text:
How can I address a student systematically boosting their grades by filing frivolous complaints?
I was recently accused of unfair grading by a student.  The accusation is meritless, and it didn't take long to prove that I didn't do anything wrong.  No damage, but a lot of time wasted.
Later, I learned through the grapevine that I was among a long list of victims.  Indeed, in just one year, the very same student filed formal complaints against at least nine professors.  The nature of the complaints vary from case to case, but they follow the exact same script:

In every case, the student will take some small thing, e.g. a missed quiz or a late homework, and make a big argument with the instructor out of it.  The student will then escalate the issue to higher level and get the dean of college or even the president of the university involved. Of course the dean or the president have better things to do, so the student is usually ignored and the whole thing blows over quickly … or so we thought.  This part turns out to be only the lead jab in a one-two combination.  It's more of a setup.
The real strike comes at the end of the semester. When the grade is not good (which is 100% of the cases), a formal complaint will be filed stating that the student was punished for the earlier argument.  This is a very serious accusation and lead to complicated investigations in several cases.  It caused so much additional work that several professors just gave in and changed the grade to something the student liked.

This trick had a surprisingly high success rate, especially considering several victims are tenured professors.  The student is emboldened, and I have no doubt that the cycle will repeat.  If not stopped, I wouldn't be surprised if this student can earn a degree just by reusing this trick again and again.
My question is: Should we professors (as a group) react to such a behaviour and if yes, how? What could be the consequence, if any?
So far I have read the students' code of conduct carefully.  There appear to be nothing that can be directly applied here.  The closest appears to be the rule about dishonesty, but it wouldn't work by itself.
Updates:

After sharing parts of this story, I received several similar stories from friends and colleagues in other universities.  So the situation I described here is perhaps not as unique as it first appears.  It turns out, in my previous university, the department chair handled two similar cases while I was there.  But because such cases are supposed to be confidential, I was not aware of them.  I suspect this happens more often than we think.
The student does not have to prove his/her claim for this trick to work.    He/she simply has to file a complaint and a grade change appeal at the same time.  Students' have the right to do those.  That will trigger a lot of work for the instructors, the department chair, and the dean's office.  In my case, it took me 20~30 hours to respond to the complaints, provide assignment for review, and do other works.  Not everyone has this kind of time on the last day of the final week.  Given the options of doing these extra work vs. changing a letter and let it go, not everyone will make the right choice.

More update:

This student scored one more win:
The grade appeal committee's new ruling is that I should/have to change my grade (one letter grade higher) even though it was determined that I did not do anything wrong.
I now realized the student's trick work on multiple levels: It just keep on throw in serious accusations. At some point, someone, will feel it would less trouble to just give him/her what he/she was asking for. The instructor does not have give in. It could the departmental committee, or the chair, or the associate dean, or the college committee,... The only way this trick fails is that every single person along this long chain stand their ground.

Does the university have a legal department? That's the people being paid to check the options in such cases.

Please edit the post to specify what country this is happening in, whether students must defend a thesis to graduate, and whether the student can expect any ramifications of not getting any faculty references -- several answers made different assumptions.

Why not have the president or dean have resolve this, they know the Frequency of complaints.

What procedures are in place for dealing with students who abuse the process? I think that a formal complaint from every affected instructor would not be something the administration would choose to ignore.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. Comments should primarily seek clarification from the asker; please read this FAQ before posting another comment. @ssquidd - Please consider editing your post with the requested information.

When the grade is not good (which is 100% of the cases), a formal complaint will be filed stating that the student was punished for the earlier argument. Who is investigating this? Your institution I guess? If you already know that the accusations are wrong in 100% of the cases, what exactly makes this investigation such a lengthy process each time? It should be fast-tracked and thrown out from the sound of it.

When it comes to "he-said, she-said" situations, as seems to be the case here, most institutions will tend to take the side of professors by default. For obvious reasons—the 18–22 year old college student is much more likely to lie to obtain a favourable mark, than the professor is to act maliciously to sabotage a student. The only scenario where the professor might be in trouble is if there are accusations from multiple students.
The most significant red flag here is that the student is making essentially the same accusation against nine different professors. It is preposterous that nine professors would collectively decide to sabotage a single student.

So far I have read the students' code of conduct carefully. There appear to be nothing that can be directly applied here. The closest appears to be the rule about dishonesty, but it wouldn't work by itself.

Making dishonest accusations to obtain more favourable grades is an unequivocal form of academic dishonesty. Any respectable institution would discipline a student engaging in such behaviour. If this behaviour cannot be disciplined at your university, I would suggest seeking employment elsewhere.
You should lodge a formal complaint, possibly in collaboration with the other professors who are being accused. You have a rock-solid case.

There are at least 9 different professors accused through formal complaint channels.  Who know how many more just gave in before formal complaints were filed.  I do not think any of the professor were actually found out to have engaged in unfair grading.  But it doesn't have to.  This trick works as long as it causes enough headache for the instructors.

How should one lodge a formal complaint, and to whom?  I don't know if this student has to answer to any one.

Also, the complaint through dishonesty may not work because the student does not lie.  The student simply complaints that he/she thinks he/she has been punished for earlier arguments.  There is no way to prove that he/she does not think so.

@ssquidd And there is no way for the student to prove it, either.

@ssquidd thinking something is one thing, actually accusing someone is an entirely different matter. If I loose my purse and think the neighbours have it, that is all fine and well, but if I accuse them - each after another - I will likely get some angry pushback and potentially a libel suit and I might have to pay administration fees for any court proceedings my actions triggered. The student needs to learn that making such accusations is serious business and can backfire if there is no proof. And your university needs to make sure it has policies in place that allow such backfiring.

@ssquidd and in particular if there is clear indication that the student does not take it seriously and has a "broken" evaluation of what is "proof".

@FrankHopkins, Yes, my university really needs some policies that allows such backfiring.  But that's where I'm stuck.  I have looked students' handbook and faculty handbook.  I have talked to legal department and HR department.  So far I found no such mechanism.  I also looked at policies from other universities in the same region.  I couldn't find anything.  Maybe it's not just my university that has this problem.

@FrankHopkins, Actually, it's worse than that.  My interpretation of the university policy is that even if the students have made 10 meritless complaints, on the 11th time, we still have treat his/her complaint seriously.  According to our legal department, this is a fairly fundamental principle that is unlikely to change.

@ssquidd sure thing, I totally agree that every complaint needs to be treated fairly and fully, so that part I think is fine, it just needs the backfiring portion of being ruled out and against the student if it gives the impression of wilfullly misusing this essential mechanism.

In practice, before the 11th complaint the student has either gotten academic probation (the most common result -- the real troublesome students then to be getting low F's), or were also caught cheating (possibly during the complaint review), or changed to a major they liked, or graduated. Sometimes an advisor can even turn them around. Dept heads "budget" for that student. "Wait it out" is workable. School is only so long.

-1 Why is the StackExchange default answer to workplace issues "just find a new job"? As if there's a surplus of jobs in academia or there's a rush to start hiring new people? It's literally illegal to relocate in some places right now (due to COVID-19 related shelter-in-place orders). Maybe OP has a family they don't want to uproot, a mortgage to pay, etc.

+1 for Making dishonest accusations to obtain more favourable grades is an unequivocal form of academic dishonesty. HOWEVER in practice it is difficult to levy a penalty for that particular form of dishonesty unless it is explicitly listed in the academic integrity policies.

@FrankHopkins "[...]every complaint needs to be treated fairly and fully, [...]"  really? I don't think so. This is not much different than what courts term "vexatious litigation" wherein a plaintiff uses the judicial process as a weapon of harassment. In many places, once the pattern becomes clear, that person is declared a vexatious litigant. their ability to pursue any new cause of action is sharply curtailed, requiring pre-approval from a senior judge.In OP's situation, I have to wonder why the university can't simply say "sorry, we don't believe you and we're done dealing with you."

@AlexReinking because that's the ultimate logic of the job market where as an employee you have little actual leverage other than to vote with your feet (though I would agree for that to be effective you need to make some noise doing so that makes sure the next one doesn't fall into the same trap). That being said, often there are indeed other steps one should or could try first and that's often overlooked when jumping to the ultimate last step.

@AlexReinking There's certainly a lot more in this answer than "just quit"

@Z4-tier and lawyers who keep representing clients that do this can get into trouble. The lawyers themselves need to tell their client to beat it and not simply do what their client tells them to.

