to use the saved money to attend one more conference. So you need to be aware that that "normal" is what you'd likely be judged against.

That being said, I do see a number of measures you could take to alleviate the problems you describe with a previous long distance flight.

Aisle and exit row seats have been mentioned already. But even if you are in a middle seat it is fine if you get out to walk around for half an hour every 1 1/2 hrs or so.
Talk to a doctor has been mentioned in another answer. I'd recommend that as well, but less with the aim of getting an attestation for going business class but rather to find out what medical risks you run and possibilities to mitigate them exist - or even whether your personal risk when flying is high so you should avoid flying.
You could also book shorter flights with more stopovers. Where I am, it is possible to combine some holidays (usually up to 3 or 5 working days) with a business trip and still get full reimbursement. Thus, you could even combine short flights with an additional day to see some places on the way and get your legs back to normal shape. You'd have to pay for the accomodation during your holiday yourself, of course.
However, multiple shorter flights may be available at a lower total price: in that case no question whatsover would arise about reimbursement of the flight.
(I did have  a bit of a discussion once with administration when I wanted to leave on a Fri direction America to have a full day to get rid of jet lag with my presentation being on the first full day of the conference on Monday. Prof said this is totally reasonable and that was that. I'd doubly argue this when going east as like many people I find jet lag much worse when going east vs. going west and insist that such an acclimatization and preparation day is work and not holidays.)
I've been lucky in choosing flights with less popular flight time/weekday and/or route. Again, you can often recognize them by still having cheaper tickets available comparably late. I've had long distance flights where I could lie down across a complete 4-seat row.
In any case, it doesn't hurt to ask when boarding whether you can be reseated to some place with more space if one should be free.
Of course, you may also make sure you do the online check in as early as possible to secure a suitable seat and/or go for the additional fee for the exit row yourself if administration won't reimburse it.

However, multiple shorter flights may be available at a lower total price: in that case no question whatsover would arise about reimbursement of the flight. — you might be surprised by what questions bureaucrats may come up with.

@gerrit: I am, regularly :-D

During my post-doc I sometimes travelled from my university in Europe to the USA in business class. But I only did this if the fare difference was small ( < 20% on top of premium economy ticket price, which I was allowed due to my height) and if I had a meeting or work-related activity within 6 hours of landing.
I would never, ever, dream of asking for a business class ticket simply because I have a long flight. It's important to remember that your flight ticket is being paid for with someone else's money. Be that the taxpayer (on many grants / projects) or a private foundation (such as the Wellcome trust in the UK). I think we have a duty to spend that money wisely, and it's hard to morally justify that a business class ticket which is four times more than the economy ticket is worthwhile.
(edit) It's also worth looking up if your department / university has a policy for this. Mine, a prestigious university with [IMO] more money than sense, says: No business class tickets unless you pay the fare difference yourself. This seems to be pretty common.

In many cases it's possible to find someone who could go to the conference instead of you, especially if you raise the point well in advance. You could even arrange for someone else to present your paper, if that's the purpose of the trip. I bet there are people in your group who wouldn't mind a 16-hour flight on an economy ticket if they get the opportunity to attend the conference.

Congrats on being in a rich research group, it can only help! :)
A workaround could be to ask your supervisor how much budget there is for your travel/accommodation expenses for the whole PhD.
Depending on their answer and your evaluation of potential future travels, you can see yourself if the request is reasonable or not.
In the same kind of idea, you could try to find out whether it's common for professors in your research group to travel on business class: if nobody does or only the most senior researchers, chances are that it's not a reasonable request.
PS: if you manage to convince your supervisor don't tell your fellow PhD students at the conference or they're going to hate you ;)

A workaround could be to ask your supervisor how much budget there is for your travel/accommodation expenses for the whole PhD, this only works if business-class travel is permissible. Given that industry seems very selective about such travel these days, I doubt most universities will permit.

You can always ask your supervisor, but it's probably not their decision. In practice, supervisors usually have constraints on how they can use "their" funding - their department usually manages the funding on behalf of the funding body, and the supervisor can only do things that the funder and the department will allow. It's very unusual for funders to be willing to fund business-class flights in my experience, and often the university or department itself may also have a policy that prohibits it.
Whether or not your supervisor will perceive a request for a business-class flight from you as being unreasonable depends on the way in which you make the request and their personality, but regardless of their opinion of your request, I would have thought that the request itself is unlikely to be successful. Your best bet is probably to go with whatever flight they offer, and personally pay for cheap upgrades like more leg room, an exit row seat, etc.

