text:
How to deal with alma mater pushing crack science?
I am aware that in US there is controversial support of facilitated communication and every public is dealing with a different kind of process.
The European university and faculty where I finished my BSc are very good and respected.
However, they have begun to push an agenda against an industry project due to environmental concerns. More specifically, the student association opposes the project and tenure-track staff and lecturers from the biology and ecology departments started to support this cause.
All of this is not based on evidence.
How can I stop and intervene in the matter of my alma mater? This is reputation-damaging as it not appropriate for an educational, academic, and research institution to spread such non-sensical ideas.

The details of the asker’s claims and their correctness are off-topic and irrelevant to anything we can answer in the scope of this site. If you wish to discuss these, do so in chat. Any discussion of the correctness of the claims will be deleted without warning. (@Tatjana: I don’t know whether you will automatically gain the rights to talk in this chatroom. If not, please make a chat account, and reply to this comment (using @); I will then grant you access.)

The word you want is crank.

@Noah or crackpot.

Do not intervene.  It won't work, and may damage you.
Political and ecological matters can be highly divisive.  No project has zero impact, so even if everybody agrees about the facts, strong disagreements in the balancing of pros and cons are likely to remain.  Therefore, the most likely outcome of trying to intervene is that you make enemies, without being one step closer to your desired outcome.  It is very unlikely that you will be able to convince students and faculty that they should change their opinion or actions on this.


text:
Should I provide specific acknowledgments in addition to a general acknowledgment?
As a student I wrote a paper for a course. I am now preparing the paper for submission to a journal. My teacher will get a general acknowledgment for the discussions we had on the topic as a footnote on the paper's title (as is the custom in my field). There are a couple (~3) very specific pointers the teacher gave me, such as a relevant piece of literature. These are not vital for the flow of the paper but are useful pointers for the reader; they appear in footnotes. Should I add a sentence to such a footnote such as "I am grateful to John Doe for this reference"? Or is it kind of implicit in the general acknowledgment at the start of the article that the acknowledged persons have contributed such details?

The reader doesn't care if J. Doe pointed you to a reference, helped with the software, or made you coffee. A general acknowledgment for fruitful discussions or so is sufficient.

I've often seen specific points included along with general thanks in a single footnote, something like "I thank my supervisor, John Doe, for numerous helpful discussions and, in particular, for calling my attention to reference [7] and for simplifying the proof of Lemma 2."

Perhaps it would depend at least a bit on how important that contribution was to your thinking and to the direction taken in the paper. In some cases it could point out the general importance of an idea or another paper. If a small comment led to a "forehead slapping moment" it is more important than a general hint. But much of that can be expressed in a general ack also.
Also, for an undergraduate, I would lean more toward expressing such things than I'd suggest for a grad student. Still not essential, though.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Do letters from the NSF to professors have to be discarded with extra care?
I recently saw some NSF letters left in a box with some books, and the box was left to the side of a trash bin, in case people wanted those books. I looked through the books and also saw the NSF letters, which were basically messages sent from some NSF director to the professor, urging everyone to participate in some big change in the review process.  It doesn't seem like anything Top Secret but I am curious to know:
Do such NSF letters have to be discarded with extra care?  Should I have notified this professor that he shouldn't leave such letters in plain view of students?

Why would they need such consideration?

If it needed special consideration it would be marked as such.

This seems unlikely for most mail. There might be exceptions, but the recipient would be expected to know when it is important. However, most of the mail that a person might consider important to destroy securely would also likely be the mail that they would retain in a file.
It isn't the NSA, of course.

The NSA is smart enough (or paranoid enough) never to send anything that is important enough to need secure destruction through the mail.

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


text:
Advice for applying to phd (in Finland)
I will be graduating with a Master of Science degree from a German University of Applied Sciences in March 2019. My goal is to develop myself more towards research and development, and I want to apply for a PhD in Finland. Specifically, in the areas of technical computer science and industrial engineering because of my educational background.
Does anyone have some advice for me regarding the application process, funding and when best to start applying?

There is a finite number of universities in Finland. Disregard universities of applied sciences (ammattikorkeakoulu); they are teaching institutues with some R&D and do not offer PhD positions. Wikipedia contains a list of proper universities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_universities_in_Finland . I recommend starting with technical universities, including Aalto university.
Go through those universities and check if they have faculty in relevant areas. Follow the open position announcements in all of them. Apply when you find something relevant.
Also, you should contact relevant faculty and ask them about possibilities and vacancies. If your university has contacts to Finland, use those.
I recommend starting to apply when you know you will receive your master's thesis soon.
Recruitment is university-dependent. There might be two open calls, one ending around now (maybe has ended already) and before new year, or there might be open calls whenever there is funding. I do not know if it is possible to hire a PhD student without an open call; I would assume yes, but this might very well be university-specific.
There is typically an online form that you fill. It asks for studies, employment history, and maybe language skills and publications (if any) and so forth. There is typically room for a freeform application or motivation. Attach CV, maybe list of publications, maybe a cover letter or letter of motivation etc. I would not expect anyone to ask for letters of recommendation, but they might ask for people who can recommend you. I would mention such people in the CV.
On CV (no photo included, typically): http://www.tenk.fi/en/template-researchers-curriculum-vitae , http://www.aka.fi/en/funding/how-to-apply/appendices-required/curriculum-vitae-guidelines/ . These are guidelines for making a general academic CV. Leave off the empty categories.
Most PhD students get paid reasonable, but not large, wages. The program is typically four years with 60 ECTS credits of coursework. Some are funded entirely or partially by grant money they bring in themselves. I cannot give specific advice on grants; please ask someone you would like to study under.
Random vocabulary:

PhD student: jatko-opiskelija, tohtoriopiskelija, tohtorikoulutettava
grant: apuraha
university: yliopisto

Educated people and young people usually speak English, but I would still recommend learning at least a little bit of Finnish. It sends (a weakish) signal of commitment and interest if you can write on your CV that you know or are learning basics of Finnish, and will certainly make life and navigation easier.


text:
Compressing a huge paper for a double blind review process
Continuing How to cite a technical report for a double blind review process?, how would you proceed if your paper is acutally 53 pages long, most of it occupied by mathematical proofs, but you have to compress it into 10 pages (including all the appendices, and allowing for two additional pages for the bibliography) for an A*-level conference with a double-blind review process, a rebuttal and an explicit ban on relying on supplemental material? The time between the submission and the 2-day-long rebuttal is 2.5 months, which is then followed by a month till notification.
Here is a part of the guidelines:

Do not rely on supplementary material (your web site, your github repository, a youTube channel, a companion technical report or thesis) in the paper or in the rebuttal submitted during the clarification period. Supplementary information might result in revealing author identities.

Or would you consider not submitting to that particular conference, since it involves too much work which does not improve any of your results?
Several technical options are available, but I'm unsure about their acceptance in the community:

Use the PDF file with the main paper text as a container for the anonymized proofs as an embedded file, or
Upload the anonymized proofs to a  (megaupload-like) file-storage service and provide the reader with a URL, or
Any of 1. and 2., with password-protected supplemental material, where the password is exposed with/after the rebuttal.

Are such solutions accepted by the community?

"Do not rely on supplementary material" seems crystal clear to me. If you can't do the research justice in 10 pages, send it somewhere else.

Hmmm. It doesn't matter what "the community" accepts. Only the opinions/rules of the conference committee matter. Are you intending to argue with them?

@user49915 But in context, it's clear that they mean "don't supply supplementary material." Do you disagree with that? You yourself say in your post they have an explicit ban on supplementary material.

The real problem with such a paper is that conferences have deadlines. Therefore the review process needs to be expeditious. Journals can in most cases handle long papers since they don't need to promise when the paper will appear and try to have a big enough backlog that they can fill an issue with interesting work. But if the call asks for 10 page papers that is what they really are depending on.
I don't think the "method" by which you make the longer work available is the issue. You can probably find a way to make it blind. But the length isn't copacetic for purposes of their very hard deadlines.
For the conference, write something else. Or write some small excerpt of the longer work that fits the expectations of the committee.
But if you prove a long standing and important theorem, a short, even one page, announcement is probably enough for a conference, ending with "Proof will follow." You will want to include some information about why you think your proof stands up  - vetting by some other folks. If you want to get bold, mention the key element of the proof (the crux) that made it come together. Now you are up to around, say, 10 pages. All is good. The full proof can appear later in a more appropriate journal.

Several options:

Split the paper into several parts, submit only the first part. Not every paper can be split up like that, but often they can. If you're not sure where to make the split since you're too invested in the "wholeness" of the paper - ask a colleague who has taken a look at it.
It's the wrong venue for your paper - try someplace else. Perhaps a journal which takes really long works? Or maybe extend it into a monograph?
Ask for a special exception from the PC. Probably won't work, but who knows, right?
Guerilla publishing. Print a "draft" of it as a booklet, attend the conference, distribute it to people. Also, put a draft online somewhere and pitch it to people you know / sort-of-know with a link.

I wouldn't try any of the three complicated tricks you've listed.


text:
What is the maximum time-span of a referee?
I applied for a PhD program in 2017 and got rejected. I'm preparing to apply again in 2018.
Could a professor who gave me a recommendation letter last year refuse to do so again? If so, why, and how could I approach this issue? Is there any unwritten rule regarding how long a referee will provide a reference for a student?

Sure... what is your genuine question?

If there were an unwritten rule, it'd probably be about a minimum period (e.g. one application cycle) rather than a maximum one.

Make it easier for the professor to say yes by attaching their original recommendation letter to your request. They'll most likely use the same letter or a slight variant of it, because their impression probably hasn't changed (at least, you don't suggest that it might).

Just relax.  Whether or not there's a "maximum time span", it's certainly much more than a year.  Barring something very unusual, this is not going to be a problem in your case.

Maybe there are cultural differences, but when I am writing a letter of reference for a student, it will hold lifelong. The rationale is simple:

It has a date on it, so the other side can see when it was issued and decide by themselfes how valid my interpretation of the student's performance is at the current date
I'm writing my true opinion on the student, there is no reason to change my mind.
If someone want's an updated version, they can call / contact me via e-mail.