As for addressing what already happened, this obviously depends a lot on what rules you have, but it may still be worth looking whether you have some of those very broad rules demanding mutual respect, not being a nuisance, not damaging the university, etc.
These need not be in the students’ code of conduct, but might as well be in the enrolment contract or whatever you have.
When in doubt, your university’s legal department may help, at least because this is a case they will very likely have to handle sooner or later anyway and to avoid such cases in the future.
However, at the end of the day, this strongly depends on how academic education is organised in your country.
However, most of the damage done by the student was because your faculty and university made the mistakes listed below.
By addressing these, you should be able to avoid such issues in the future:

You cannot be “bullied” if the power is clearly balanced towards you, unless you forget that.
The student wants you to do something, not vice versa.
In the extreme case, they have to take legal action to get what they want, whereas you can simply deny their requests.
(And taking a legal action would be a pretty bad idea for the student in this case.)
As long as their complaints are obviously unfounded, you have nothing to fear – and this more than a lofty legal platitude here:
We often hear stories where faculty members abused the power imbalance and had nothing to fear even in the light of legitimate accusations.
(A possible exception to this is if your university is run by short-sighted business people who consider students as customer kings, but you should be able to convince even them that siding with such a student is a bad idea.)
You got into “big arguments”.
I may misunderstand the situation here, but this is waste of immediate time as well as a complication for the second round as they have some fuel for their accusations.
As you have the high ground (see previous point), there is no need to get into big arguments here.
The burden of proof is onto them: For example, they have to convince you that you should accept their late homework submission; you do not have to convince them that you need not accept it.
Deny their request, state a brief reason, and if they keep pestering you, tell them their only option is to escalate (which they will do anyway).
Some of you gave in.
This is a classical example of a short-sighted unethical action that many will defend as mercy.
Those who gave in avoided work for themselves and thus caused work for others.
Clearly establish the position among the faculty that those who gave in caused damage to their colleagues by encouraging the student’s behaviour and damage to the university/degree by watering it down.
Use this hindsight to establish some guideline against giving in to unreasonable demands to avoid this happening again.
The investigations are missing their goal.
You say that this students managed to cause “complicated investigations in several cases”.
I assume that these are internal investigations.
While the first one or two requests of any student deserve serious consideration, subsequent inquiries by the same student should be streamlined and put the burden of proof onto the student.
Moreover, such investigations should only be triggered by claims more specific than “he/she thinks he/she has been punished for earlier arguments”.
I assume that internal investigations exist to avoid messy legal or public affairs and to be able to act early against actually abusive faculty members.
However, here I see no reason to be afraid of any of these (see Point 1).
This may be the most difficult part to address and strongly depends on how your university is organised, but this case should give you good arguments to change things.
Also, if this is a common process, you might consider establishing some resource for the accused faculty such as an advisor for such proceedings.

Finally, it may be worth making the student and potential copycats aware of the following potential consequences of their behaviour (taking care not to deliver this as a threat):

Nobody in their right mind will voluntarily supervise this student’s thesis.
There will probably be some fallback mechanism to assign an involuntary supervisor, but this is clearly undesirable (for the student).
If they aspire an academic career, they will have a hard time securing letters of recommendation from your faculty.

Great answer! Re your second-to-last bullet point: surely the student will file a complaint that someone must supervise him, as he paid his university taxes and must be given an opportunity to write a thesis.

@FedericoPoloni: Indeed, but that’s clearly nothing to be aspired (from the student). Also see my edit.

The last two points would be good general deterrence.  However, they have no effect in this (and perhaps) similar cases.  The student in question plans to transfer and has no intention to find a thesis advisor.  There is also no evidence that an academic career is on the radar.

Even careers in the professional sector require good references.

@Izzy, but some students cannot see that far.

Those who gave in avoided work for themselves and thus caused work for others highlights a very relevant point that applies to many a workplace and is often played down in analyses. Because of both self- and collegial lenience, before and after the fact respectively. Lack of courage brings about a long tail of difficulties.

Independent re-evaluation and re-grading
In my institution a situation like that "The real strike comes at the end of the semester" complaint and dispute with some potential risk of unfair grading or not following due process because of some personal animosity would result in the student's submitted work being regraded and any oral exams/presentations/defenses reevaluated by an independent committee that does not include the original instructor, does not look at (or even see) the original grading, and make an independent from-scratch evaluation of how good that work/knowledge is and what is the appropriate grade.
That re-evaluation overrides the previous grade and is final. And it may be worse than the previous grade.
To illustrate this, there's an example where I was part of a bachelor thesis defense committee where one student's work was very weak and we decided to not award a passing grade, which meant that the student can't graduate this semester. Afterwards it turned out that unbeknownst to me this was a re-take after the student had been assigned the lowest-but-still-passing grade by a previous committee, but had lodged a protest somewhat similar to what's described in the original post, which resulted, among other things, in the work getting a separate re-evaluation, assigned to a committee with no member overlap from the previous committee, and I did not even know that this was a second evaluation of a disputed work, we processed it as any other bachelor thesis which were defended that day.
So this re-evaluation demonstrated that the previous committee was not in fact biased against him, and might in fact have artificially boosted the evaluation for similar reasons as the original post, perhaps to avoid the hassle of a potentially litigious student challenging everything. In this case the dispute backfired, but if there was a genuine unfair grade suppression, then the independent evaluation would have fixed that.
Because of this experience, I consider that such a procedure is reasonable, and would work well both in cases of honest "good-faith" protests about unfair grading and "bad-faith" protests fishing for unjustified grade boosts. It does take some extra effort to find uninvolved faculty to reevaluate the work, but it's manageable.

"we processed it as any other bachelor thesis which were defended that day". Isn't it abnormal that the advisor/supervisor for the thesis was not part of the comittee? Do you literally give students a topic and tell them come back in a few months we will have a random comittee grade your result?

To me it sounds abnormal that the advisor were in the thesis committee, as where I'm from it never happens (there's an obvious conflict of interest)

@FelixB. The advisor would be expected to review, evaluate, and suggest improvements to the thesis throughout its development before the submission, but after it's been submitted they don't get a vote in the final grading, which must be done by an impartial committee. The advisor and a reviewer both submit reviews of the thesis that also include an evaluation, which the committee will consider and take into account, but not necessarily accept - e.g. some b.sc. thesis are industry-developed with a qualified senior colleague acting as the advisor, their evaluations sometimes are not adequate.

While I'll start by saying that I do not support the student's behavior and find it a form of harassment, I'd like to make the case that this should be approached by trying to improve the system, not by punishing the particular student.

When the grade is not good (which is 100% of case), a formal complaint will be filed stating that the student was punished for the earlier argument. This is a very serious accusation and lead to complicated investigations in several cases. It caused so much additional work that several professors just gave in and changed the grade to something the student liked.

Now, I do not know what field we're talking about, but in my experience changing a grade that I gave to someone is a big decision - unless it is obvious that I just overlooked something for that particular student, I would need to change the marking scheme and review every assignment. Otherwise, if the students who submitted similar answers and didn't a raise get to know about this, they will (accurately) accuse me of grading unfairly. In my experience, graders are fairly adamant to change marks even when wrong, to avoid all this effort.
If the grades get changed easily, the student(s) receive two messages:

Filing a complaint is a safe strategy to get your grade raised;
The original grades were based on a whim to begin with.

Harassment of staff frankly is the least dangerous outcome here: depending on the broader political/social/legal circumstances in the institution, if an affected student would happen to belong to an underrepresented group, (2) may lead to claims of discrimination and much more serious action.
My only advice is to attempt to make the grading system more objective. I believe these two issues (complaints about grading and potential for discrimination) are major reasons why much of the university and secondary-level assessment has been moving towards more standardized tests. For a specific example, one university where I worked has instituted the rule that during any verbal examinations (which used to be very subjective), students must make notes while preparing their answers for the examiner; the notes are stored and will be used to assess any complaints about grading.
Specifically to avoid harassment, in my current position we emphasize that any complaints about grade will result in the entire assignment being reviewed - and therefore may even lead to a decrease in the overall grade as well. Combined with having an objective marking scheme, available to everyone, I think this works quite well to deter most of the time wasters, while still letting us review actual mistakes on our end.

In my experience, standardized tests are motivated by people who think using measurements to establish accountability is good, even if it's based on wrong measurements.  Objective grading is not necessarily correct grading.  It just makes the errors consistent.

E.g. in mathematics (written) standardized tests can not really tell whether a student understood the subject, since understanding the subject means understanding the proofs (and not just doing calculations based on the results). And asking for big proofs in written exams is difficult, since if you are stuck in some place you can not finish the question at all. In an oral exam you can give hints, change the topic, etc. The first years can not avoid written tests (number of students) so they often resort to calculations/small exercise proofs and even then grade distributions often look bimodal.

I think you found the flaw when describing

He/she simply has to file a complaint and a grade change appeal at the same time. Students' have the right to do those.