I personally think the request would be unreasonable.  Look at it this way -- your desired airfare can fly four students to the conference.
I think the real options for you are to a) back out of the conference, if you find the idea of coach travel to NZ to be something you really can't do (and explain it to your group that way -- I think people would understand it quite well.  Apologize, saying you thought you would be able to tolerate the trip when you agreed to go, but now you realize it's just something you won't be able to do); b) offer to foot the increase on your own dime, if a mechanism can be found to help you do that; c) grin and bear it.

Some personal anecdote, since the OP asks for experience and thoughts.
I once travelled from Europe to Australia with a stopover in Qatar. So the Qatar-Australia leg was pretty long. As it happens, the major Arabian Carriers (Qatar Airways, Emirates, Etihad) fly the Airbus A-380, which is a twin-aisle, double decker plane.
As the A-380 has two decks, it features two staircases connecting the lower with the upper deck. During my very-long flights, I occasionally walked back to the aft staircase. Since the stairs are closed during the flight, there was nothing really going on there, except passengers accessing the toilets. This left plenty of space to hang out.
So, I could stretch my legs and do some gymnastics.

I honestly have no idea if other wide-body (single-deck) jets would allow you to do the same, but judging from the layout of the A-330, which notes "Gallery/Storage" in the region connecting the two aisles at the very back of the plane, I suspect a passenger doing gymnastics there, would impede the flight attendants.

So, in summary: try to get a flight on an A-380 for the longer leg of your flight.
Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

Depends on the airline but most don't like passengers hanging around in the galley areas and vestibules.

It is entirely possible to do walking circuits inside most wide-body aircrafts.  You might have to contend with crew in the galley area and navigate around traffic in the washroom areas, but small to medium-length circuits that avoid the business-class/first-class area are pretty much possible on most types and with most configurations I know.

@David: that's why I specifically point out the A-380, since they don't seem to have much going on in the very back.


text:
Is it a good idea to do MS two times in separate disciplines than a PhD for an industry job?
I am getting admitted to a school(college as it is called in many parts of the world) that provides 5 years integrated BS-MS dual degree in the natural sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Maths, Bio). You can major in anyone and minor in some other discipline in this school.
However, I am very interested in taking up CS (which is neither offered as a major neither a minor here) and going for an industry job for eg. as a data analyst or machine learning scientist in some IT firm.
Note: I am not interested in a Ph.D. or making a career in academia.
So, is it advisable to go for another MS in CS from some separate school after doing the integrated degree from here? Do universities in US/UK accept students for an MS if he already has an MS in a separate discipline? Will it help me in an industry job?
I also have a second option. Dropping my first year and getting admitted to a separate school which offers a CS degree next year. Is year loss advisable? (Advisable in the sense will it have any detrimental effect in my future career?)

Don't make some elaborate plan of doing this entry degree and then another one.  You could even consider to drop out of this school and go to another that has CS. Or just go to work, in whatever IT position you can find.
If you feel like you must stay in the school you are at, my advice is to do whatever subjects appeal to you and just try to pick up some computer skills as available from whatever courses, projects you can.  Or even just on the side for fun or for small pay.
P.s.  Pick up as much statistics as you can.  That stuff never goes out of style and is incredibly relevant to computer algorithm optimization (as well as all kinds of other practical things)
P.s.s.  You are young and should somewhat be open to different careers.  Machine learning is a bit of a fad.


text:
Admitted to plagiarizing (second misconduct), and afraid of expulsion. In need of advice
Important note: This was not the first time I was reported for academic misconduct. The first time was when I cheated on an exam for another class. I disclosed how I cheated and accepted the punishment. This time, I told my professor that I didn't intend to plagiarizing but ended up doing it in the end.
During my meeting with my English professor, I told her that I wasn't feeling well at the moment and when I was completing my final assignment.
(Background) Over the weekend, everyone was able to start on our final assignment - travel piece - that was due Wednesday. On Sunday, I had time to travel. Monday, I hit my head, thought it was nothing, but decided to lie down soon after it happened to forget the pain. Slept all the way up to Tuesday afternoon, went to the very last English class and worked on the final assignment in-between naps to get my mind off of the headache. Vomitted a little in the bathroom, had a hard time concentrating and thinking, maybe I over-ate before I left home. While I was working on my essay, I and other classmates were reviewing each other's works and researching on the travel destination we wrote about. In my notes, I mixed up the info I got from articles with my notes. Didn't properly cite all of the info yet, but wrote down general comments on some of the paragraphs saying which websites they came from. After much editing later, my words and words from the articles were mixed up. Yes, I f'ked up terribly. Went home, slept. Wednesday, I went to the medical center after I felt a head bump while sitting in the passenger seat. The doctor said that I had a minor hematoma, and needed to rest for at least two weeks. E-mailed the professor about that.
(Fast-forward) I admitted to plagiarism, and described what happened and why. The professor didn't take notes of my account when she was going to file a report. On top of that, she just emailed me about something that I already told her right after filing the report. Either she wasn't listening or my story seems really bogus. Right now, I'm scared of what my professor wrote on her report because she might not have mentioned anything about my health, and make it seem like I had plagiarism in mind. I might get expelled over this. I have a printed receipt of my doctor's visit. I don't know if submitting that to the academic misconduct council will help prevent expulsion from happening.

