text:
Why do Australian universities have higher employability than that of British in QS Graduate Employability Ranking 2019?
QS Graduate Employability Rankings 2019

Why do Australian universities have higher employability (rank) than that of British ones in QS Graduate Employability Ranking?

Guess:  Australia has a really low unemployment rate?

Speaking overly broadly, engineering graduates are more likely to be employed, and more likely to be paid well, than humanities graduates. Some universities have higher percentages of graduates in the humanities, and this effects their rankings in such ratings. More technically oriented universities will, as a rule, produce more employable graduates than less technically oriented universities, provided employability is measured by likelihood of employment and starting salary.

Know what's being ranked. Read the methodology. The QS graduate employability ranking uses:
Employer/Student Connections (10%). How many employers go to campus for presentations etc?
Alumni outcomes (25%). They take a list of the most influential people and sort them by the institutions they graduated from.
Employer ranking (30%). It's sourced from a survey sent by QS to employers asking them where their best employees graduate from.
Partnerships with Employers per Faculty (25%). They find out which institutions are collaborating with employers to do research.
Graduate employment rate (10%). How many graduates are employed after one year?
Then go to the employability rankings again and sort by indicator. We're comparing the University of Melbourne and the University of Sydney to the Cambridge University and Oxford University (the two highest-rated British universities).

Sydney's scores are: 99.3 / 93.3 / 94.4 / 98.4 / 97.9
Melbourne's scores are: 78.5 / 92.6 / 97.9 / 95.4 / 98.1
Cambridge's scores are: 89.6 / 99.9 / 100 / 88.9 / 75
Oxford's scores are: 81 / 100 / 100 / 89.6 / 69.5

Note that these numbers are very likely expressed as a fraction of the top performer. In other words 69.5 employment rate doesn't mean that 30.5% of Oxford's graduates are still looking for a job after a year; 94.4 employer ranking doesn't mean that 94.4% of all employers think Sydney's graduates are good.
The British universities handily lead in the alumni outcomes & employer ranking categories, and do (relatively) poorly in the partnerships with employers per faculty & graduate employment rate categories, while the employer/student connections category is more mixed.
Draw your own conclusions. Some factors to think about:

Taken at face value, this implies that employers value Cambridge & Oxford degrees very highly, but they still find it hard to get a job (an evident contradiction).
Further, if they actually do get a job, they are more likely go on to do really well (of course, this only applies to the very peak of the distribution).
Do you care about which institutions are collaborating with employers to do research? This will vary by student. Presumably if you're looking to do research in industry, this will be very important to you, while if you don't care about that then it doesn't matter.
Are you seeking a local job? If so, then campus presentations are a great opportunity to network. If you're not looking to get a job in the city/country then they probably aren't really relevant to you.
The UK recently went through and is still going through some political upheaval. That could've had an impact on its university graduates getting a job, especially if they're international students.

According to this methodology page they adjust the graduate employment rate relative to the average in the country, so it seems to be a measure of how much the university improves employability, rather than a "raw" employability score. They also confirm that this factor can be affected by the country's economy.

Based on @Anyon's observation, one might reasonably say that this value should not be compared between universities in different countries.

I don’t know how is that computed, but ALL the countries and regions where those universities are based have practically zero unenployment rate. Plus without knowing the algorithm I am ready to bet that the difference in score between first and 10th are so small that you would expect next year many institutions to change position in the list, possibly vanishing the point of your question.

Why do Australian universities have higher employability than that of British ones?

The cited QS Graduate Employability Rankings 2019 don't prove that graduates from Australian universities have higher employability than graduates from British ones. Allure's answer elaborates upon this (I thought it was straightforward and didn't mention any details).

Without further elaboration on why do you think the ranking does not prove the OP's claim, this answer is not useful.

-1 Not a very useful answer.

I thought it was obvious that the rankings didn't offer proof, so I didn't explain why. Another answer has now offered such an explanation.


text:
Should I mention while applying to another PHD program that I have resigned from another one
As you may know my story, I have been forced to leave after first year of PhD, now I am applying to positions and I have been rejected before which I think because I told them what happened to me.
I would like to know what I can do and how I can add to my CV as it seems a problem.

The wording is a little unclear, but you seem to mainly be asking if you have to indicate that you were at a PhD program before. There are a variety of similar questions on this site. In general, at the least you need to not lie. Further, you likely will need to, at some point, be able to state (in a positive way) why you would like to be elsewhere.

Reading through some of the previous posts the OP has posted in regards to leaving a PhD program, it seems that the main issue is that the assigned advisor was perhaps combative and difficult to work with. I will proceed with this being the assumed reason for leaving the previous PhD program.
First of all, it would be overall wise to briefly mention in an application that you were a former PhD student elsewhere. Omitting any mention of having been in a previous program will likely come back to haunt you. Thus, the question is not so much if you should disclose having been in a previous program, but how you disclose it.
Stick to the facts, not ad hominem arguments or accusations. Universities will usually avoid applicants who bad mouth their previous program/advisor. Even if your previous program caused major issues for you personally, you never know what buddies your former program may have at other schools.
I would simply indicate which classes you took, the grades you received, the research you performed. If you are able to attach indications of strong and positive work during your first year as a PhD student, this can certainly bolster your application. Obtaining a letter of recommendation from someone in your former PhD program could also be a strengthening point of your application.
All of this being said, you will need to be prepared to answer the question as to why you left your previous program. My advice in that regard is to pivot this question into answering why you want to join the program you are applying to. Be ready to be very specific. Mention specific professors and what you like about their work (which means you need to actually know about their work). Insofar as is possible, pivot everything to speaking of future positive work, not previous negative experiences and shortcomings.

I am trying to be honest, however while I trust my former PI that he would write a letter for me as he knows I worked hard and getting grants! I found that he did badmouthing and did his best to prevent the offer I had which I know letter. This is quite awful, I decided to present my work as I am really passionate about it, there was one professor interested and know my situation, but doesnot have funding, my ex-PI was in the same conference and tried in many way to prevent me from presenting my work and asked me to put his name although he doubted my worked and asked me to leave.

It is not quite easy and I have never been in that situation before, I will try to do what I can.

@Monika I think that one of the best things you can do is let your work "speak for itself." Find programs that have professors that do work that is on similar topics as yours. Trust them to evaluate your work for what it is. It does seem that your former PI did indeed mishandle your situation. Find something positive now that you can pivot to.

Thanks so much for encouraging me! I am really trying to do my best! However, in the other side, I feel pity because one year have been wasted, although I liked my work besides that I have OCD and I think bipolar disorder which makes effort on me, BTW almost people met me like my personality, but I think my mind has been severely affected by that experience. Thanks again for your valuable advices.

@Monika Overcoming a challenge like the one you had at your previous program can be tough. Look for the positives and don't be afraid to ask for help when you need it. Best of luck.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
If you have a few meetings with a professor to discuss a paper, but they do not do any actual writing, is this sufficient to justify authorship?
Earlier this year I started writing my first article with a former professor of mine. The article is almost done, but until now he hasn't written a single sentence or provided any data. It has been all my work.  We have met about 10 times where each meeting lasted about 90 minutes to discuss the progress of the article, and I have to recognize that during these meetings his advice shaped some of my ideas , especially regarding the research question. I know he has spent his time in this work, but I don't think that qualifies as authorship on the article, and I'm not sure what to do about this. I appreciate any advice you can give me on how to act on this issue.
So in general:
If a professor meets with you a few times to assist you in writing a paper but does not do any actual writing, is this sufficient to justify him being an author?

What did he say when you asked him. He knows more about authorship than you.

You can check what's the common practice among your peers. In my experience what you describe is fairly common in my field. If you feel that's not a fair collaboration, just evade this person next time.

Your specific field can influence what is typical for authorship.

just to clarify: 10 * 90 minute meetings or 10 * 9 minute meetings?

@Jeromy: It couldn't hurt to be sure, but 9 minutes seems like an unlikely duration to hold to for 10 consecutive meetings!

@PeteL.Clark agree. I edited to make unambiguous. If it's wrong, alvaro can edit the other way.

Assuming it is 10*90: that's 15 hours.  In my experience, that's quite a lot of time for a faculty member to spend on a research project with a student.  "I have to recognize that during these meetings his advice shaped some of my ideas, especially regarding the research question."  To me, this seems to somewhat underplay the help you must have gotten in order to schedule so many 90 minute meetings.  Obviously what was said matters much more than how much time was spent, but I think a coauthorship claim deserves some consideration.

The content of those meetings is largely going to be the answer to your question, and we can't really know the content of those meetings. There's a case to be made that those discussions helped form things, and he doesn't sound otherwise problematic, so I think it's likely worth just making him an author and moving on.