First of all, you are not describing how this extortion exactly works. Apparently, handling the complaint is tedious, but somehow changing the grade the complaint is not followed on? Is the student retracting the complain for those that conceded?
At this level I would consider that he is extorting the professors with that “give me an higher mark or else…” message he is conveying.
However, I see no point why the student should be able to file a complaint about a grade change and appeal it at the same time. Either the complaint is not admissible until the resolution of the appeal, or the appeal cannot be processed until the complaint is resolved.
Being the target of a "legal procedure" (even if a weak, internal one), while at the same time having to interact with the other party puts the professor in a really weak spot. Note that it is generally advised that the parties to a law case to refrain from communicating directly with the other party, only doing that through lawyers if needed.
It should be noted that the professors that relent could then expose themselves to of a complaint of unfairly giving an higher grade due to the open complaint. Perhaps unlikely, but more problematic to defend (unless the grade change is trivial to explain, in which case there shouldn't have been a complaint to begin with).
An interesting possibility would be to always process the complaints in full, even if the grade changed and the student was now pleased with the new grade. After all, a formal complaint is an important matter that should be investigated in depth. And the university won't want to give the impression that you unfairly boosted the grade of anyone.
Initially, this will ensure that the instructors, the department chair, and the dean's office will always have that lot of extra work for (by the way, couldn't its handling be made less demanding?). However, it also means that there is no longer an incentive to the professors to relent, since they will need to devote exactly the same resources to the investigation anyway. Which will lead to more fairly not boosting grades when not warranted. And ultimately to less complaints since the trick becomes useless.

While making the length of the proceedings independent of the outcome to reduce incentive to comply with silly requests is a good idea (and probably should be done), one should be aware that it can inevitably be circumvented by threatening a lazy faculty member with a proceeding. This is still a better situation since it opens up the possibility to accuse the student of blackmail and the professor of not following formal proceedings, but it’s something to keep in mind.

The other answers address ways to try to change student behavior or ways your university could change its processes.  That might work.  In this answer I will suggest ways to reduce time spent responding to complaints.  This might reduce the bullying power of student complaints.

Have a clear and specific grading policy in your syllabus.
For every assignment, provide a grading rubric.  Include this in your syllabus.
Respond to complaints with a short form letter, instead of detailed responses to every point.

To whom it may concern,
I have received the complaint of student NAME dated DATE.  I disagree with all aspects of the complaint except:

Put truthful quotes here

To demonstrate that the student's work was graded appropriately, I have attached the syllabus for the course, which includes the rubric for the disputed assignment(s).  Copies of the assignments with the rubric ratings are attached.  The rubric ratings agree with the grade assigned.  All students were provided with the rubric when they started the course.  Grading was consistent with the syllabus and university policy.
Sincerely,

As a side effect, giving students the rubric will help them learn.

Rule #1: remember that Mark Twain said it best: “Never argue with an idiot. You'll never convince the idiot that you're correct, and bystanders won't be able to tell who's who.”
Rule #2: Once you’ve made your point, refuse to enter into further debate.
Rule #3: Keep all correspondence and start and keep a log of the timelines: when you meet with the student etc.  In particular, keep duplicates of the student work so he or she cannot cherry-pick evidence.  I also keep unclaimed assignments to provide a basis for comparison for at least some work.
Rule #4: if in your estimation the student is escalating, advise your Dean and start cc’ing your Dean on all email correspondence.
The strategy is not to ignore the student, but to give him or her the tools to dig a hole: most of the times the student will self-sabotage a claim by appealing to false or otherwise incorrect statement attributed to you, so the less you say the better your odds of “winning”.
Thus, statements like “Dear Sir, I acknowledge your email but I see no valid reason to change my position” are polite and to the point, and are in accordance with rules #1 and #2.
Rule #3 is useful because Dean or Vice-Provost or whomever deals with such complaints is always looking for timelines.  In particular, it is easy to determine if and when a student really did ask (or not) to discuss the situation with you.
Rule #4 means the Dean will not be surprised when the situation escalates, and can genuinely gauge your efforts in defusing the situation.
In some cases the strategy takes its toll: the path of least resistance is to acquiesce but a well-organized factual and non-confrontation position will earn you brownie points with Admin and will also discourage others from such frivolous challenges.
In my own worse case no blame was assigned even if the Provost Office had to rule in favour of the student because of a clerical error on their part.

Compartmentalise
The bipartite strategy employed by the student is possible because there is insufficient compatmentalisation in the assessment process. Two easy remedies would be:

separate the assignment from the student, require all assignments to be submitted anonymously (that way, the OP has no idea which student's work he/she is grading);
separate the marking from the teaching, and have all assignments marked by someone other than the person teaching the course (or, failing that, have a 2nd marker who gives marks independently of the OP).

At my institution, each undergraduate has a "candidate number" and uses that instead of writing his/her name on the assignment. Moreover, every assignment is seen by at least two people. Admittedly, the usual procedure at my institution is not quite as robustly independent as what I propose -- normally, the 1st marker marks it, and the 2nd marker checks the 1st marker's mark (in my experience as a 1st marker, the 2nd marker almost always agrees with my marks and feedback without further comment, which suggests that either I am excellent at marking assignments or they are lazy). That way, it is much harder to make a credible allegation of victimisation, because the lecturer does not know whose work he/she is marking, and is subject to oversight from a 3rd party. I realise these procedures are extra work, but they may turn out to be less work than handling the tactical complaints?

juod's first paragraph sums it up: it's about improving the system, not about that student.
Many instructors don't know the policies for academic dishonesty, complaints, reviewing grades ... they never need to. Especially non-tenure-track lecturers don't know if the department head or the university will back them. Just a little outreach can be reassuring and help them stand their ground.
Hearing about how a typical complaint is resolved: "you'll get students who claim X, here's how it's typically handled" -- knowing the process and the offices involved. If Stan has the semi-common policy of "no retakes, but the lowest quiz score is dropped" will that stand-up to a challenge? Has it? Is there another instructor they can ask "does this class typically get lots of complaints?" (many times the answer is: "wow, how did you get so few?"). If a student complains to you about another instructor, what can you tell them to do? Some general bits:

when something is sprung on you during finals week, sometimes it has to wait until the next semester. Grades can be changed after the class ends. There's a form for it. Sometimes administrators will yell at you and require a written reason why, but that's easy.
Incompletes aren't extensions. Students always ask for an incomplete at the last minute. But they generally require a whole process and an agreement prior to missing the work.
use email to create a record. Use only one account, so it's easy to search. This is "as we discussed in class, I looked over your assignment...".
if a school has some crazy assignment software that takes forever to search and can lock you out, keep an organized copy of everything on your home PC (I learned this the hard way).

As for that particular student, they only need to meet one old-school hard-ass who teaches most sections of a required class. Stops them cold. As for the sense of injustice about scammy students -- it helps to remember that you get paid the same either way, your name isn't on the school, and to read Black Lives Matter posts to put the injustice in perspective. Sure, use that indignation to keep it from happening again, but there's no point in making a negative incident personal with a student.

How much did they actually boost their grade by? If it's a large jump, such as their GPA going from 2.3 to 3.8, you should recommend the student for an award because they have identified a serious structural problem with how your institution is organized. It is clearly incentivizing students to learn how to game the system instead of learning the subject matter.
If the jump is small, ignore it. Other than your own chagrin at this student getting away with it, it matters very little in the grand scheme of things. The student did a bunch of work and managed to slightly boost their grade, big deal. Most students will recognize that they could just put the same effort into studying instead and get an even bigger boost; this one is an outlier. And even if you tried to punish them, you would waste a bunch of your own time splitting hairs over exactly how unfair the professors were in each case and how many complaints is too much. It wouldn't serve you, it wouldn't serve the institution, it wouldn't serve the student. It would waste everyone's time and accomplish nothing.
Also at the end of the day, the education system is funded by the state and has the additional mission of molding individuals into the society that the state prefers. Most likely you, like most of us, live in a highly bureaucratic country. There's a sort of logic in the institution teaching its students to navigate the state's own bureaucracy, a skill they will lean on again and again for the rest of their life.


text:
One line thank-you emails to lecturers/professors - yes or no?
I have always wanted to know the answer to this question (sorry if it's silly):
If a professor or lecturer answers a question or gives advice when replying to an email I sent them, in general, do they prefer if I send them a one-line email saying 'thank you!' or no email at all? If I send a one-line email I'm worried I'm just clogging their inbox, but if I don't send any email at all, I'm worried I'll seem cold/selfish.
Thanks in advance!

Possible duplicates: Etiquette on sending a thank you e-mail to respondents who gave me helpful information; Is it necessary to reply to a solution email by a thank-you email?; Is generic “thank you” email a waste of time in academia?

It doesn’t matter all that much. But in general it’s good practice to thank people when they help you with something. And the extra workload imposed by dealing with such thank you emails is too insignificant to worry about.
When in doubt about these sorts of questions, apply the rule “professors are people”.

Make sure that most of the meaning of the message is in the subject line as then the recipient may read / skip / delete the email without opening it.

The answer to this question varies enormously depending on the person...
I myself definitely do like acknowledgements and/or "thank-you"s... in part as confirmation that people received the email, and that my response was helpful (I do also often ask, as closing, "Is this addressing your question?")
Other people seem to have no interest in confirmation of emails, etc.
It only takes a few seconds to delete a "thank-you, yes, you answered my question" email. Even with hundreds a day, it's still just a few minutes.
So, if you have to guess, I'd think a brief, polite, "thank you" is optimal. For that matter, the people who'd object to polite intercourse will have other problems, anyway, ... so it may/will be difficult to placate them.
Even though things do change, I strongly tend to prefer confirmation, acknowledgement, thanks, and such stuff. (At the same time, I am well aware that the current U.S. education system generally does not provide good guidance on these things.)