We do not know what the council will do. Certainly submitting any mitigating evidence -- such as doctor's notes or a coherent narrative -- might be helpful. You may want to speak with a lawyer or other advocate before you proceed ("anything you say can and will be used against you").

Hi @cag51, thank you for the reply back. I don't know if there's an "advocate" I can talk to about this.

Depends on your school's procedures...you also didn't say where in the world you are....in the US, you would typically be summoned to a formal hearing which would decide whether to suspend or expel you....your summons would contain information about what to expect and whether lawyers or other advocates are required or allowed.

Generally it's a good idea to bring up extenuating factors like your health when your case has gone up to a higher level.  A higher level administrator who wasn't directly involved in catching you at cheating might be more willing to give positive consideration to those mitigating factors.  In any case, you need to quickly learn about the process that will be used to determine your guilt and your punishment.

@cag51 I'm enrolled in an American college. I won't be subject to a hearing; I have the option to request a hearing in response to what the academic misconduct council has decided based on the professor's report.

@BrianBorchers, you're right. I talked to the director of the academic misconduct council today, and she said that I most likely won't get expelled over this. She also thought it was unusual for the professor to not take notes during the meeting because during my first misconduct incident, my professor at the time took notes on everything I said and added the notes to the report.

When requesting a doctor's note, ask whether the injury could have affected your judgement during the critical period. If so, that should be stated in the note.

You might want to see a different doctor to get a second opinion. Head bump, nausea and vomiting, and confusion -- sounds like a concussion.

@PatriciaShanahan I don't think I can request a doctor's note right now. I should have asked for one, but I didn't even think of that at the time. I already visited a medical center and got a receipt noting the date of the visit and recommended medications for the headache.

@shoover I don't think I can see a different doctor now that the bump is pretty much gone now. I don't know when the bump disappeared since I don't like touching it, but I've been sleeping all throughout the day ever since I hit my head last week. Yesterday, I didn't feel as dizzy as I did when I met up with the professor on Monday.

Consider asking to meet with your Professor (e.g. during reception hours). At that meeting, or by email if you can't schedule a meeting, ask her for a copy of the report she submitted. Alternatively, ask the disciplinary body if a procedure has been opened involving you, and if it has, ask for a copy of the complaint through there. If your Professor asks what you need it for (which she shouldn't, it's obvious) - tell her that you're anxious and it's important for you to know how your story was reflected to the higher authorities, given that it involves all sorts of circumstances and details.
This may not solve any of your problems but at least you'll know what you're up against better.

Thank you for the comment. I already met with my professor on Monday. The last thing she said during our meeting was "Just wait and see what happens". I also replied to an e-mail she sent me yesterday (Wednesday). She said "I read your essay, and it's plagiarized", to which I replied with "I already told you that I accidentally plagiarized the essay I submitted when we met on Monday. I spoke to the director of the ACC about how I don't know what you said in your report." The professor hasn't replied back. Actually, she didn't really reply to emails when classes were still going on.

I will definitely ask the council what was said on the report. I will even try to ask the professor what she mentioned on her report, but I highly doubt that she'll reply back. It didn't seem like she cared during our meeting, but I could be wrong.

@ttru: Don't ask her for this by email. Try to ask for that face-to-face. She's more likely to oblige you that way, plus, coming to her office hours shows remorse. And you should probably exhibit that remorse when coming on.

@epinpoklum Ahhh. Summer classes have already finished for me, and she never had office hours when classes were going on. I'd have to wait until the fall semester starts in order to find out when her office hours are. Someone in the comments suggested that I ask the academic council what was in the professor's report. So, I'll ask the council first during the hearing and then ask the professor. Thank you for trying to help me.


text:
Workshop submission by a first year student, does it count?
I have asked earlier this question in that post Submitting Workshop Proposal by A first Year PhD student
I asked my supervisor and he is okay, but I was astonished that he told me that I have to take permission from the head of the department, in general, he didn't give me a bit of useful advice.
To have a paper it requires time since I am working with collaborative groups, I cannot publish yet and I want to be engaged more in scientific activities.
My question now: Does it count to a first-year Ph.D. student to submit a workshop proposal ( I am going to have other professors, however, I will be in charge of all the logistics)
I don't know whether it could be wise to invest time in submitting a workshop proposal.