Indeed. In 10 90-minute meetings likely a lot got discussed that ended up in the paper. Not to mention whatever else happened before work on the paper ever started. At worst the professor will decline to be an author.

Actually, you should ask him what are his expectations and follow his advice. Certainly he has contributed, probably substantially, to the work. The writing isn't everything. The ideas that it embodies are.
If he wants to be your co-author, do that. You didn't say anything in your question about his expectations. But also, think of the future. If his continued guidance is helpful to you then you should be happy to co-author papers with him. But if you can carry on alone, you can do that too.

If he is generous and mentoring he'll say "it's yours" when you ask. In which case thank him with a generous footnote.

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


text:
How common is it for law schools to start by "smashing" the way a student currently thinks entering school?
Scope: United States (and/or other Common Law Practicing Countries)
I spoke to a lawyer recently and she told me when students start in law school, the way they "currently think" is significantly berated, "put down", set aside, etc.  The old TV series Paper Chase highlights this kind of situation.  As far as I know, IF this is true, this is fairly unique to law, as a graduate type of degree.
So I'm wondering for those that are lawyers, or know first hand, e.g. via a loved one attending law school, how much is a person's initial or current way of thinking, "smashed", put down, or berated in law school? And if so, how long did this last?  1 week?  The whole 1st year?  Or longer ... 2 years?
And I'm going to ask too, since I haven't found this discussed much on the web:  is it seen as "you don't got the stuff", if you speak up about being berated, and so people don't tend to talk about this (being berated)?
--------------------- WHY I ASK THIS QUESTION --------------
Having a recent brutal ongoing experience with the criminal justice system (false  evidence put against me), I have had the (unfortunate) need to deeply examine it, on basic principle.  And I find, it is enormously off on basic principle, however the goal of this question is not to discuss that, but to understand how this is possible.  So, let's ask something basic:
If Peter hurts Paul, and I ask/seek anything OTHER from Peter than that he makes amends to Paul, am i then asking him to become my victim?
I find this is fully true, and I find the U.S. justice system is not "for the people" in terms of primarily making amends or to make whole the one that is hurt.  So Peter might very reasonably expect that I make demands that he make Paul whole, but he will rightly vehemently object, if I try to make him my victim.  "Two wrongs don't make a right."  Wholeness or amends, is the answer.  As children we were taught, if we harm another child, we have to make it up to them. The "justice" system is not at all about learning the whole story, and generally not about making amends, bringing wholeness.  Instead it (criminal in particular) looks to see if it can take some narrow slice of the actual event, prove guilt, and then make "you" it's victim.

I would suggest cutting the second half of the question (below "why I ask this question") because it doesn't make much sense and doesn't seem on topic now that the question has been moved here from law.SE.

This is an old stereotype of law schools, as essentially making students "unlearn" ethics and morality, replacing it with an amoral devotion to winning the case or whatever. It may be kind of interesting to know how true it is.

I wouldn't say 'berated', but education in many other fields also requires a student to learn how to think differently. In fact, I'd argue that's a large portion of what education is about.

This is yet another statement disguised as a question meant to push some alt-reality view and/or attempt to settle some score against foes real or imaginary.

I haven't been to law school, but it sounds like this might be a description of the Socratic method.  Searching Google for "Socratic method law school" shows lots of articles asserting that this was traditionally a common method of instruction in law schools, throughout the course of study, though it has become less common in the past couple of decades.
In principle, the idea is that students are asked challenging questions, to force them to carefully examine their thinking and help them find errors.  The purpose of the method isn't to "smash" the students ideas or to "berate" them, though I wouldn't be surprised if this line is sometimes crossed in practice.  It's also quite likely that students would sometimes feel berated by such questioning, even if that is not the original intent.  Those are certainly valid concerns.

This is about right. One time I was "on call" - this particular professor's way of saying the above-mentioned Socratic questioning was aimed directly at me - for more than 45 minutes of an hour-and-twenty minute class. It was rough. There was one professor who honestly delighted in humiliating students who have a wrong answer. Generally, though, those are outlier cases that everyone, of course, remembers more vividly for obvious reasons. Majority of profs take volunteers to answer questions and engage in some limited cold-calling.


text:
Reviewers decision: Summary rejects typically do not receive technical feedback
I would like to know what does this imply "Summary rejects typically do not receive technical feedback". Is that mean that work has a flaw?

"Summary" here is used in the sense of "performed speedily and without formal ceremony" (see Wiktionary, adjective definition 2).
They have concluded that the paper is clearly not suitable for publication in this journal / conference, and so they are rejecting it without a full review.  In such a case you will not receive detailed technical feedback about the work.
Some possible reasons:

The work is on a topic not covered by the conference
The importance or interest of the result is much less than what the conference normally expects
The work has major obvious technical flaws
The paper is extremely poorly written or incomprehensible
Your paper doesn't conform to the conference's submission requirements  (e.g. formatting, page count, double-blinding)

It would be wise to have a colleague in your field look at the paper before trying to resubmit somewhere else.

I dont think so it has a technical flaw, they have mentioned that the number of pages is extra than the allowed. It is a reputed conference, and I wished to publish, however I did that on my own without any help.

Okay, then that could be the reason.  They simply rejected it for having too many pages. Probably nobody ever read the contents at all, so you cannot expect to get any technical feedback.

Actually, I am quite anxious and having mixed feelings the part of this work has been accepted at workshops where it had been held at reputed conferences. Now the question is: should I submit to another conference or give up, as the reviewer said there are many reasons and one of them number of the pages, but I have the feeling that they didnot read the paper. Honestly, I become to feel disappointed because I dont have full paper at reputed conference and journal, and I dont know whether this could be a red flag not to continue in research.

Seems like the main thing you should learn from this is to follow the directions

@Monika: As explained above, your paper wasn't read because it did not follow the prescribed page limit. So the rejection doesn't imply that anyone thought your research is bad. You shouldn't feel discouraged, but you should learn to follow the guidelines such as page limits.

@Monika: They didn't give you feedback, and so you simply can't tell from this rejection whether the work has potential for publication or not.  I do not see any reason to give up based on this alone.  If it's been accepted at previous workshops, that seems like good reason to think that it has promise.  If you want feedback (and it's probably a good idea), you will have to show it to someone else.  You're more likely to get timely and thorough feedback from someone you know, rather than depending on anonymous peer review.

@Monika: So to summarize: (1) Don't give up.  (2) Seek feedback from someone you know, who knows the field.  (3) Think carefully about the feedback you get from them, and any other feedback you may have received.  (4) Revise the paper accordingly.  (5) Submit somewhere else.


text:
First conference: choosing which session to apply to talk at
Context: I'm an early PhD student (physics) applying for a talk at a conference (APS).  I have never been to a conference before. My topic does not fit neatly into any of the session titles. There are a few focus sessions and a few standard sessions that are more specific, and only borderline relevant (if at all, some do not have detailed descriptions, so I could be misjudging), and one standard session which is very broad and definitely includes my topic in its scope. For my abstract submission, I need to choose one of the sessions to submit to.
My goals:

Have my abstract selected. I want to have the practice of giving a talk at a large conference.
Get feedback/questions on my work. Ideally this would be from someone who knows about my topic, is familiar with the literature etc. However, I would also welcome feedback on my general theoretical framework, which is general enough that a large fraction of theorists in the field will be able to understand after a decent introduction to the particular system that my work looks at.

Questions:

How do I pick a session which maximizes the chance of achieving Goal 2. while minimizing the damage to Goal 1.? I.e. if my talk falls outside of the scope of the session I applied for (but not the conference), will it increase my chance of being rejected? Or will my submission just be altered by conference organizers and moved to a different session?
Am I more likely to be accepted at a standard session than focus session?
Does APS allow for indication of interest in more than one session?

Is this for the APS March meeting?

@Anyon, yes it is

Which sessions has your advisor or others from your group presented at in previous years? What does your advisor suggest?

@TheHagen Your advisor knows your work better than anyone here; if they don't know then probably none of us do either.

If sessions with similar names have been run before, check the abstract books to see what sort of talks actually occur in them.

The APS March meeting is indeed a large conference, with around 50-60 sessions running concurrently. This scale means that they find a time slot (10 minutes + 2 minutes for questions) for most (close to all, it seems) submitted abstracts. If your work is at least of reasonable quality, you'll likely get that practice in. (Even if it is of dubious quality there is a chance. Google APS March meeting crackpot session if you want some entertainment.)
This scale also has the downside that it might be hard to get a lot of quality feedback on your talk - the right people might be elsewhere, and two minutes for audience feedback is not a lot. If you have specific questions, it's worth identifying experts ahead of time, and either try to schedule a meeting with them or just strike up a conversation in the corridors.