That makes sense, thanks! I'm in the UK but it's funny how little guidance there is on email etiquette (I find myself googling this stuff all the time) here too! There's probably stuff I still do wrong e.g. my lecturers introduce themselves by their first name, but it feels strange addressing them that way so I just say 'Hello,' at the beginning of each email which is probably not great since quite a few people say online that it's better to address people by their actual names, but at least I can avoid having to choose the way I address them!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does APA Style prescribe BC and AD or BCE and CE?
Does APA Style prescribe BC and AD or BCE and CE? (I couldn't seem to find information about this in their style guides/manuals.)

Unless this was changed after 2016 (e.g. in the 7th edition style manual), APA does not prescribe either version. The choice of format does not seem to be addressed in the 6th edition style manual, which should typically be interpreted as leaving the writer or journal the freedom to choose their preference. In this case there is also direct confirmation (shown below) from the APA Style official Twitter account that either version is fine as far as the style is concerned.

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


text:
I am wasting my time post PhD due to delay in immigration documents processing. What to do? Please advise
Graduated early this year. Was to start my postdoc position in March. Official appointment delayed due to delay in immigration documents processing. Have been losing motivation to work for past two months (just 14 hours/week). Am wasting my time with hobbies and Netflix, what should I do? Please advise.

Visa delays and procrastination are extremely common.  I'm not sure what advice you are expecting to get.

@AnonymousPhysicist I am feeling extremely guilty of not working, and feeling concerned how this is going to affect my career. I was expecting some advice on the lines of how I can improve my situation. And if someone had similar experiences post-PhD, what their course of action was.

Most PhDs have had this experience (visa delays and procrastination), but it's not necessary to have extreme feelings.   If you're distressed, consult a mental health professional.  You already know about the need to apply for jobs.

I would suggest that this seems more like a personal problem than an academic one. I think consulting a mental health professional for evaluation would be a good plan for the OP.

Get off the couch and go workout.
If you are not 100% proficient in English, study it to complete fluency.
Get in the lab (or whatever) and do some papers.  Use the Pomerado to motivate yourself.  Impossible to goof when that tomato is running.
Remember, you shouldn't need your advisor to push you.  Especially as a post-doc.  You are supposed to be a budding PI. But, since you are struggling, at least show up and talk to her (or Zoom or whatever).

As for your visa problems, this is irrelevant. You have your Ph.D. Getting an immigration document will not or not should not change your competence, work ethic, maturity, etc.

Did you actually read the question? "Official appointment delayed due to delay in immigration documents processing." The OP is not officially a post-doc yet.

Irrelevant.    He has his Ph.D.  Getting an immigration document or not should not change his competence, work ethic, maturity.

A bit harsh, perhaps, but good advice. The OP should be the main driver of their career at this point. Make it so. Few have built a career on whining.

If you add something about seeing a mental heath professional for evaluation I would vote for this.

I don't think suggesting to.see a mental health professional would be appropriate beased on this tiny information.

Regarding #3, depending on their exact status, it may (or is likely to) be illegal to perform work functions without their work permit.

Thanks for your answer. In response to a flag, I made some minor edits to your post. Profanity is not allowed on SE sites, and we strive for a friendly tone (though "harsh truths" are occasionally necessary). I also folded in one of your replies in the comments, as I thought that was an important part of your perspective.


text:
Should I suggest my sources as reviewers?
Authors are often asked to suggest reviewers for their article. In my own experience, the principal domain experts I can suggest are often the authors whose work I have cited, but suggesting them might present a conflict of interest.
As an author, should I suggest my sources as reviewers?

Related: Is it OK to select an editor if I solved his conjecture?

The fact that you cite their work, and that you use their work to inform your work, does not present a conflict of interest, and it's fine to suggest them as reviewers. Doing so might even be a good idea, since they might be naturally qualified to assess your work.
An exception might apply if your work stands in some way in direct competition to their work -- for example, if you developed a technique for addressing the same problem, and you claim that your technique works better than theirs. I've seen a few listings of conflict-of-interest criteria that include a conflict type "competitor", and other listings that don't. If this applies, I would recommend to look for the conflict-of-interest criteria of the target journal/conference. If you can't find anything, you might want to contact the editors/chairs.

You might argue that there is a small conflict of interest arising from the citation, namely that your paper being published slightly boosts the citee’s bibliometric scores. However, if reviewers were excluded due to this, many of the most qualified reviewers would be among them to the extent that it may be impossible to find any remotely qualified reviewer in smaller, citation-heavy subfields. Moreover, whom you cite is obvious to the editor, so if they really want to take this into account, they can.
Of course, a connection between your work and another that results in a citation may as well as reflect a conflict of interest that is not obvious or comprised by what is obligatory to report (as per the venue’s rules), but that has nothing to do with the citation per se.
That being said, there can be tactical reasons not to suggest authors you cite as reviewers:
When an editor has to select reviewers, your citations are a primary source of inspiration.
(Some authors even carefully arrange their citations due to this.)
Thus, suggesting somebody you prominently cited is redundant and potentially wastes a suggested-reviewer slot which you could have used to suggest somebody who is an excellent match for your paper but whom you did not cite prominently or at all.
I think of the suggested-reviewer list as a list of reviewers who would be very suited to review the paper but are not an obvious choice.
Moreover, many editors make a point of choosing at least one reviewer you did not suggest.
Thus it can be beneficial to leave them some obvious choices to “discover” by themselves.

Citing someone’s work and recommending this person as referee is generally not a conflit of interest: unless there are special circumstances it is not terribly clear how this referee would benefit from your manuscript in any material way. (Simple citations are NOT a material benefit.)
Problem cases typically arise when a supervisor suggests a former student,  a recent graduate suggests a former thesis advisor, or the suggested referee has recents publications or collaborations or grants with the current author (or one of the current authors).
If anything there’s no guarantee the person you suggested will actually referee the manuscript.  In addition, the first thing the handling editor will do is check the list of references and cull for names of prospective referee so surely there is no harm in suggesting names from that list yourself.
Finally, it is usually the job of the referee to declare conflicts and withdraw (if appropriate), not the job of the author.

Finally, it is usually the job of the referee to declare conflicts and withdraw (if appropriate), not the job of the author. – In general yes, in particular since it would be quite tedious to provide a list of everybody conflicted. But this is about suggesting referees and here you should not suggest a referee with a blatant conflict of interest (more than just being cited). If the editor chooses that referee and they fail to disclose their conflict of interest, this will be at least to some extent on you, while otherwise it would have been on the referee and editor only.


text:
Self-citation question
Suppose there is a paper by author A and B. B alone later publishes another paper, citing the first paper. Does this count or not as a self-citation to author A?

Does this answer your question? How to define “self-citation”?

@GoodDeeds Yes, indeed.

Actually, I think the cited question has an incorrect accepted answer. I think that, contrary to the comments there, people do take it as a personal negative if it is frequently done. It is treated as a 'property' of authors, not just of papers. But author A has no part in this.


text:
What universities (especially in the USA) prohibit or restrict duplicate advanced degrees?
For example, University of California - Berkeley says

The Graduate Council views academic degrees as evidence of broad
  research training, not as vocational training certificates; therefore,
  applicants who already have academic graduate degrees should be able
  to take up new subject matter on a serious level without undertaking a
  graduate program, unless the fields are completely dissimilar.

and says

Students may enroll for a second academic or professional master’s degree if the second degree is in an unrelated field.

What are some other universities that prohibit or have restrictions on the duplication of advanced degrees?

This is more of a statement of how resources are allocated than a strict prohibition. It is a statement of "may enroll", rather than one of "may not enroll". I think admissions committees at a lot of places take a similar view, even without a formal statement. "Why do you think you need a second math masters?"
The available slots and money are limited most places and committees generally want them to be be used to expand the pool of educated folks.
So, I think that any numerical answer will be misleading. And any listing would be equally misleading.
But the statement is useful as guidance to those who would want to apply when it would be unlikely that the committee would accept them.


text:
What to do as a grad student about an adverse grader?
I'm a grad student and one course I'm taking is graded by another grad student. Today, nearly halfway through the term, we finally got feedback on all our previously submitted homework dating back to the beginning of the term. I've done everything correctly, but the grader has frequently marked me down for not including steps in my work which are so obvious I would never, as a grader myself, consider marking sophomores down for passing over them without comment, much less fellow grad students. And on a couple of occasions he's marked me down for reasons which are plainly factually incorrect.
I can see statistics for each assignment's grades and it looks like I may be the only one getting dinged like this; other students are generally getting either perfect scores or scores low enough that it should indicate they've actually gotten things wrong. I begin to wonder whether the grader has it out for me. At the present rate I could end up with a B+ or A- on my transcript for this relatively easy course where I'm turning in practically perfect work.
The fact that I'm only finding this out halfway through the term does make things worse, but even if I'd known beforehand that he'd grade this way, honestly I don't think I could possibly have predicted the particular trivialities he's insisting on. So the only way I can imagine ruling those out is by turning straightforward single-page TeX'd assignments into ten-page exercises in stating the obvious. And then there are the problems where his stated reason is simply wrong.
During the pandemic, courses are being held remotely, and the site we use for submitting homework and viewing feedback includes a way to request a regrade. But it appears that request goes to the grader, and if this is a pattern of unfair treatment I'm not sure about confronting him about it. Yet I don't want to disproportionately hassle the professor, who I've never met before this class but who has commented positively on my comments in class.
How should I address this in a way that doesn't escalate things/burn bridges/whatever but does address the problem?
Edit: a couple people are misunderstanding. This isn't about me looking for 'leniency' on 'harsh grading.' I've done the work correctly, and the grader has taken exception to my style or something; he apparently hasn't been dinging other students similarly. I didn't intend to adduce examples, but perhaps given the misunderstandings it's necessary, so here are two. I showed a particular vector space was n-dimensional and exhibited n linearly independent vectors, and concluded they were a basis; I was marked down for not explaining why. I wouldn't expect sophomore linear algebra students to tediously reiterate every single time that any set of n linearly independent vectors in an n-dimensional space form a basis, much less grad students. In another instance I was marked down for saying the singular value matrix is diagonal, with the grader complaining that it's only diagonal if it's square. That's simply an overly restrictive use of the term; what I said was correct and clear.