Does it count for what?  — I was astonished that he told me that I have to take permission from the head of the department — I am also astonished by this.

Does it count as having a paper ( having a paper would take time, but I have a draft).  Yes, indeed I dont know what to say, but my advisor doesnot have a discretion to do something and that would also freak me out.

I seeked help from psychologist and phd counseller, but none of them were helpful! I   am very confused and I dont know whether I am the problem, I dont know, I cannot see myself having a potential to continue in academia although I had an academic job in homecountry and have to return with a degree.

to be a lecturer, but I never liked my home university and I dont want to be a professor, I love research, and maybe do something new, but the current situation shows that I am nothing literally compared to my colleagues.

@JeffE, possibly the use of departmental facilities and resources by a conference needs at least nominal approval from the department head. Could be entirely routine. To reserve rooms, get some coffee, etc.

Does it count as having a paper

That depends on the workshop.  Your submission counts as a (peer-reviewed, published) paper if and only if

The submission is an actual manuscript, and not just a short (few-paragraph) abstract, AND
Your submission is accepted by the committee after significant review by your peers (the workshop committee)
After some revision, the manuscript will be made available to the public in some persistent form, either paper or electronic, that can be found many years in the future by someone who did not attend the workshop.

Many workshops fail all three of these conditions—submissions consist of only few-paragraph abstracts, which are lightly reviewed by the committee (to eliminate obvious garbage), and which are printed verbatim onto paper handouts that are distributed at the conference, but never made public elsewhere.
This may be a language issue, but a "workshop proposal" doesn't sound like a paper describing your own research, but rather a proposal for a workshop that you want to organize, either for other people to present their research, or to collaborate on new research, or both.  Organizing a workshop could be valuable experience and a positive point on your CV, but it does not count as a "paper".

Thanks for this answer! I will try to ask our project collaborators and see what they think! I am also trying to finish a good results and then a paper would come.

It sounds like you asked your advisor for permission which was granted.
You should also (or instead) ask for advice. Not "can I do this?" but "do you think this will help me, or should I be focusing on _____ instead?"
Your advisor is the person best positioned to determine whether this is a useful move for you. My outside opinion is that it is not and that at your stage of career you should be focused on building your own research: you want to be known for your research, not for your workshop organization skills. However, I am not your advisor and am not close enough to you to give this advice.

Literally, I have asked him whether this could be useful for me as a PhD student.

BTW, before that I was working on this topic for more than two years, I have good network with researchers in the field! I have also give a talk and one of well-established professor expressed his interest to join in workshop submission.

@Monika When you asked whether it would be useful, what did he say? Take his advice.

He said it might be good for me and the project as well! and he told me that I have to engaged bigger names and inform them I will be in charge of logistics. My concern is wasting time on something will not add to me.

@Monika Say that to him. "I know you said this might be good, but I'm worried my time on this will not really benefit me and should be spent on other things instead; what do you think?" Then take his advice.

I forgot to say, I have already had an honest talk with him, he said go for it and organize, but as I told before he isnot in charge of this research line.

@Monika I'll say it a fourth time: take his advice. That's what an advisor is for. If these answers are so specific to your research line that it doesn't relate to his at all then either you need to go to a different lab where you can be advised properly or you need to change your research focus. StackExchange will not substitute for having an advisor.

This is answer I am looking for !\Exactly! I think I am in the wrong direction!


text:
How relevant a PhD that takes >8 years would be, specially in STEM fields?
I am thinking of starting a PhD in CS while holding a full time job. If someone has a full-time job and starts a part-time PhD, it's reasonable to expect the PhD to take more than 8 years to be completed. I am wondering how relevant such a PhD would be, considering how fast some areas of CS are advancing.
For example my area of interest (and where I have practical experience) is computer vision and statistical learning. If I had started a PhD thesis, let's say in 2010, then by 2019 my thesis topic would most likely be redundant, considering all the advancement in computer vision and machine learning in the past decade.
I guess I am trying to get more insight from the more experienced people.

You don't wait with publishing till you finished your PhD, especially in such a fast moving field. So by the end of your education you will have made a contribution, even if at the time your PhD is finished your contribution is already less relevant. This is fine. A PhD is supposed to show that you can do independent research; think of it as vocational training for researchers. So if you show that you made contributions that at the time were good, then you have shown what you needed to show. Nobody expects of PhD students to be able to see the future.