How do I pick a session which maximizes the chance of achieving Goal 2. while minimizing the damage to Goal 1.? I.e. if my talk falls outside of the scope of the session I applied for (but not the conference), will it increase my chance of being rejected? Or will my submission just be altered by conference organizers and moved to a different session?

You should just pick the category that's the best and most specific fit. Ask your advisor or colleagues for advice on which one that might be. Sometimes the descriptions are a little vague, and you can get a better idea by looking up the organizers' research interests.
If there are several reasonable fits, I'd tend to pick a focus session over a standard one, because it has a higher possibility of a) attracting people working on similar things, and b) having other talks I'd be interested in. However, keep in mind that a) is far from guaranteed, and there is a high variance that's out of your control. For example, if there is a relevant invited session at the same time, it will likely be more popular. (Protip: these tend to be the best sessions, along with ones specific to your interests.)
I have no numbers, but I doubt that there is a big effect on your acceptance chances overall for not guessing what the ideal session is. Also note that the list you see is one of sorting categories, not a final list of sessions. The organizers certainly can move your talk to another session - maybe even one not announced yet - as well as split and combine sessions. Maybe have a look at last year's program to see what it tends to be like.

Am I more likely to be accepted at a standard session than focus session?

To be clear, I don't think it matters for getting accepted to the conference in the first place. Whether your talk is scheduled in a focus or standard session is going to depend on your topic.

Does APS allow for indication of interest in more than one session?

I don't quite remember, but I don't think so. In any case, you'll find out yourself when you submit your abstract. (Maybe I'll update the answer next week after submitting mine.)

Thank you! This is exactly what I was looking for.


text:
What does it actually mean by the sentence "tuition is paid by the supervisor"?
What does it actually mean by the sentence "tuition is paid for by the supervisor" ?
Why would the supervisor pay the tuition fee for a PhD student?

Who do you think should pay it otherwise? Or are you asking why there is a tuition fee in the first place?

The dupervisor will be happy if you pay, as they could use that funding for something / someone else...

I looked and, surprisingly, there is not a good current question/answer explaining the main ways that PhD students and their tuition are handled by universities...

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/98423/what-is-a-tuition-waiver-in-the-us

@Dawn Another related question is Why are tuition fees for PhD students so high in the USA, despite not taking any class?.

Different schools, departments and supervisors approach tuition payment differently. As far as I'm aware, most universities demand that tuition get paid somehow. Some universities might not collect tuition, but given what you've posted, I surmise that your university does. Where the tuition funds come from is how it will vary.
I've seen these different approaches:

The department / school pays tuition automatically for all of its admitted students. This is rare, but it does happen sometimes. It guarantees that the student won't have to pay tuition and can focus on research that the supervisor and student decide on, without having to pursue other external funding sources for the tuition. In this case it generally wouldn't matter who your supervisor is.
The department / school pays tuition pays tuition only for the students that hold a job within the department (e.g., teacher assistant, research assistant, researcher, lecturer, etc.).
The department does not offer to pay tuition, but the supervisor already has guaranteed funding (e.g., through external grants or donations), so the supervisor has guaranteed to pay your tuition with that money. In this case, whether or not your supervisor pays your tuition depends on which supervisor you have.
Neither the department nor the supervisor offer to pay your tuition. You are expected to pay for it yourself (e.g., via student loans) or apply for external funding (e.g., grants and scholarships) yourself to be able to pay for tuition.

The sentence "tuition is paid for by the supervisor" makes me think that it is up to the supervisor's discretion whether or not they will pay your tuition (e.g., make it contingent upon whether you are making progress and / or pursuing a topic that the supervisor approves of).
In addition to tuition payments, you should also consider where your income / stipend will come from. Sometimes your stipend comes from similar money buckets like those listed above for tuition.

Regarding your "all universities": Note that there are quite a few countries where PhD "students" are considered employees, and where there isn't really a sense of tuition for them. (Obviously, there are costs involved that need to be covered somehow, but that's no different from a private company hiring someone.)

Indeed. Clarified answer.

Tuition is supposed to cover various costs associated with having the student at the school, such as building maintenance, IT support, instructor compensation for classes the student takes, campus security and so on.
In some disciplines, many PhD students are in a situation where they would refuse to attend school if they had to pay tuition for it, so financial support schemes are set up where the PhD student's tuition is covered by someone else. This way the program gets to attract quality PhD students. A lot of the time the department or the PI will have a fund, grant or endowment which is used to pay for grad student tuition. From the grad student's perspective, it looks like no money is changing hands because they are not charged anything, but actually money is moving from an account controlled by the department/PI to an account controlled by the university administration.
Probably that is the meaning of the remark you quote. It doesn't mean the professor literally pulls out his wallet and slaps down a pack of $100 bills. It means that the professor will or has arranged some sort of funding so that the student doesn't have to cover her own tuition.
I wish you best of luck in your graduate career, I had been hearing about the financial troubles of Yahoo Inc. for some time and it is exciting to see you resolve this difficulty by exploring opportunities in research and scholarship.


text:
How to deal with lots of information as a Computer Science student?
As a Computer Science student, I have to deal with a lot of new information every day. While learning new concepts, we also have to learn multiple programming languages at the same time, learning mathematics and a lot of other stuff. I am a very committed student, and i invest almost all my time into university, so my Grades are really good.
The problem that i encounter all the time, is that i am overloaded with information, that i can't process as i would like to.
Five days a week, for about 8 hours a day, we get presented a lot of material. At my university, it is common practice to present about 50 to 100 slides per class each week. So at the end of each week, 300 or often more new slide are given to us students.
Me, as a writing and communicative type of learner, I try to summarize all the content, that we study every week.
But with the semester going on, the stack of unprocessed slide (and taken notes) grows bigger and bigger. And it really freaks me out. (And from experience I know, that at the end of the semester, the pile of notes is put into a folder and never looked at again...)
I feel more stressed each week, i can't really focus on all the assignments, that are also given to us every week, because i know, i have to summarize all the information for the upcoming exams at the end of the semester. I often have the feeling, that, if i don't sum up the content and make a lots of notes, i will forget the things i´ve learned in class.
I have tried a lot of things, to minimize the efford of summarizing: I tried using Tools like Evernote or OneNote, creating Documents for each topic, I even created my own InDesign-Summaries (which looked admittedly really nice ;D). But at the end of the day, the problem seems not to be the way, i summarize information, but the way i process and consume the information.
For programming, as a computer science student you need not that much knowledge of the languages, you can just google it. But for the rest of it, there's a lot of stuff to know.
Question:  What could I do to reduce stress from my studies and become a more effective learner?

Actually, there is nothing special about CS here. Students of other fields also have a lot of things thrown at them constantly and it is an effort to sort it out. That doesn't deny or lessen your problem, of course.

Are you really in lectures 5 days a week, 8 hours each day? I studied engineering and we had the highest contact ratio of any course : 24 hrs per week, Law or marketing had 8 hours per week...

@SolarMike You are probably right, some days we have 11 hours of classes and on other days we have maybe 4 to 5. I also included the time, i stay at university for preparation, learning and breaks. I just counted all my classes and we have about 25 to 30 hours classes in total.

It is hard to diagnose a problem at a distance and I'm not sure I have a good sense of the core issues, but one thing seems to stand out in your post. I wonder if you are trying to treat every fact and bullet point as of equal weight, value, and importance. That normally isn't true, even in technical subjects like CS. A good lecturer will come to class with a few (about 3) important points that need to be made. Everything else will support those. You want to walk away from the class knowing what those are.
Of course, some professors will walk in with a big powerpoint deck and just run through the slides as if they are all important. Those lectures may sound good, but a more focused approach would be better for them and for you. You can't affect that, of course. But if it is possible for you to do it, try to get the professor to distribute those slides prior to class. My strong advice is to print them out on paper, maybe 2-up or 4-up, and take notes directly on the printed slides. No more than a few words per slide. Don't try to capture every word.
I also wonder what you mean by "summarizing" your notes. Some people would, again, mean trying to capture every thought. Capturing them by typing them isn't actually very effective in getting it into your brain, as opposed to your computer. What you want is to distill the notes into the few key ideas that make the rest of it easier to grasp.
However, don't neglect to do the assigned exercises. That is where real learning occurs. Focus especially on the assignments.

If your university/professor permits, it might be worth forming a study group with some (three or four) of the other students. Get together a few times a week and exchange ideas about what is important and also ideas about how to learn the stuff.

Upvote for the exercises!

When i summarize the content, i try to gather the important information of each slide and write them down for later reading. But this leads, like you already guessed, often to me, copying the same content in different sentences and a different language. Because we have that many slides/information (which are btw. all distributed online at the beginning of the semester), it's often hard to tell, what information is really worth remembering. I almost always do understand the key ideas, while other students have sometimes problems with. The additional information is what gives me headaches.

There are universities that disallow forming a study group?