"I begin to wonder whether the grader has it out for me."  This is not a reasonable concern given the information you have provided.  I think this is more of a complaint than a question.  Direct your concerns to the course instructor.

Factually incorrect grading  justifies (in my opinion) a complaint to the professor in charge of the course.

I am not sure the word "adverse" is what you mean, maybe "harsh grader"?

6005- The grader seems to be taking exception to my style or something; this is not about being harsh with small errors, as these aren't errors. I've added examples to clarify. And the statistics suggest I'm the only one getting this kind of treatment.

Plenty of books and papers and people use the definition that a matrix is diagonal iff all entries off the main diagonal are zero, in other words a_ij is zero whenever i does not equal j. In fact, I just double-checked, and the textbook we're using for this course, in a preliminary definitions section, defines diagonal matrices that way, and explicitly allows for the possibility of their being nonsquare. I will mention the textbook's definition to either the grader or professor when I contact them.

@Prodicus For undergrads, my position is that whatever definition is used in the lecture is the convention we adopt (e.g.. diagonal matrices are square etc.), not whatever textbook says. However, you are in a grad course, and a reasonable choice of a convention, by then, can be assumed. I think you have a case of having this checked. You seem to believe that student has it in for you, you state it several times. Do they know your name? Did you have any run-in with them? Would there be any plausible reason to assume they single you out?

Of course, you are perfectly entitled to get graded fairly. Talk to the prof, and when you do, concentrate on the factually wrong grades if they are the substantial part of your complaint, because that's where you can provably address the factual incorrectness of the marking. Make absolutely sure this is really the case; if you get that wrong, people won't listen to you on the other things.
If the professor looks at that, you could add as an afterthought that you generally feel that the grader is overmeticulous, and whether you are really supposed to submit at that level of detail?
Generally, much will depend upon how well you do on other courses.
I would completely put aside the thought whether the grader has it in for you, as you have no way to prove it, unless you have hard evidence for that (e.g. some proof of a conflict of interest or something else). I would avoid going down that route, though.

Ultimately it is the prof and not the grader that is responsible here. Unfortunately, some graders have little experience.

Did you contact the grader directly about the factual incorrectnesses?
I had to grade quite a few things already, and sometimes, when there are many students, mistakes happen. (Actually, I even made mistakes when there were few students...). If the grading indeed is wrong, and the grader refuses to change it, then I think you should talk to the prof as you now have additional reasons to do so.
The reason why I would suggest to first contact the grader is the following: I have been contacted by different students about incorrect gradings. In some cases, they were absolutely right, and I changed their marks. However, in other cases, they misunderstood something, and thanks to them contacting me, I was able to explain it to them, thus helping their learning experience. If the grading is actually correct, and you go straight to the prof, I believe that is when you might be burning bridges.

Contacting the marker (if he is known with certainty) is reasonable, but it may be beyond the authority of a student marker to change a grade. It largely depends on how a department operates. It can be as simple as changing the number on a script or as complicated as going through a committee.

I've done everything correctly, but the grader has frequently marked me down for not including steps in my work which are so obvious I would never, as a grader myself, consider marking sophomores down for passing over them without comment, much less fellow grad students.

You may be correct in your approach. However, it does not matter. You simply disagree with someone's marking criteria. As long as they agree with departmental practices and are clearly explained in advance, students simply abide by them. Important arguments in that issue are factual mistakes and inconsistencies in marking, i.e. -1 and -5 for exactly the same mistake in two different scripts. The former is there, according to the OP, the second is not.
I am not aware of the formalities in changing a mark, as they range from very easy to almost impossible. Also, I am not sure if you are supposed to know (or know with certainty) who marked your script. I would suggest you contacted the module leader mentioning factually that there are erroneous corrections in your work at specific parts, who were correct (I would also keep it short and to the point). If the module leader is not available, administration is the natural channel. I would not contact the grad student (whatever that stands for) directly, as changing a registered mark is beyond their authority.
I do not think a point can be made on the demands on students' answers. An examiner can ask for overly detailed answers or specific methodologies, no matter how time consuming or annoying it is. There may be real merit behind it in assessing someone's knowledge.

It's not in keeping with how I've ever seen anything graded, though I'm fairly certain I have more experience in the department than the grader does, and it not only wasn't explained in advance but is only becoming clear now halfway through the term. There were no specific methodologies being asked for. If they wanted me to write proofs in Coq or something so absolutely every detail down to the axioms is included, that would at least be clear expectations, but worlds away from any other course in the physical and mathematical sciences.


text:
What should I write in the preface of my master's thesis
Please note that my guide abandoned me and I am studying and preparing my masters thesis myself. There is no  help from any faculty in my department as they can not bother, as they are not guide.
Being enrolled in a 3rd world institute, this is not surprising.

I read 5 research papers (4 are on odd zeta values and 1 on Goldbach Conjecture) in number theory and I will explain the steps involved and prove statements which authors didn't prove. So, my thesis is expository and I have not proved any original results. I have written a rough draft of explanations of the papers.

But I don't know what should I write in the preface or beginning of my thesis, explaining what I have done as I have no idea of these sort of technical language. Also, I searched on internet about expository thesis but most theses were on proving some results or generalizing some conjecture. I could not find a work related to mine. So, I am asking here. I have also to be very cautious so that I am not accused of plagrism.
First 4 papers are about 4 different methods used in studying irrationality of odd zeta values and the 5th paper is a bit different.
Can someone please tell what to write in the preface.

You write:

What are the problems you are studying.
Why are they important.
What are your own contributions. (Maybe: "We present detailed proofs of the results...". Or maybe: "We summarize the results about A...".)
Is there anything new in your contributions? Mention that, too. Maybe you are writing in a different language, combining results that have not been explicitly combined before, providing a more detailed proof of some statement than you could find, etc.
What has been done before? A brief literature review is appropriate.

You should combine those parts in a way that feels natural. They are not section headings.
Plagiarism
To avoid plagiarism, do not copy text from elsewhere. Write in your words. This is especially true of free text, such as the introduction and literature review.
Furthermore, cite your sources. For example: "This proof follows the proof by [4], but we include additional details."
It might not be useful to rewrite theorems and definitions in your own words. If they are common knowledge (can be found in several textbooks), you can use the common ones. If the definition is less established, or if there are several variants and you have chosen to use a particular one, then a citation is appropriate, and explicitly mentioning any verbatim copying.


text:
Is this plagiarism or something similar in a master's project?
I am a master's student in 3rd world Asian country. My master's thesis guide (who was from a different institute) abandoned me after giving a research paper to read. Now, with no guidance left as no-one in my institute works in X-number theory, I began reading the papers related to the first paper. I read 5 papers in total and in my thesis I will write in detail about the details which were not covered in the papers (like detailed steps and proofs).
But, as I had no help I posted questions on mathstackexchange and some which were not answered on MSE were subsequently posted on Mathoverflow. I am really thankful to the community because without their help it wouldn't be possible to completely understand the papers. One professor in Y- number theory (who recommended me to another professor) agreed that I could write his name as a supervisor (my institute has rules that he had to be made a co-guide earlier even when I didn't know my  guide will not work with me).
I don't want to write in my master's thesis that I took help from Mathstackexchange and Mathoverflow because it could create an impression that I don't know enough mathematics. But if I don't acknowledge it, is this plagiarism? It doesn't seem right that I write the names of all the users as I have asked about 10-12 questions there. I think writing all those names will create a bad impression of me. The evaluators in my university may not understand the situation. I have worked really hard on thesis despite the trauma of my guide not replying to any of my email.
Can anyone please tell me whether I am plagiarising?

Your university has failed you.  It would be weird if you did not get any help from Math Stack Exchange.