I am sorry, I don't understand the publishing part. If I have a publishable result then why not publish it as my PhD thesis rather than publishing it as a research paper.

A single result is probably not enough for a thesis.

@zindarod, there's a difference between a thesis and peer-reviewed papers. The thesis is a requirement for obtaining the degree, while papers (broadly) are used to disseminate results to the interested research community. You would likely publish parts of your research in papers during your PhD, while the thesis would describe all of the research you've done.

@Emma Ah, thanks for explaining that. I didn't know that part of the research would be published as papers.

In my experience (at a highly ranked department in the US), a CS PhD thesis is roughly equivalent to 3–5 papers, most of which are published well before the thesis defense.

In the US, if a doctorate takes 8 years, note that it won't be 8 years from selecting a problem to the end of the dissertation. In other words, a doctorate in the US is normally not completely filled by research directly applicable to the dissertation. It may not be research at all until near the end. It is likely to be only a couple of years if you do it only part time and maybe a year or so full time. But insight into your problem can't be scheduled. There is uncertainty in any research, full or part time. But, of course, you will know more when it comes time so finalize the research question.
Also, your advisor would be unlikely to wait around for an 8 year research project to mature.
The program in the US normally includes coursework related to the general area of the (future) research, seminars in which you get close to the research boundary and explore open and possible problems. There is also preparation for comprehensive exams.
On the other hand, working slowly in a "hot" field with a lot of research activity elsewhere means an increased likelihood that your research will get "scooped" before you finish. That can be a major setback, though sometimes the effect can be lessened.
But, doing what you propose will be a lot like having two full time jobs. It is a recipe for burnout if you don't have ways to manage it well.

Yes, I am beginning to get the picture. Even if I had enough hours in the day to fulfill the requirements, I don't think I'd have the energy to maintain a full time job and a PhD. I'd probably burn out in a couple of years.


text:
In APA, do we italicize the names of wars and treaties?
For example, is it:

the Korean War or the Korean War?
the Treaty of Versailles or the Treaty of Versailles?

The APA guidance doesn't say exactly.  Gives a list of what to italicize and examples of what not to.  I would definitely opt for not doing it though.  The implication of the directions are much more to only italicize what you need to, not italicize everything not forbidden.
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/apa/other/italics
Note also, that I'm really unaware of ANY style (just checked Harcourt Brace and Merriam Webster, as well as personal experience) that recommends italics for wars or treaties (or legislation).  I have only seen treaties in italics when the entire treaty (not just a word within it) is cited in a foreign language (often French, Latin or German), but then you are treating it as foreign text, not because it's a treaty.  Oh...and don't italicize a single foreign word within a war or treaty.  Keep entire thing normal text (but capitalized first letters, like a book).  I have never seen wars italicized--perhaps you are wondering because ships are?
Note though that court cases are often italicized.


text:
MOOC's for failed modules in PhD applicaiton
I'm applying for PhD's (from the UK) with a low 2:2 BSc and a Distinction MSc, and performed very poorly in a few certain modules of my undergrad degree (including failing two 3rd year modules) which pulled my grade down. In my MSc research project and the MSc modules most relevant to my PhD field of study, however, I obtained high firsts (80%+).
I'm taking online courses on the failed undergrad topics on edx and coursera to strengthen my previous weak points and fill the gaps in my knowledge. Is it worth highlighting this in my application, and if so, is it worth paying for the verified certificates? I'm aware of the general opinion that mentioning MOOC's in a SOP isn't detrimental but does little to strengthen an application - in my case, would it at all counteract the bad module marks?

Probably not, since your application goes through some semi automated preprocessing which just takes your grade average. However doing well on the MSc is a much better indicator than MOOC success to a potential university grad program

Ah okay, makes sense - thanks for the answer

By and large, in the UK, MOOCs completion does not help your chances of admission; they are almost entirely ignored during the admission process. The only things that are considered are your results in your accredited degree programs. Paying for a certificate will not validate your MOOC participation in any way that Universities recognise; you should only pay for a certificate if you want a certificate for yourself, they do nothing else (take it from me, I lead a MOOC).
The good news is that an excellent MSc result can do a lot to make up for a poor Undergraduate result. How you did as a postgrad is much more indicative of the kind of PhD student you would be than your undergraduate record. Consider writing a cover letter that takes your record head on, explains how you've matured as a researcher since then, that you are ready for real research, and your MSc is proof.