@Tobias I upvoted this answer for print them out on paper, maybe 2-up or 4-up, and take notes directly on the printed slides because it's more efficient than using computers. It's slow to type some CS/Math stuff than other fields like humanities (in plain English texts).

Good for you for trying to analyze and improve your process. In some sense, in that way, you are already thinking like a Computer Scientist.
All evidence points to the fact that your "summarise all the content" strategy is simply not working. Perhaps this was a strategy that you were taught in high school (U.S. age 15-18), and worked for you previously. I'm sure this was of benefit, and allowed you to digest and think about the material in your own way. But now this is clearly (a) taking more time than you can budget for it, and (b) making you extremely unhappy about falling behind on your accustomed process.
Consider this: The lecture slides presented by your professors are already significantly summarized/cut-down versions of a textbook or other written presentation of the material. So one can argue that maybe it's not really worth having a summary-of-summary on hand. Other options could be: (a) Read the slides closely enough that you simply understand what they are saying on the first pass. (b) Focus during the lecture closely enough, and ask any questions, such that you walk away mostly knowing what was covered. (c) Read the associated textbook for the desired second-perspective, ideally before the lecture.
Two personal anecdotes:

Late in my own college career, I finally discovered that I was personally better off not taking notes during a lecture, and simply watching/listening with full focus, and relying on the book to fill in any details later. Nowadays you have the lecture slides as an added middle-ground resource that we didn't have ~30 years ago.
As a lecturer, I was told to use a certain process for grading homework that, guess what, I constantly fell behind on, felt anxious and guilty about, built up during the semester, etc. It was critical for me to redesign the homework process in a way that was tractable and productive. Find a study process that makes you feel joy, excitement, and curiosity about starting it. (Or conversely: Take whatever makes you excited and curious and energized and build your study process around that.)

I find it usually easy to get, what the class/slide are saying. With that said, I totally aggree with you, focussing on the class. I used to take a lot more (handwritten) notes in the previous semesters. The first thing that i noticed, was that i was sacrificing my attention to class for taking notes. What I think won't work for me, is reading the related textbook to the slides, since they often are 1000 pages or more to read. Although I really like to read related and unrelated articles online and CS-books.

I'll take a broad swing, there is nothing CS-specific in my answer. In fact, my own experiences are from mathematics, I know of people who had similar experiences with medicine.
I'll go from a generic view to more personal specifics.
Epiphany
You learn, learn, and learn, keep on collecting information. It seems unneeded, forced, and definitive too much. Then, at some moment, you have a satori.
You suddenly release that all those loose factoids fit together, there is a system behind them. This system makes it easier to understand and "make fit" further factoids and even whole methodic approaches and design patterns in the later studies. You suddenly find out, you can learn faster and gasp the material with more speed.
Actually, in the later life (if you keep on doing this), your learning speed increases further, the famous "ability to gasp complex concepts" that many job adverts want is just miraculously there, etc. Mostly it's not connected with such a cathartic "now I know how the world works" moment, it's the first breakthrough that is so hard. But it's always a nice feeling when it finally happens.
What to do
Keep on. Stay at ball. Continue learning.
You are not the first, and not the last, who has difficulties in understanding "why do we keep learning all this". As far as I know, little can be done to help you understanding the "why", because it actually makes perfectly sense to the lecturers. It just needs to do a "click" in your head. It can take years. No, really.
So, what immensely helps, is to get another perspective. Read a yet another book, possibly: one being touted as a "different view on things". Talk with your fellow students. And please, please, listen to professors and tutors. In many cases the spoken, informal description of things facilitates much better understanding than a fully correct formal description, typically found in books.
Learning types
Aside from "not understanding why are we doing this" you seem to have a somewhat related problem. You are not getting the information into your head fast enough.
It is related to the "epiphany" thing above. When you finally have a "system" behind the facts and methods you are learning, it is much easier to store more (conforming) facts in your head.
But the minutely problems with learning might suggest that you use different "learning type" approaches than you are. Two things from my personal experience, but you might be radically different in this regard.

Focus on listening to the lecturer and understanding. Too many students are preoccupied taking notes. (I have a feeling, it is even worse digitally. Pen and paper, anyone?)
You might be able to find the material in its formal form online, in a book, or where not later. You might not be able to find an understandable informal explanation of the issue the lecturer gave you orally, when you were to busy coping the formal thing down.
I would say that your goal in a lecture is not obtaining enough learnable material for later revision, as funny as it may sound. Yes, you'd need to obtain it later. But your (minor) goal is to find out, how to obtain it. Your major goal in a lectures is to obtain understanding. "Listen to the music, not to the song."
Taking handwritten notes works best for me. You might be different. I can remember much better the things I have written down. When revising for exams I was writing notes of my actual course notes with book knowledge thrown in. Even worse, for final revision I had notes of the notes! It helped.
It might be hard to listen to the professor and to make notes simultaneously, especially in early semesters. It is a learnable skill, however. You'd become better with time. My personal suggestion is to prioritise listening and understanding to making notes. You will always be able to pull that proof, that exact statement of a theorem, that corner case, and that exact taxonomy from a book or online lecture material. Conjuring understanding is harder.

You seem to be on a right way. Experiment more and find out what works better.
An old (and may be not-so-appropriate nowadays), but quite true statement is that freshmen rather learn how to learn than learn something useful yet. It's in the later semesters when the actual knowledge is transferred. You'd still have trouble both ingesting it, if you are not fast enough, and understanding it, if you missed the foundations from the freshmen years. So, take this saying with a grain of salt.

I do take handwritten notes in class, that i later-on try! to summarize on my computer. You won't believe it, but all my classmates take handwritten notes or no notes at all, except one guy. But my own notes + the slides provided + any additional information are so much information, that i can't really process. At the end of the last semester, I had about 300 to 400 handwritten Din-A-4 notes, that i have never touched again since I wrote them. I really like learning new things, but I feel like i will forget all of it over time again.

@Tobias My suggestion: don't type them. What you need to do is to review those hand-writing notes to see if anything wrong (You might misunderstand the lecturer's words). Don't waste your time re-typing them.

@Tobias Definitely don't waste your time re-typing them. I think I also tried that for one semester and it was, I agree, a total waste. (If the issue is storage/archiving then just scan your handwritten notes.)

@scaaahu, Daniel R. Collins My notes often are really chaotic, and i really can't figure out what they were about a few weeks later.

@Tobias: Well, I did a full-fledged typed-up script of a base lecture basing on my (and other's) notes. But if not a good friend of mine, whose idea it was and who, frankly, did most of the work, an overhelming majority of it, actually. Well, if not him, I wouldn't make it then, it was just too much load for that time. I still learned TeX, that's an upside though. What should this tell you? Well, cooperating with fellow students might help!

I would like to give a slightly different perspective. You already say that your grades are really good and that you have no problems with the understanding, but you seem to invest too much time to try to remember all details. You definitely have to think about your goals in university!
Do you want to become a walking knowledge base? Then continue with your approach. Do you want to have the best possible grades? In my experience, the step from the second best to the best grade takes the most time to study because it requires you to answer all the most detailed questions (something that might be mentioned briefly on a single slide). But usually remembering all details is not necessary for achieving good grades on average, because many questions are more about basic concepts, the application of an algorithm or sometimes even slightly modified exercise questions. And in the end, a degree with some worse grades is better than no degree because you abort university due to burn-out and depression. I have a friend who went the second way after having only top grades...
You want to be a good computer scientist? Then there are other skills that are more important than knowing details from lectures. And you learn those by doing an interesting and fun side project. Maybe you program a game or get a Raspberry Pi to build some cool stuff. Mentioning this later in an interview can even give you an advantage over someone with a better grade in discrete math IV, unless you want to do a PhD in discrete math.


text:
Obtaining academic positions after doing research in logic
Suppose one is starting their math PhD in the US and is considering doing research in logic. Let's roughly split "logic" into "pure logic" and "applied logic".
How hard will it be for them to get academic positions to a math PhD with specialization in logic (given that they don't come from a top logic department, like Berkeley, or even Wisconsin; but from a group I university). Would it be easier if they have a PhD in pure or applied logic? In the latter case, how possible is it to work in two areas? (E.g. if one does applied logic related to computer science/natural language, is it possible to eventually become a professor in both math and computer science/linguistics?)
(I understand that many answers will say that it depends on the research that the PhD did/adviser/connections, etc., but let's just assume that the research if fine (not exceptional), the adviser is a more or less known logician. I just wanted to estimate how hard it is to get academic jobs for a logic person compared to pure mathematicians, as well as if it's possible to work in two areas if one specializes in applied logic.)