Passing off others' work as your own is plagiarism, acknowledge the help you were given, there's no shame, on the contrary, you'll be praised for initiative.
You needn't necessarily* provide references to individual posts or your account, which will avoid privacy issues.
You can provide the names of those that helped. If that poses a privacy concern (e.g., you can be identified, because the group that helped you didn't help any other individual), then you could omit some names (e.g., names with lower reputation) and mention that you've done so for anonymity.
You could offer to privately reveal direct references to your examiners, as long as those references are kept confidential.
* Case-by-case decisions should be made on whether an individual post merits referencing directly.

I think OP could write an acknowledgment in the thesis that pays acknowledgment to the S.E community. Given that the purpose of this forum/community is essentially to get help and give help, I think you could cover all of those names respectfully in one acknowledgment to Stack Exchange.

@GrayLiterature That sounds like a fair answer.


text:
Nightmare Ex-Professor Haunt me in my new PhD?
Long story short: I started a Ph.D. in late 2017 and after one year I was forced to leave because of racism/bullying and it was an awful experience, although I was a hard worker and got grants. I moved temporarily to an aloof country with harsh conditions and then out of desperation I accepted a position in another country to turn out they don't any facilities, I resigned since a month ago while in this year I developed a good network with our professors in the field except the bully one who trying destroying me back then. Luckily I got a new position this month with a relatively good professor.
The shock comes here, I cannot believe it: I developed a strong skill while I worked in the lab of bully professor in 2018, and that why they brought me.
I found after starting that they have a collaboration with this bully professor who literally because of him I stuck two years of my life at wrong places because of lack of money and was desperate.
Of course, no one knows about that from the new supervisor because of its old story, he know I resigned from my position and even accept me directly without an interview.
Tomorrow, I have a meeting and that bully supervisor would attend, worse: they won't make very official.
I am shattered, Maybe the unluckiest person in that situation, the problem I cannot even resign now again it is insane, I don't know what the bully ex-supervisor going to say.
You don't know how much time does it to over this experience. Mind you with I got CPTSD and benign tumors in the body after my horrible experience with him.
Honestly: I don't know what to do, I don't want to see him and I cannot bring this old issues since back then this ex-supervisor was trying to blacklist, but luckily I managed to get awards and recognition from my community and that's why I was hired for the new position.
I would be grateful for your advice.

How unlucky! Nonetheless, remember: your health is more important than your career. No health, no career. I am not usually quick in advocating this (in fact have recently argued against over-use), but this is a case, where you need someone to help you take care of your mental (and physical) health. There is one thing to remember: bullies latch on your perceived weaknesses, like a virus on cell receptors. But, the bully is no longer your boss. You are now facing him, but not exposed to him. You are in a far stronger position now. They need you (you were accepted without interview). Good luck!

You need to tell your new supervisor what happened to you.  I cannot see any other way to improve the situation.  Give them a minimum amount of detail so that they can arrange for you to avoid contact with the old supervisor.


text:
When and how should the content of courses in a sequence overlap?
My Computer Science department uses a three-course sequence (A, B, C) in which A is optional. Because both A and B are on-ramps, their contents overlap a good deal, and students who take the slower, gentler approach see several of same topics twice.
My colleagues and I have diverse views on the value of this approach. While we appreciate the subject review that students get in this model, some of us would like the courses to be more complementary. A theoretical basis for our planning would help. Are there established best practices for sequences of courses with overlapping content?

I have students who say “we have done this” so I cut directly to the exercises and before long they say “Oh, can we go over that again...”

Actually, there may be an entirely valid pedagogical reason for this. If some of your students come with little background, say in programming, then they need to get experience with it to be successful later. I assume these early courses are heavy, at least, in programming.
It turns out that people learn, primarily from reinforcement and feedback. That means repeating things, to some extent, so that lessons are deeply learned and insight arises from both practice and the feedback that ensues.
Many students come to a CS degree already having learned quite a lot about programming, though they may also have misconceptions. But the A course is likely intended to take the other, relatively inexperienced, students up to the level of those with a programming background earlier. Thus, students start B at more or less the same level of skill and insight, making that course easier to deliver and making more students successful.
But taking out the overlap would probably be a mistake and give worse results, as students would, then, get less reinforcement of those topics. You don't learn something by seeing it only once. And it is harder to learn a lot of topics if the first time you experience it, it is in a sophisticated context. Introducing important topics gently and then reinforcing them later is a learning technique that many people use. It is called a Spiral Approach, where each turn of the spiral takes you deeper into the topic.

Thanks for mentioning the Spiral Approach. You state, with reason, that repetition is valuable; but isn't that only true within some bounds, such that courses don't repeat "too much"?

Yes, of course, but it is often valuable to be "reminded" of things you learned earlier. The brain actually works by physically rearranging neuron connections. That takes reinforcement and explains the difference between long and short term memory. I can provide a reference if you like.

I agree with everything you wrote, and I am still hoping to find guidelines or principles on how much the curriculum should repeat (or "remind").

I think the question can't be answered in the abstract. 30% v 60% has little meaning outside specific knowledge of the program and its students. It is something that the faculty has to work out from experience and expertise. If you think it is too much, try reducing it a bit (but not radically). Then see how the students fare in the next course(s).  If you think it is too little, what topics would you put in the first course that aren't there now. But it depends, fundamentally, on knowing the topics that are critical to be understood.

Sure, the answer is not a number. I can't run the experiment you suggest on my own, and to get my colleagues' buy-in, ideally we'd be building on recognized principles....

It would by and large depend on what the courses B & C require/offer.
If B is mandatory, you can consider removing repeated content from A for simplification.
However, I personally prefer a refresher on previous content, because "repetition is the mother of all learning".


text:
Additional funding for PhD students
Are there 'additional' grants/fellowships available for Mathematics PhD students (who already have their funded positions) in Europe? In other words, does any program analogous to the ERC Starting Grants exist for PhD students?

What were you hoping to get funded as a PhD candidate , if your position is already funded?

There are many small travel grants that I know of (in physics at least, there must be similar in maths), but nothing as big as an ERC. Fellowships for PhDs do exist, but as mmeent alluded to, you're unlikely to be awarded more than one at a time (in fact, it's probably against the rules of any funding body to do so).

As for a EU-wide database of research funding opportunities, see EURAXESS:

Go to EURAXESS Funding Search.
Select your RESEARCH FIELD (probably "Formal Sciences").
Select your FUNDING TYPE ("Funding"? "Mobility Incoming/Outgoing"? "Travel Grants"?).
Select your CAREER STAGE (probably "First Stage Researcher" up to the point of PhD).
Click on Search and browse through the results!

Other than that, there are also national databases. If you tell us the country of your affiliation, perhaps we could link to it. (E.g. https://grants.at/ for Austria.)


text:
How to transition into a PhD in Theoretical Physics?
I am currently a graduate student in Theoretical chemistry/Chemical Physics at one of the higher-ranked R1 universities in the US. After a year of taking graduate-level courses in Physics, I have realized that an academic career in theoretical physics is something that I really want to pursue. Soon I would be graduating with a MS in chemistry from my current graduate program in August and I plan to re-apply to graduate school again, specifically to programs in Physics. Here are a few things that aren't clear to me about executing this transition:

Will it be possible for me to make this transition given my academic background in chemistry?
Can anyone who's been through this before, made a similar transition.... give me a couple of pointers?

I don't know if most or any of this matters but, here are a few details.
Academic Background
Prior to joining my current program I went to a college in India to get my bachelor (3 years) and Masters (2 years) in chemistry. I did have rigorous coursework in basic mathematics covering most of the essentials in Differential Equations(ODE and PDE), Linear algebra, Multi-variable calculus, etc. In terms of Physics, I have taken courses in classical mechanics, optics, electronics, and basic E&M. Beyond this most of my advanced knowledge in quantum physics and statistical mechanics comes from personal reading. From both my degrees I have had slightly more than above average to really excellent grades.
After I came to the US in the past year I have taken about 6 graduate-level courses ranging from quantum mechanics to quantum optics, offered by the Physics department at my university and some reason to believe that I have had a fairly decent performance in them.
Research Experience
In terms of research I do not have any research publications yet. But, I have worked for a year in an experimental lab during my masters in India and two summer research internships in experimental condensed matter physics and chemical physics(theory). Also currently, I am working on a summer research project in theoretical condensed matter physics with one of the faculty members at my current university in the US.
I am mainly looking to transition into a Ph.D. in either condensed matter field theory or something more aligned towards quantum physics(like quantum information or ultra-cold physics).

Why not ask your current supervisor?

I recommend looking around the site: there are lots of "transition from _ to _" questions already. One caveat: will you be classified as an "international student" despite your US degree? If so, that may make things more difficult; there are typically fewer spots for international students.

Your situation is not much different from other people seeking to pursue condensed matter theory.  There's a lot of overlap between theoretical chemistry and condensed matter physics, so there's no real scientific barriers.  The regulations of individual universities may matter, but we can't help you there.
People who brand themselves as chemists tend to pick RSC or ACS published journals.  People who brand themselves as physicists tend to pick APS or AIP published journals.  Otherwise, it can sometimes be hard to tell the difference.