The perception, at least within logic, is that finding research positions in logic is even harder than in most specialities in mathematics - most research hiring is restricted to a specialty, and there are rarely new positions created in mathematical logic.
I'm not sure how true that perception is.  As far as I can tell, every field perceives hiring as very tight.  There are more qualified people than available jobs in all fields of math; there are fewer positions in logic than, say, algebra, but there are also fewer new PhD's in logic, and I don't know of any data on how the actual ratios compare.  But it's certainly hard to get an academic position in logic, and every year very good researchers decide to give up pursuing academic positions.
My impression is that logicians do slightly better than the average mathematician at getting positions at schools that are less research oriented - schools that are hiring based mostly on teaching ability, but want their professors to also be doing some research.  (Partially, I think, because those schools often want people who can teach a variety of undergrad classes, and many logicians these days are trained to be able to do that.)  But that obviously depends on being a very good teacher.
Regarding applied logic, it's very rare these days for someone with a math PhD to get hired to an interdisciplinary position, at least in the US.  Someone who's already established can sometimes can an honorary position in another department, but they still have to be hired (and eventually tenured) by their home department.  I think that's different in Europe, where there's a lot more mathematical logic going on in CS departments.

Having any narrow specialty narrows the jobs you will be considered for. Many job offers specify a sub field. Often it is to find someone to fit into an existing research group. Given that logic is pretty narrow that will narrow your possibilities. The same would be the case if you specialized in classical real analysis.
But a lot of advertisements leave the field open. But most of your teaching would likely be more general than your specialty. If you are well prepared generally, to teach mathematics, then you will probably be fine. But don't expect to find too many job offers that specify logic, whether pure or applied.
In the best case you will get to teach a logic course or two and find a few students to work with.
But if you are also generally well educated (you mention linguistics), then you may fit well into any program that stresses interdisciplinary work.
Once you have a degree and a position from which to work, the direction of your career is pretty much up to you.

I don't have any statistics, but I know a fair number of logicians, and my sense is that logicians don't have as much chance in open subfield positions as most subfields.  Obviously if you have a result that might have major implications on P vs NP or on the continuum hypothesis or connecting the function field and number field cases of Langlands, then you'll be competitive for an open position anywhere.  Short of that, most departments that advertise for mathematician in any area would, if they thought about it, realize that they would hire a logician in almost no circumstances.

Of course, it's true that "open" positions anywhere actually exclude a fair number of subsubfields, the specific ones being varied and subject to the idiosyncracies of the department, but it seems logic is excluded more often than most subfields.


text:
How does doing a PhD with a pre-determined project vs. formulating your own affect your later career?
Between

Doing a PhD by joining a predetermined research problem
Doing a PhD by formulating one's own research problem

is it possible to say that option #1 is a more advantageous choice in terms of future career?
Why or why not?

How would anyone ever know which route you went?

@AustinHenley, I didn't.

By selecting route one you are taking advantage of the potential that as your supervisor is more knowledgable of the field and so will know:

What the important/fundable/publishable problems in the field are.
Be able to judge if a project is likely to be successful
If a problem presents the correct amount of challenge to a graduate student.

Thus if you choose option one, your project could be more likely to be successful and produce publications and lead to fundable options in the future. This does of course rely on the supervisor actaully being better at these things than you. While not all supervisors will be (or will care enough to think about them), on average this will be true.
On the other hand, if you choose route 2, then you will be able to demonstrate independence and initiative, which are highly valued attributes in the postdoc job market. A stock postdoc interview question, at least for me, is: "Name a situation where you had an idea independently of your supervisor and followed this idea through to its conclusion".

The criteria you set are not determinative in any way. What matters, actually, is the significance of the problem you research and the quality of the results you produce. Those things can be more or less for either of your options.
If you want a great career, solve hard problems and help future students to follow in your lead. Whether you or someone else sets the original problem has little significance.
You don't know much about the significance of a problem until you attack it, unless it is a classic, unsolved, problem in which case it is hard almost by definition. Not taking the lead from someone who has more experience than yourself leaves you open to working on an insignificant (even if hard) problem.

Within the context of my own experience (engineering), here are some thoughts:

PhD is overrated. Consider going to your chosen industry. Work for five years. Understand the problems and work on your favorite problem (on your own time if need be) while getting paid instead of accruing loans. If you can't live without a PhD, do go back to the graduate purgatory by all means.
Later career depends on the country you reside in and your subject area. For example, your PhD in journalism is not going to be very helpful in the Middle East. I can't think of a clear answer to this question. Usually people with advanced degrees in engineering require extensive company support to achieve something important (The company keeps the patents and all you have is a salary and bragging rights until the job ends). Even this can't be done remotely, so be prepared to relocate and compete with the rest of the world's PhDs with similar plans.
People in the software business can do somewhat better, but require significantly more time, if the group they are working with has fewer members. Nevertheless, they can collaborate more efficiently and don't need to relocate as much.
Humanities and other fields are often region- or language-specific. Advanced degrees in law are even more constrained. A degree is economics would be fairly globally accepted at job interview with a large bank or a multinational. This discussion will become subjective quickly.

Not many in the engineering industry care about your publications, or whether you came up with your own (challenging but impractical) problem and managed to solve the same. Here we are not discussing problems that end with ominous words such as 'conjecture'. It would be a folly to choose something that challenging for your PhD work. Your supervisor will often forget to mention that since they will have nothing to lose by cheering you on. Not everyone will be this cruel though. Supervisors with limited industrial funding would be more focused and goal-oriented. Those with tenured careers and stable sources of funding would let you dabble for years as long as publications keep coming. Choose wisely.

If you have the ability and understanding to come up with your own practical problem
to solve, then start a company. Let others work for you. Don't work for others. You can start small.
Pre-determined problems are dished out by industry or other financially stable parties looking for cheap labor, mostly. On the other hand, getting a job in a similar setup remains a possibility afterwards; unless of course, you want to explore the postdoc market further and eat canned food.
World is an increasingly job-unstable place as far as engineering goes. Consider how relevant, stable and global your particular industry is or will be in the next 25 years, so that relocation/online work remains a possibility.
Excuse my ignorance about other fields.

This does not really seem to even attempt to answer the question. Note that engineering tends to be a field where the finished product is often the only focus. There is much more to getting a PhD than just trying to maximize your earning potential. And even there, I earn significantly more with a PhD than I would with a master's degree.


text:
The Priority Criteria for Selecting The Principal Advisor
Long story short, I have left behind a toxic PI and now I am considering applying for another labs at different demographic locations, however, I found it little bit harder to make a thorough decision. One of the challenges that hinders me to make a selection is different feedback from many students from different labs, I have asked them and there is their response as follows.

A star professor at a high ranking university:  One of his student told me he doesn't have time to manage the lab by himself and as a sequence, he hired postdocs to be intermediate between him and his students. In retrospect, the student informed that he had tried to leave the lab at the beginning, however, they continue and mentioning that he benefit from his PI's reputation. Adding that, he and other colleagues suffered from anxiety and chronic stress due to the demand of having highly quality research papers.
Intermediate professor not very well: His student told me he is not qualified to work with students, but the student told me that she doesn't feel so much pressure on her research.
Junior PI: I think it could be risky as I don't have any background about their supervision history. However, what makes interested to contact them as they did good research and we have the same passion for this research line which triggers me to contact them.

My previous experience with ex-PI, he was not junior and not star, but he did research for more than 14 years, however, he didn't help me in my research or even writing papers besides being abusive and very destructive person.
The question is : If am going to select the new PI which very critical decision, how I should consider these scenarios, for sure, I avoid PI in  the influence circle of the ex-PI as I have been advised before, but what are other key corners I should bear in my mind.
I know we cannot make sweeping generalization, however, I would like to hear from the academia community if your have any prior experience or recommendation I should consider to make a reasonable decision regarding the PI selection.

You should be able to work out the relevant criteria that work for you from the answers to your other posts... Criteria we choose may not match your needs...

As you describe them they are all bad choices. You would have to adapt yourself no matter which you choose. One thing you should look at, however, is which will have time and willingness to help you. I normally recommend an advisor who is tenured since untenured faculty have to focus on their own research.

This really baffles me, I cannot guarantee that, I have worked to tenured one and it doesn't work, I think in the end it depends on the personality of the PI and the good luck for sure.

There are multiple facets to this.

Quality of research
Reputation "rubbing off"
Quality of mentoring
Amount of work and stress
Personal ties
I've surely forgot something.

The major problem is that some parts of this might be more important for you than for me and vice versa. So, the basic thing is to decide what do you actually want from this position:

Get a PhD and leave
Qualify you for further academic life
"Parking lot" until you have found a better position in the industry
Have fun
Whatever.

This impacts a lot on the "weights" on the above qualities. Further, in my experience it's never a broad choice, but rather a sequence of binary choices. Say, the junior PI approached you first, you declined, the gossip in the staff room got to the star PI, he did not suggest you a position. It's an extreme example, but it's not "should I go with PI A, B or C", it's "should I take an offer from PI X or not".


text:
Do US universities publish an official definition of gender in the context of scholarships or admissions?
Let's say that a person assigned male at birth identifies as a woman. At which stage of their transition process would they be allowed to claim themselves as a woman in the context of college applications or scholarships? Is merely identifying as a woman sufficient? Or maybe legally changing your gender is required?
Or if we look at it the other way around: At which point would a person assigned female at birth be required to identify themselves as a man in college applications?
Note that this question is of practical value as there are presumably hundreds of thousands of people in the US who identify with a different gender.

As alluded-to in answers and comments below, there is a recent likely deterioration in the U.S.'s federal recognition of gender identity and related things. That is, in the most idiotic possible way, Trump's fed is currently pushing the idea that whatever genitals you're born with ARE your gender, your whatever, and that there will be no civil liberties (not to mention scholarship...) protection for people who don't fit. Sad times.

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/118824/is-it-acceptable-to-claim-a-different-gender-or-race-in-the-context-of-college-a

No one is "born as a man" or "as a woman". Those are (adult) gender identities that develop over time. Your question would be clearer if you differentiated gender (e.g., roles like "woman", "boy", etc.) from sex (e.g., male).

I updated to use the correct terminology (assigned X at birth) and also removed the "self-" from "self-identifying," as it seems a bit redundant. If you have a different meaning between "self-identifying" and "identifying," please clarify. Also, I guess I don't see the point of your second paragraph, since it's just describing the opposite case, and I don't know why you would suppose it would be treated any differently.

Since I voted to close the other question for being about admissions, I also voted to close this one, although this one is a lot easier to clean up and ask simply what rules govern how universities treat their students gender ... presumably those guidelines would cover UG and graduate enrollees as well as admissions cases.

Virtually all universities will follow the policies regarding gender identity that are promulgated by the U.S. Department of Education.  To do otherwise would mean putting their access to federal funds at risk, since Title IX of the Civil Rights Act bans discrimination on the basis of sex by any institution that receives federal government assistance.  Many institutions have an official statement somewhere (on their Web site, in the course bulletin, etc.) stating that the abide by these federal guidelines.
The Department of Education enunciates their interpretations of the law through what are known as "Dear Colleague Letters."  The ones covering the question of how gender identity is defined may be found here, on the agency's Web page.  In light of the current political situation, the Department of Education's rules cannot be seen as stable, at present, but the current state of guidance can be found there.

Does this also apply to private scholarships, generally? Can someone who self-identifies as female but didn't change their documents yet apply for a female-only scholarship?

@JonathanReez That is up to the institution that grants or administers the scholarship.  In my experience over the last few years, most scholarships seem to respect the gender identity that a student presents as, but I am sure there are some out there (some sponsored by religious groups, for example) that will not.

@JonathanReez, private scholarships may be more or less regulated. Those that are would have a hard time denying a scholarship to someone self-identifying in one way or another. Lawsuits ensue. But they might validly ask for some "evidence" that you aren't just lying. A history of identification would help. But there are other people who don't categorize themselves either way.

You should include relevant extracts from your link in your answer because links can change or die over time.

@ESR on the other side, as Buzz notes, they are potentially unstable in the current political climate, so the copied extracts might end up becoming outdated.

"...The ones covering the question of how gender identity is defined may be found here, on the agency's Web page.... " To avoid link rot, could the content of the link maybe summarized shortly?

In the US, every university is different, though some State systems have several universities that follow the same rules.
In general however, your gender is self defined. You are what you say you are, though some people will want to argue with you about it. Gender is a very complex phenomenon, and none of the aspects of it are purely binary. There is your "plumbing", which has more than two forms. There is your brain, which determines how you think of yourself. There is your hormonal system, which has something to do with how you feel. None of these are binary and for some people they are in conflict with one another. Trying to give a formal definition is a fool's game, though some try to play it.
You are what you think you are. Universities are more likely than not to respect that, with some exceptions for religious colleges. It isn't so simple/nice for pre-college education which can be overly influenced by conservative political/religious factors.
The news in the past couple of days has indicated that the current administration might try to "define-away" transsexual people by defining your "sex" as your plumbing at birth. But, funny thing, that isn't binary, and some people are born with intersex (mixed) genitals. Humans are complex. Trying to define us to be simple, is, again, a fool's game.

"Universities are more likely than not to respect that..." That is probably the interesting part with regard to the question. Maybe it could be extended a bit more or examples could be given.

Removed discussion about gender biology vs. self-definition, as this is not the place for a philosophy discussion. Take it to [chat].


text:
Asking direct question about attitude in online survey
I want to ask my participants directly about their attitude. What is the best way to do it?
Is it enough if I only ask:
I have a positive attitude (rating with 5-point Likert scale from totally agree to totally disagree). Because if they click on totally disagree, I can translate that to having a negative attitude and if they click in the middle of the scale it can be translated as a neutral attitude?
Or should I let them rate all three options:
I have a positive attitude (from totally agree to totally disagree)
I have a neutral attitude (from totally agree to totally disagree)
I have a negative attitude (from totally agree to totally disagree)
(It has to be with a 5-point Likert scale)
Thank you!

You just need to make sure you design the questions properly, this should give you an idea : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

While you will get numbers with such a question they won't mean anything. This is the sort of question that people will naturally skew toward "positive attitude" regardless of their actual attitude. The second method will also get you potentially inconsistent results.
Instead, you need a set of questions that will be honestly answered, maybe responding to scenarios, and from which you can infer the attitude.
Asking "Are you smart?" gets just noise. Some people answer the opposite of what they truly are for a variety of psychological reasons.

I know... I also have questions like that. I still have to put the direct question about attitude in it though, so I'm just wondering what's the best way to do it...

I don't understand why you need to ask a question that is pretty much guaranteed to yield meaningless results. Such a question wastes people's time and if they recognize that then they might also decide to sabotage the rest of the survey.

My professor wants it that way :-/

Perhaps you have misunderstood something.


text:
Writing High-Quality Research Papers
I have submitted a manuscript to a reputable journal, the article was rejected because it didn't pass the grammar check. The journal editor also mentioned the low quality of the figures.
My ex-supervisors never trained me how to write a research article. I would be grateful for recommendations to improve my writing style.

Becoming a good writer in general is hard, taking lots of practice. Becoming a good scientific writer is even harder, since the style of a journal tends to be quite different from the style taught by English teachers.

@JonCuster I think you have to have a sound basis in "standard" persuasive writing before you can become a good technical writer.

Peer review is the answer here. Get good, picky peers to criticise your work, listen to them, and keep doing it. You'll get there without realising.

The issue here isn't writing a paper in a "more scientific" way; it's just writing more correctly and precisely. To be brutally honest, the writing in the original draft of this question is so poor that I would immediately reject any article written in such a style. It's not merely technical writing: there are problems with basic usage, grammar, and syntax.
The best way to improve is probably to work with a competent and experienced writing tutor who can help you identify the mistakes you are making and how to fix them. However, this is unlikely to be a "quick fix" unless you are willing to devote substantial time and effort to make your writing better.
Online tools like Grammarly can attempt to point out problems but they are neither completely reliable nor, in the long term, suitable substitutes for personally understanding the guiding principles of standard persuasive or technical writing.

Take English language classes at your university/employer? That's not a quick fix, but then there is no quick fix to becoming good at a language. It just takes time.

@Monika I don't think that your feeling about fluency is true. Even while writing the question and the comment above, you have committed grammer and style mistakes. High TOFEL score doesn't necessarily imply a very good command on English.

I think these answers seem to be destructive rather than being constructive.  You can give an advice in a decent manner if you have noticed grammar and style, why you don't try to edit it instead of these sketchy comments.

@Monika Because the actual answer to the question really is that your English is not up to par for publishing papers. Just editing your sentences would not have conveyed this information to you. While it is not nice to be told that your English is not as good as you thought, it would not be any help to you to be told otherwise only to keep struggling to get papers published because they were not written properly.

@Monika in my institution, there is a place called "academic writing center" in which you take an appointment and review the text in terms of its English. Find such a place. Also, you need to use Grammarly like tools with caution. Grammarly is not a tool to improve your grammar, it just quickens the check. If you try to get advice from academicians directly, they will give you advices similar to the ones here, so do not get upset.

Thanks for your advice! Actually, I think it is important to tackle my poor grammar and style. I have started an online course from a British university about the glamor of grammar.

The problem is not your writing style, it is your writing itself. Your English is not up to scratch. From the original question you wrote, first two paragraphs:

I have submitted my manuscript to a reputable journal and I had received rejection as the the file didnot pass the grammar test in addition to the quality of the figures.
To be honest, I have never get a help from my supervisor either in master or ex-PI during the first year of PhD to write in a scientific manner, although I was reading many times, but I feel yet not confident.