Then, how would you distinguish people interested in things like condensed matter field theory?

I think your background in chemistry should not be a disadvantage. I know a guy with a background in computer science transitioning to physics too. Besides GPA, LORs, SOP, and GRE general, I think a high score in GRE physics will definitely help too. If you aim for high-rank schools, try to get GRE physics for more than 900.  Do you currently enroll in a university in the US? Is there any physics professor there whose research you are interested in? Why don't you email them to express your interest and visit their office if possible? You can work with them on some small projects too. It helps you to test the water and see if you are really into a Ph.D. in theoretical physics.


text:
Should I contact professors in Europe to enquire about PhD positions given the ongoing pandemic?
I am a 2nd year masters student in Mathematics in an Asian University and my masters will be completed this month.
I wrote to professors in December and January asking about open positions in their working group for PhD in number theory but could find only 2 offers, and 1 without funding.
So, I am thinking of writing to some more professors in Hungary and Sweden.

My question is, is it the right decision to mail my CV and ask them about open positions when COVID-19 is affecting the whole of Europe?

Universities in Italy are taking PhD applications, but still I want to ask opinions of users here and also due to the reason that the admission process in my country are completely stopped due to the pandemic.
Any advice will be really appreciated.

I think the best you currently can expect is a general commitment to give you a position whenever things open up. Keep in mind that not only are you unable to travel, but that in particular for paid positions you'll need a visa and most embassies currently seem to have shut down as well. Which doesn't mean you shouldn't try, but you should also make some shorter term plans, as it looks like you'll have an involuntary gap year to fill.

It is always good to send inquiries and applications for positions, in consideration of the pandemic, you need to think about transportation, amount of time you can potentially wait until the position must be filled, and whether you are qualified enough to be worth the inconvenience of what was previously mentioned. Many airlines are open, so I don’t suspect transportation will be an issue, and with the vaccine rolling out in Europe, I don’t suspect they will be too picky about foreign hires, the main issue arrises on how long you want the institution to wait before you will start in your position, as applying with the hope of waiting out the virus most likely will end up with you not landing the position; otherwise, it’s a great idea to apply to the institutions that meet your standards and vise versa.


text:
Precarious employment in academia: Why is there no labor union in academia?
Many positions in academia are precarious, when it comes to employment common behavior in academia would never be acceptable in industry. This applies equally to PhD students as well as to junior academics:

PhD students are not guaranteed employment at university
after working there for 5 years.
PhD students are paid little considering their degree: In
Germany e.g. it is common practice for professors to only pay
    half-time posts.
It's common practice for young academics to work well beyond 40 hours even for PhD students that are
only paid half-time posts. Work regulations regarding maximum worked hours and weekends are often ignored.
Junior academics are unlikely to land an unlimited full-time job at a
university. Directly after graduation this is impossible and even after years of more precarious work as a postdoc only a fraction get unlimited employment.
With exception of CS and engineering very little universities care about providing an exit strategy for junior academics and PhD students after academia. (While change in industry is possible in quite a few fields, proper (additional!) training would be much needed.)

These issues are well known. Fundamentally academia is producing too many PhD students and too little full-time positions (not just professorships) for their respective fields which causes much of the mentioned problems.
I feel like the passion almost all young academics and PhD students have for their subject brings a lot of naivety when it comes to employment conditions, which is exploited.
Why is there no movement inside academia trying to change these working conditions or a push to establish labor unions?

Actually there is. But this is country specific

@TheoreticalMinimum: I'm a bit puzzled by the way in which the question was framed to be honest - I was expecting a related but different question about the precarious employment status of junior academics (e.g. postdocs, stipendiary/non-stipendiary lecturers, etc.) The answer to this question seems more straightforward - PhD students are students, not employees, and the PhD is a degree course for them. No-one would normally guarantee a student a job at the end of their course. Also, people often don't want their PhD students to stay afterwards - they want them to spread their wings.

@StuartGolodetz In many countries, the majority of PhD students are employees (for example, all of North Europe).

You might not like it much if you were just considered an employee as a PhD student. For example, you might be able to be told what you can study, even the field. You might be told that for this term, no studies for you and you have to teach full time. Union strikes would occur, perhaps, and then you would have no studies and no pay. Think about all of the consequences before you rant.

@StuartGolodetz As already mentioned a PhD student is not just a student, but especially an employee. I made the question more inclusive to junior academics in general though, as it is focused on an issue that both PhD students as well as junior academics face: A lack of unlimited full-time positions.

@Buffy Obviously you can't just study whatever you want. You are paid to do research, not any research, but the research you are given a grant for. Because of this it also seems unlikely that the university wouldn't allow you to research. After all they want results and receive new grants. Concerining your last sentence: As we know from lots of different work areas union strikes benefit the employees and don't hurt them.

Since you mention Germany, both Verdi and GEW are labor unions that specifically also cater to PhD students an young academics. It's just that almost none of those people seem to care or want to join those unions.

Why should PhD students be guaranteed a job after 5 years?

@Azor Ahai: Moreover, what non-academic jobs have such guarantees? If anything, the existence of tenure suggests that the argument partially goes the other way.

@mlk Yes this is what's most disturbing to me. This is why I said in my answer there is lots of naivety when it comes to employment in academia. Many young scientist seem to think "this is the way it always has been, and always will be". I think especially in Germany things could change if the political pressure increases. Many non-academic people don't know about these issues, mainly because young academics are very bad in representing themselves.

@DaveLRenfro Well in many EU countries you have protection against dismissal after you worked for a longer period at a bigger company. You can still be fired of course, but not for reasons like "there is this younger worker that does exactly the same job as you, but for half the price". Being fired on such grounds is e.g. illegal in Germany.

In Germany there is "Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft", a Union for employees in science and education. They don't have much leverage in Academia, though.

All graduate student employees at my institution in the US are represented by a union, though participation is optional (not sure how many do pay dues), called a teacher's assistant union but has since branched out.

@lighthousekeeper I guess my perspective was too UK-specific - to the best of my knowledge, I wasn't an employee as a PhD student, and I don't know of any university in the UK where PhD students are employees. The UK may be an outlier in Northern Europe as far as this is concerned (or it may not, and I may not know all the facts).

@TheoreticalMinimum I think it's quite country-specific - in the UK, to the best of my knowledge, PhD students don't count as employees. (Indeed, according to http://www.npc.org.uk/page/1101153773, "The UK is quite unique in considering PhD researchers purely as students.") Broadening the question to focus on junior academics (e.g. postdocs) as well is welcome though - there is a definite sense in which academia can seem quite akin to a Napoleonic era navy, in that there are too many eager lieutenants for the ships available.

@TheoreticalMinimum "Obviously you can't just study whatever you want. You are paid to do research, not any research, but the research you are given a grant for." <-- That depends strongly on your source of funding, and to some extent on the flexibility or otherwise of your supervisor. Some PhD students are luckier than others in this regard.

Why is there no labor union in academia?

Some universities have unions, others do not.  The scope of the unions varies.

Why is there no movement inside academia trying to change this?

Many people support changing academia, so the premise of this question is wrong.  The reality is that change is hard, especially when the old system obtains lots of cheap labor.

how successful have they been in the past?

Unionization usually results in an increase in pay and job security, but the change is small.
For problems 1-5, the solution is simple:  Don't get a PhD.  As long as many people try to get PhDs, economic forces will encourage these problems to persist.

The first question is whether PhD students are union members, or can be. Very often they can but are not. In the UK, a work contract that is separate from the student component is not required to join a union, and membership can be free. In the Netherlands, I think that a PhD student is considered a full-time university employee, with everything that entails for union participation, labour rights etc. Local union braches have participated in dispute resolution at a department level, although PhD students do not receive too much attention.
Beyond that, the situation is too country specific. As a blanket statement, and inaccurate in many cases, PhD students see themselves as students and are not informed or interested in becoming unionised, universities find the flexible dual employee/ student status convenient (again, this does not apply if a PhD student is contractually considered an employee) and unions do not have much to gain, in their opinion, and focus on more important disputes.
I also disagree with the way many points are framed because it is either wrong or a misrepresentation, particularly (1) and (5). I recognise important problems in the position and compensation of PhD students in academia, summarised by "cheap fresh meat" or "scientific proletariat", but this is one of the poorest descriptions I have encountered. A PhD holder is not automatically a good academic or a good colleague.
EDIT - An exemplary discussion from 2018 on the same broad issue.

I recently joined the UCU, a UK academic staff union. I'm a PhD student and there was no requirement to be a paid TA to join. Plus, membership is free if you're a student.

@astronat thank you, I will correct my post

I was under the impression that a PhD student needs some sort of work contract other than being a student.

These issues are well known. Fundamentally academia is producing too many PhD students and too little full-time positions

More precisely, academia is not making money. We're not even trying to make a profit, where would the money come from?

Why is there no movement inside academia trying to change these working conditions or a push to establish labor unions?

Union of what? Union would only make senese if there is money to pay salary, but it isn't the case in academia.