I highlighted issues with your text:

duplicated 'the'
'didnot' should obviously be 'did not'.
it's clear from the context that "in addition to the quality of the figures" actually means "in addition, the quality of the figures was not sufficient". But it's bad writing regardless since the entire sentence needs to be read before the phrase gives the right meaning (without the context it actually implies the figures are of high quality).
you cannot get 'a help'. You get 'help'.
'in master' should be 'during my masters'; 'ex-PI' presumably not necessary since during the first year of your PhD your ex-PI is probably your supervisor also, i.e. write "... from my supervisor either during my masters or first year of PhD".
past continuous tense is clearly inappropriate, use present perfect: "although I have read many papers".
"yet not confident" is artistic writing appropriate in poetry and such but not in scientific writing: "...but I do not feel confident yet".

There's no easy solution to this; you'll simply have to learn English better. If your institution offers classes in English or assistance with writing, utilize those. Otherwise, you will probably have to self-educate, with books on English grammar.

Thanks, Allure for your detailed answer, and you are right I have to learn English again! However, my school doesn't offer English classes. BTW,  the question has been edited.

Perhaps your wider university or your wider society offers classes or language exchanges or ...

I do not think there is going to be any substitute for competent, sustained feedback. I understand you do not have access to English writing classes.
The best help is going to be to find a friend or colleague who is good at written English, and is willing to help you. Initially, anyone who can write well should be able to help. Later, you will need specific advice on writing papers from someone with a good publication track record.

Thanks for your advice! It is really awkward how I am bad at written English! I never get a support from my ex-supervisors to proofread my drafts. With a reference to the comments I received here, it seems that I am really really bad at English and this demoralized me, I am looking for another supervisor who might help me.

A supervisor who cares about their students' writing would be ideal. My PhD advisor used a lot of red ink on my early drafts, and would discuss why he thought each change improved the paper.

I wish I can find a supervisor like yours.


text:
Could I ask an employee of my company's client for a recommendation letter ? Will it violate any company policy?
I will be applying to Graduate schools for Fall 2019, so far I have given my GRE and will be planning to give again, I work full time as a Team Lead at a software company and am planning to resign if I get an admit into a good school.
Now my undergrad CGPA is not very good as I had health problems and I will be probably mentioning this in my SOP.
The thing is that the company I work at has a contract with a very huge software company, lets call this company BIM (name changed) and I work for this company as a contractor but involved fully in software programming and development. The people I work with at BIM are scientists and practically the rightest kind of people to write Letters of recommendation if you want to get into a good college especially to offset the low CGPA. My work experience will probably also help with this but LOR's from scientists is a big deal.
My manager is alright with approaching them for requesting LOR's for the application process, my Project Manager is not. Apparently he believes it will create a "chaos" and probably thinks it would make the clients uneasy (the BIM people I work with might feel uneasy since I am handling a major project)
Now, I spoke to HR whether it is against company policy and waiting for her to reply. Nevertheless I am thinking of going ahead and requesting the BIM clients directly for an LOR since I dont think in anyway that it is a violation of any policy just to ask for an LOR.
What do I do ?

Is the question: Can I ask an employee of my company's client for a LOR? (If so, maybe edit to ask that question at the very beginning and add background afterwards.)

This isn't really an academia question.  From the point of view of academia, you can have a letter from anyone whose opinion you think will be helpful.  Whether that causes trouble with your (non-academic) employer is between you and them, and is something we cannot answer.  You may get more helpful answers on http://workplace.stackexchange.com.  But whether it violates company policy can't be answered by anyone except your company.

HR can get you the answer concerning company policy. No one here can make a determination other than by guessing. Wait for them to respond or follow up with them.
But also consider the consequences of making your project manager unhappy. Again, you can judge that, but no one here can.

I spoke to the HR again today and apparently there is no mention of it being a breach of company policies but she has asked her higher ups for more information.
I honestly don't mind my project manager getting mad, for me its more like "Gradschool or bust" type of situation.
At max the client reports me, which is unlikely. They could fire me, which I am ok with as long as they have someone else filling up the position I am in, and all I can say to them in this case is good luck finding a replacement for a person that handles $100 million application (it technically is worth that much)


text:
What to do when finding difficulty in resuming study?
Suppose, I completed two semesters and left a university two years ago. I want to resume my study again.
I e-mailed a specific guy in the faculty/department/institute. I need a readmission paper from that guy to resume my and he never responds to my e-mail let alone other guys who are in the upper part of the pyramid. My time is running out very fast.
What is the best thing I can do in this situation to get things done amicably?

Why do you think that "they want to avoid unwanted trouble and extra burden"?

Maybe just hire the lawyer. He/she can probably give you good advice.

I didn't say to file a lawsuit. Get advice from a professional.

Did you take a leave of absence or permanently withdraw? How long did you want between emails to the person in the department? Based on your comments, would you say that you left amicably?

What is a NOC? Extra characters

@yahoo.com Can you just explain what it is? And add that info to the question

@yahoo.com I assumed a NOC was a no-objection certificate. That is, there is no reason not to let you re-enroll in the department.

Invoking Occam's razor here, the likelihood that someone is out to get you personally is probably lower than the likelihood that someone is just being lazy and/or slow to respond to email. Before lawyering up—a serious escalation—consider calling on the phone or even visiting the administrative office to see what's up. (I didn't get from your post as to whether you're in country or not.)
Regarding your comment about you having left the country—"absent but failed to let the office know"—that may be a serious offense on your part. If you studentship was terminated there's a good chance that you violated one of the policies of the university with your unreported leave and they terminated you for that. Email is easy to ignore; use other methods of communication to get in touch and verify what happened.
Lastly, make sure that someone is checking your mail at your registered place of residence in the country in question. If you're out of the country, they may have been trying to get in touch with you but you aren't aware of it.


text:
In the EU, how much protection do I have if I report an assault on myself by my department head?
I had a very ugly incident at my corrupt institute (I live in E. EU). In short, I was assaulted by one of the department's heads during my own group meeting on my own grant for daring to "back talk" after he had abusively terminated that meeting. Him, and my own department's head had sabotaged my projects by sidetracking the people working on them, threatening them, and, lately, by denying access to shared research facilities which they don't really use.
As this behavior has been tolerated by the director (who is the ultimate god there), I expect things only to get worse. I'm seriously considering whistleblowing as my only option, as my reports of the incidents are merely CYA actions since they've gone unnoticed so far.
I might be out on my ass by next week for the "lese-majeste" of this week. If I do whistleblow, is there a way within EU to protect myself and my research group? I doubt I'll get any understanding in my own country.
Update: I'm not fired, they just found a nice and sneaky way to dissolve my research group. Funnily enough, no one is on my side, including the people who witnessed the incident.

Verbally assaulted or physically assaulted?

@Buffy Both, and in front of my colleagues who work on my project. Not that any of them would have the guts to go in court against that guy.

Physical assault is a police matter. But do you see any future for yourself in this situation? It doesn't look like it has any possible happy ending. Not unless there are regular procedure for removing bad actors. Those are pretty rare most places.

In my country, physical assault without a weapon or blood isn't a police matter, and verbal assault is how most people here speak. In any case, I haven't been assaulted since high school, so I didn't call the police because I didn't think about it at that time.

If you are going this route, I think you need to talk to a lawyer. This seems like too delicate a situation to rely on the advice of random Internet strangers.

I don't want to do it, because I lose almost 30 years of hard work if they kick me out, and that is inevitable if I go over their heads and whistleblow. I want them to just remove him, and leave me alone with my circles.

@Magicsowon You know how the thing with the circles ended. Get yourself a mercenary, i.e. a lawyer and consult, they will have seen many cases and know best what your options are. I assume leaving that place is not an option?

It is not clear who you would be whistle blowing to and about what if assault without a weapon or blood is not a police matter, it is not clear that the head did anything legally wrong.

I'm tied in my grants and a few promising collaborations, and it looked like I was forming a functional research group, after failing my first  attempt due to my people leaving over what is there. I can't leave town because of family ties. I can definitely leave the place, but I think it's a really stupid end for my career.

@StrongBad At least, you put in perspective. When I was in US, one of my colleagues did a similar thing, and the police showed up in five minutes. After a short discussion about "pressing charges" things got very calm around there.

The higher the stakes, the more important it is to do it right. With 30 years of hard work on the line, I'd engage a lawyer. The cost of botching it up is just too high.

I see no whistle to blow here. Also, your question is no clear: you refuse any suggested solutions as it is not how is done in your country.

You don't say where this took place, but in response to suggestions to inform the police that you've been assaulted, you say that in your country physical assault is not a police matter.  If that is true, then how can you possibly get reasonable help from people who know so little about your situation that the most basic tenets of their society don't apply to you?