Academia is state funded in many countries with billions of euros.


text:
How can I salvage my relationship with a professor whom I lashed out against during a mental health episode?
After experiencing a lot of stress during my last undergraduate semester (and an episode of depression), I lashed out at a professor. I had made several rather foolish attempts to impress her and then "freaked out" and wrote to the Department Chair, complaining not only about the unanswered email but also about her "tone" causing me anxiety.
I later met with the dean to explain that my anxiety disorder was out of control when I had written to the chair. I also e-mailed the professor to apologize -- I mentioned my anxiety disorder, but also reiterated my request for a letter of recommendation (which in hindsight may have made me look insincere). The professor did not respond. I then went to every level of administration trying to get my grievance dismissed (and the chance to sincerely apologize to the prof.) but no one would reach out to her. Instead, I was told that "she was not obligated to respond to me but that I shouldn't take her lack of response as a sign of "ill will." Long story short, the university eventually sent me a cease and desist letter.
Ordinarily, I could understand a professor resenting a student who complained the department chair/dean, but my behavior was caused by a mental health condition, and I was genuinely remorseful and did everything I could to rectify the situation. So, I want to ask: is it unreasonable to hope for forgiveness? Is there any way to repair this relationship?
*The professor was living out of state during this time, so I couldn't schedule a visit during office hours to discuss the project/the letter etc. Email was our only means of communication.

You are asking the wrong question. It does not matter if the professor forgives you or not, and getting a LOR is a bit of a stretch at this point. The question you should be asking is how can I stop my anxiety from sabotaging my life going forward? And the answer is "get good, professional help".

Please everyone, let's refrain from making diagnoses and let's leave them to the professionals.

This question already underwent significant editing, to clarify various points discussed in the comments. Most of the comments have been now moved to chat.

It may help to remember that professors are only human. You might be looking for "forgiveness" or "justice," but professors are neither priests nor judges; they are researchers. Now they are moving on with their lives, and so must you; for better or worse, this incident is done.
Bearing in mind that professors are human, I think many of your questions can be answered by looking at this case from your professor's point of view.

The best case outcome (for her) is that you do not create any more problems. You really have nothing to offer her, since she is retiring and will not be hiring students, etc.
The worst case outcome for her is that you continue your erratic behavior and create more stress and wasted time.

Given this, her behavior is quite logical. If she does not engage and leaves the cease-and-desist in place, then she is guaranteed to get the best case scenario. If she re-engages with you, she risks another incident (and the first question her dean and/or counsel will ask is "why did you re-engage??!?!")

she was not obligated to respond to me but that I shouldn't take her response as a sign of ill will.

This sounds about right. Given your genuine remorse and mental health issues, she likely understands and wishes you the best. At the same time, she has nothing to gain by engaging with you further. I would probably have a similar reaction.

Even if you forgave them, would you write them a letter of recommendation if their work was good?

This may be a bridge too far.

As discussed above, the professor has nothing to gain by engaging with you further. Writing you an LoR definitely falls under the category of "engaging further."
You may feel that your academic work "deserves" a LoR, and this should be separate from your personal issues with the professor. However, this is not how it works: faculty members are not obliged to write LoRs, and many of them see it as a "favor."
If she did write a letter, she would have to describe the above incidents. These incidents are highly relevant, and it would be inappropriate for her to pass over such important information. Thus, even if she were well-meaning, it would be difficult for her to write a letter that would strengthen your application. Given this, you're probably better off without her letter in any case. She has likely come to the same conclusion, which further explains her silence.

"If she did write a letter, she would have to describe the above incidents" --->Exactly. I fully agree with the last paragraph. The implicit question behind a reference letter is whether X can work with Y. Given the situation, what exactly does the OP expect that academic to write?. Academic work is only one of the topics of a reference letter.

What does the professor have to gain by further engaging with you?  You have proven to be trouble, to the degree of her getting an official investigation for no good reason at all.  You continue raising a ruckus with everybody who does not give you just the kind of response you are angling for.  It's not a matter of having good will or bad will towards you as a person: professors have enough pupils that developing relations to a person's character is just not on the agenda.
Stop digging yourself in deeper and carrying a big sign with flashing letters "here comes trouble" in front of you.  Get professional help.  And make sure that you consult that professional help first whenever you feel the urge to contact official channels.  Asking for a "letter of recommendation" at this stage in your relations is somewhere between ridiculous and blackmail.  If you manage to have a few years of normal relations with your prof, there may be some sense in trying, but certainly not now.

TL;DR: There is one principle in asking forgiveness. If the other side decides to grant it, they will do it under the premise that, from now on, things will change. You have to convince them that this incident will not repeat. This takes time which you didn't give them.
By pushing them into situations which you are interested in (adopting you as grad student, helping you in the conference/project, etc.), you are essentially pressurising "your" prof into doing what you want; when that didn't happen, or the response - which might have been irritable, we do not know - was not quite as gentle, you fired off an official complaint.
Essentially, from the perspective of the prof, you turned part of your anxiety into theirs (no one likes to be getting a letter from the dean with a complaint with potential disciplinary consequences, not even if they are about to retire). In addition, from their perspective, you imposed your agenda on them with the outlook of negative consequences for them if they didn't comply. It does not matter that the complaint was about their tone - maybe their tone was a response to your pressuring, we do not know. So, in their mind, there will be a link between them not complying with you and your complaint, whether it was intended by you or not.
Now, having anxiety disorder may have caused this whole avalanche to be not under your control and people nowadays have a higher degree of understanding for this.
A genuine apology can be accepted when it's clear that you have understood the problem; not only of complaining to the department, but in fact, of creating pressure on the prof to further your agendas.
By immediately connecting your apology with the LOR request, you nullify the effect of the apology: you signal that you still pursue single-mindedly your interests and the apology appears just to be wallpapering over this. I quite understand that this may not be the case, or a consequence of your anxiety; but this is how it comes across. This is a "Yes, but" apology, in the sense that you "get done with" the apology, put it behind you and continue with business-as-usual. Such an apology fails to convince that things will not continue as in the past and a situation like that will not repeat.
After an apology, you need to give it a lot of time to heal. As with a damaged limb, it takes time before you can use it again, if at all.
[Note that I have only talked about the human factor and not at all about the legal ramifications of the matter which creates considerable additional potential complexities.]
What to do
I think in the present case, you lost the lead and I do not see much point to pursue it further. I am not sure in the particular situation whether you had any serious lead in the first place, as your favourite prof clearly did not want to work with you. You have tried to convince them for a bit, but overpersistence is impressive only in movies. In real life, it creates the opposite effect, especially in our times where people have far more opportunities than time to pursue them. Why should they embark on a collaboration that they can expect a lot of difficulties and pressures from?
In sum:

Important for you is to understand the other person.
They have an agenda, too, and you need to respect it.
Do not turn your anxiety into theirs.
Do not turn your problems/agendas into theirs.
An apology is message that you accept that you did wrong, not a ticket for a second round. Maybe there will be one at some point, maybe not.

Reduce the frequency drastically by which you ask people to do stuff for you (You have not only pressured your prof, but also the department with your repeated requests - "continuously trying" - to take the grievance down). Only send every (4th, 5th, 6th, depends on frequency) mail you want to send. Note that your department has already put you on arms length with the cease and desist letter - you need to convince them that you will not proceed with your current strategy; the only way to do so is by "doing less", especially "pressuring less", not "more". Do not try to inundate them with explanations how you understood the problem now.
Accept that you will have to select a different person to work with if you do not wish (or are unable to) to change departments for a fresh start.
And, apart from above short-term advice, of course, as you probably will already do so, getting professional support to help you overcome anxiety will be the medium/long-term strategy to prepare you to avoid such situations in the future. Good luck!

I have downvoted this because of the what to do section; those rules and recommendations are not something someone with an anxiety disorder is likely to be able to follow and it doesn't address the real issues, it just if anything helps other people around him/her. I humbly submit my answer which leaves recommendations up to a professional therapist is the wisest choice here especially as posting this question is likely another behaviour to fuel his/her anxiety.

@JNS even if OP suffers from a condition that makes it impossible to follow these recommendations, they are still useful in that they show what the appropriate behavior would be. In this way they may help OP to understand that their actual behavior is somewhat irrational and that they should consider counseling or therapy.

While I cannot relate to your story in the academia setting, it is something I can in my personal life, which for myself I attribute to behaviours like rumination, which in turn all stem from emotional dysregulation.
As others have stressed, since every subsequent engagement with the professor has led to more stress and anxiety for you, that isn't the solution going forward, for you or the professor.
I would use this situation now as a valuable opportunity to practice the skill of letting go of a conflict, even if it was not intended to become one on your part, and you would like to make some sort of amends.
I don't think the academia SE will ultimately be helpful because with an anxiety disorder, it isn't defeated by logic or reasoning, the real work is in engaging with your emotions. In fact, I would go as far as to say that posting this question is probably another way for you to ruminate over the issue, feeding the anxiety.
That being said, if you have a therapist, now would be the time for a session, and if not I recommend you find one, because they're best equipped to help you process this and equip you with skills to manage the anxiety.