Given your update, it sounds like there is an atmosphere of fear. Maybe it is time to take advantage of the EU's open borders.

To the close voter, verbal assault and physical assault are different issues. We are Academia. This means we have received high education and civilized. Closing this question means we keep quiet on violence.

If the matter has escalated to a physical assault then you have the option to contact the police.  For lesser issues concerning corruption or maladministration of public resources, you should consider searching for the closest equivalent of an ombudsman for your university sector.  In public industries with an ombudsman it is usual to be able to make a report of maladministration or corruption, and there are protections for whistle-blowers who file reports on these matters.  Specific rules vary according to the laws of the country and the specific industry ombudsman, so you should first check to find the appropriate ombudsman and check the protections for whistle-blowers that apply in your case.  If you have a lot invested it is probably also a good idea to speak to a lawyer to get advice on the available reporting mechanisms and legal protections.


text:
Applying to PhD programs while pursuing a PhD
Imagine the following situation. Somebody is doing their PhD in field A in the US.
 Suppose they became interested in a different field, field B, and consider doing PhD in field B instead. Suppose further that the university they are doing PhD at is not suitable for doing PhD in field B for some reason. Is it acceptable to apply for PhD positions in field B in other universities without notifying their current university until after they have been admitted to a program of their interest? The reason for doing this is to ensure that if they don't get accepted anywhere, then they could just continue pursuing their PhD in field A (which is also an acceptable option for them).

Can  you master out of your current program first and reapply?

As a practical matter, you will need one or more recommendation letters from faculty at your current institution, so you'll have to trust someone at your current institution and tell them that you're thinking of moving.

Sure, I assumed telling the temporary adviser (or some other professors) about the plans is necessary, I was just wondering whether it's okay not to "officially inform" for example the DGS until I know for sure that I got accepted somewhere.

In most fields in the US this would be acceptable. An exception might be if you have accepted a grant that has some sort of termination clause that prevents it or makes it difficult. If you wind up leaving your current position you might have some ethical obligation to finish up some tasks if they affect others, but that is a separate question.
In general, though, you can seek a better position for yourself.
But you will also need to be able to explain to the new institution why you are leaving and why you are a good prospect for their program. Self awareness and learning are usually a good reason that (most) people will accept.

Agree, only thing I would add is that if A and B are not orthogonal, a master's in A followed by a PhD in B might be more efficient (and even if they are orthogonal, having a master's in A might not be a bad thing, and would give you "something to show" for your time studying A).

I believe that what you're trying to do is feasible and sensible, but just make sure that you really want to pursue the PhD in the field B, otherwise while being on the field B you might get interested on a field C, that is also quite common and could become a vicious cycle. So just be sure about it and good luck with your applications!

I believe that it may be next to impossible to not let anyone in your current program know of your plans. Unless all of your previous letter writers are still available to write you letters of recommendation for a new application, you will likely need to find someone at your current university to write you a letter.
If you have an advisor, I would work with him or her to prepare a plan for applying to different programs. I would be upfront and direct about the fact that you want to switch disciplines. You do have the right to pursue disciplines you are most interested in. Being sneaky about your plans could result in trouble.
As with any graduate admissions situation, you will also need to be prepared to provide a compelling reason to the new PhD program as to why you feel you should be admitted to their program. This can be increasingly difficult to do when you have already been enrolled in another PhD program. It usually is not sufficient to just say

"I really love botany (or whatever subject you want to enroll in). It is really interesting to me."

I see some variant of that statement in a large number of applications, and it is never compelling. Such verbiage is especially common in applications of students who are switching disciplines. While being interested in a subject is necessary, it is not sufficient for admission into a PhD program. This is not to say that switching disciplines is bad (I did it myself). It just means that you cannot rely on "interest" alone in getting you into a PhD program. (I'm interested in art. But I know nothing formal [academically speaking] about art. It could be hard to convince an admissions committee that I'm a great choice for their art history program).


text:
NIH grants - moving to another institution as PI
If you submit an NIH grant (e.g. RO1) as PI and then move to another institution prior to study section review, or after an award is made, what are your options under both scenarios?  Also, what is the NIH policy regarding such PI changes?

The answer to your question appears to be specific to your funding type from NIH.

The answer to your question is specific to your funding from the NIH. From the NIH webpage:

Many NIH grant mechanisms allow the principal investigator to bring their grants with them when they change recipient organizations. This is subject to approval by NIH, and there are specific procedures which must be followed in order to make this process run smoothly (and relatively quickly!). If you are a current NIMH recipient, you MUST contact your NIMH Program Official (PO) and Grants Management Specialist (GMS) BEFORE your move, in order to initiate the process of transferring your grant.

This webpage then goes on to describe the steps necessary to transfer the grant.

I'm going to assume that NIH handles things like NSF does. In the latter case, grants can be transferred from one institution to another. Technically, an award is made to an institution and not an individual researcher, and so if your proposal is accepted, then NIH would send the money to your old institution and they can then find someone on campus who can do the work that you proposed. But in practice, if the award is for an individual's research (as opposed to grants made to support, say, the graduate program of a particular department on campus), then universities have an agreement that allows the researcher to take the grant with them to their new university.
The way this is then handled that when (or before) you move, you talk to the people in the grants/sponsored projects office of your new university about transferring your grant. They will walk you through the steps necessary and probably also recommend that you inform your program manager about this. The process is a bit lengthy, in particular if the grant is complex, but not fraught with uncertainty. It just takes work to go through everything everyone will need to know.
At the end of the day, the scenario you describe happens all the time. Don't lose sleep over it -- it can all be sorted out, you just need to talk to the right people.


text:
Which is a better choice in case of a graduate admission?
Which is a better choice in case of a PhD application and why:

Submitting a transcript which indicates an incomplete study (50/120 credits completed) and 5 dropped (not failed) courses.

vs.

Concealing an incomplete study.

??
If #1 is a Hobson's choice, how can I explain that to satisfy the admission committe?

Better choice as in "More likely to result in admission" or better choice as in "More ethical"?

@Vladhagen,  "More likely to result in admission".

Concealing academic records is unethical and dangerous. It is not a good choice. Admissions committees sometimes discover such perfidy. And even when they don't, it does not build a strong foundation of ethics for your academic career.
As far as the uncompleted program goes, this depends on whether this is your only program, or a second program that you started and dropped out of.
Only program
Submitting a transcript which indicates an incomplete study (50/120 credits completed) and 5 dropped (not failed) courses will not get you into a graduate program. No program is accepting someone with less than half of their program completed.

If #1 is a Hobson's choice, how can I explain that to satisfy the admission committee?

There isn't a way. It's like asking "How can I get caught red handed on a video camera stealing bags of cash from a bank but convince the jury I'm innocent?" You can't.
Second program
Honestly, unless there is some compelling reason ("My father died." "I was in the hospital with a broken back.") as to why you have so many dropped and uncompleted courses, there may not be a way you can just brush away your academic record into omission. There is not a great way to spin doctor this.
I would just briefly explain that you started a program, and then explain why you did not complete it. If this uncompleted program is in the field you are applying for, this becomes a lot harder. You would then need to provide a compelling reason as to why you think this go-around will be more successful.


text:
Would I look good as a Ph.D. applicant if abandon one graduate program and then pass from another program?
See this question.

Submitting a transcript which indicates an incomplete study (50/120 credits completed) and 5 dropped (not failed) courses.

See this answer.

Honestly, unless there is some compelling reason ("My father died." "I was in the hospital with a broken back.") as to why you have so many dropped and uncompleted courses, there may not be a way you can just brush away your academic record into omission. There is not a great way to spin doctor this.

If I must complete my study, do I must complete it in the same university and country I started my study in?
The university from which I obtained 50 credits, is expensive and the country which this university is situated in, in hard to get a visa. So, I was thinking to resume my study all over again but in a country where it costs less and doesn't have visa issues.
Would I look good as a Ph.D. applicant if abandon one university program and then pass from another program?

You should submit your transcript and ask.

@paparazzo, I meant: would I look good as a Ph.D. applicant if abandon one university and pass from another?

That is not in the stated question.

@paparazzo, the linked previous question, which this question is based on, had this context.

People transfer between undergraduate institutions all the time (which is how I interpret the question). Mostly a question of what course credits may be accepted at the new institution.

@JonCuster, question edited.

Normally, yes, but there may be possibilities with a "sister" institution running the same course or similar course with the matching courses / modules where you could then move - of course this has to be accepted by both institutions.
Moving to a completely separate institution will normally mean a new course and the parts you have completed may go towards full or partial credit for the equivalent courses or modules.
This would normally be evaluated on a case by case basis by the Dean / admissions officer or equivalent.
It is also very much dependent of which country or countries you are dealing with...