I know of no official or inofficial rules (in Germany).
The situation might be different if you need a new reference letter. Then I would only write it if I can tell something new about you.
So if you need an updated letter of reference, the referee should recieve some content from your side to put into this letter, together with a brief explanation of your goals, how you improved, etc.

What happens to electronic references?

What is an "electronic reference"? An e-mail? I see no difference if it's an e-mail

In the Graduate School I manage, we require reference letters to be submitted with, among other things:

a clear date when it was prepared
an estimate of the length of time the referee has known the applicant and
a description of the capacity in which the referee knows the applicant.

For example:

09 September 2017
Dear Sir or Madam,
I have known Ms Wenting LIANG for three years. During that time, I was her thesis adviser, served as her academic adviser and taught her in three courses (STA101 Introduction to Statistics, STA305 Statistical Inference, STA311 Simulation).
...
Sincerely,
Professor James Carruthers

With this information, assessors are able to situate the reference letter in the context of the rest of the evidence provided by the applicant.
In answer to your questions:

Could it happen that the professor who previously supplied him reference refuses to do so again? If Yes, why?

Yes. This can happen for all sorts of reasons, some being more personal than others. For example, the professor may have not changed his assessment of the applicant and the original reference letter holds despite the applicant's claimed additional "preparation", or he may be reluctant to assert that the work done by the applicant after the original reference letter is of any value, or a million other reasons.

And, how should one approach this issue?

There's nothing you can do about this. Someone not willing to write you a new reference letter has given you their answer. Thank them for their time and look for a referee who will.

Is there any unwritten rule regarding how long a referee would provide a reference for a student?

None that I am aware, at least in Australia, the UK, Southeast Asia and East Asia where I have worked. We're looking for relevance, not at dates.
Good luck!


text:
From a financial standpoint, how much more can I expect to earn after my degree?
While certainly there is value to learning something you are passionate about, one might also have to consider the finnacial responsibilities after college. Thankfully for me, what I am passionate about is also what I can expect to make a decent career out of.
I am entering college as a mechanical engineering student, however I feel like I would very much like to pursue a double major, the second degree being in math. While what drives me to this is my interest and passion in the subject (Ive always been a fan of numbers), I can't help but pause to consider if the extra time and money spent is practical. In short, how much more can I reasonably expect to make with a bachelor's degree in math and in mechanical engineering, upon graduation?

You can end up in a fast food place serving or an insurance company calculating risk or an engineering design co - salary for the last two is more that the first one - but who knows where you will be...

any question about salaries can be answered only if we know the country/ region and specific industry you intend to work, 2) even so, it is most probably not an academia related question, but industry, so you get better answers from them, 3) I don’t think a double major directly help you to have higher salary. The value is maybe on long term providing you flexibility in career choices, and letting you to carve your own niches. My prediction would be if you just work as an average engineer, you will not get more salary.

Add further details on background and country, and degree specifics. In my country, a graduate mathematician typically  becomes a teacher earning less than 1,000 usd a month.

Don’t forget about the opportunity cost of being in school longer versus earning money already working.

Don't expect an automatic higher salary due to a degree. Ask the starving computational chemists how their very useful capabilities pay... - A degree can open the doors to higher pay, but there is no guarantee. As others have said, study what you enjoy (and if you enjoy something applied, this may be beneficial as it will be easier to find work for applied sciences).

@Scientist That's a lot of money for being a teacher.

There is no chart. It boils down to how well you can negotiate and how well you can apply yourself to a given need. There are people with Master's degrees that cannot muster more than a colleague with an associates degree in the same field. The one with the master's usually studied under the false premise of better compensation rather than because they enjoyed their chosen field.

Engineering already contains plenty math. Many pure engineering courses are also basically just applied math. If yet more math courses were valuable to engineering, they would offer them in their own curricula. So the short answer would be the additional math probably won't add anything to your career, other than helping keep you sane and interested in your studies.

@corey979 mind I said less than 1000, to fit almost all cases, accommodating for rates fluctuations . Most will be way less. And workload can be high, plus bad students. Nobody wants to be a teacher here...

I disagree with the votes to close and have voted to reopen.  A question of whether a dual major will likely lead to a higher salary does not depend on personal preferences or values or the regulations at the school you go to.  It's a simple question with an actual answer.  Is it possible those voting to close simply lack experience in industry that causes them to think this is difficult to answer?

Agree with Nicole Hamilton and voting to reopen.

Pursue the dual major because it interests you and this is your opportunity to do  it, not because you expect a higher salary, because the higher salary probably won't happen.
I spent a long career in industry in engineering before coming out of retirement to teach a few years ago.  In my experience, hiring managers generally don't care that someone was a dual major.  Part of this may be a reflection of the fact that managers tend to hire people who "look like them".  Not very many managers were dual majors, so they don't value it.  But there's a practicality to it as well:  If they're hiring you to be an engineer, it's probably because you are an engineer, not because you're also a mathematician.
What hiring managers do value is the master's degree.  Again, this may be in part because so many hiring managers have master's degrees (which many of them may have earned part-time while working).  Hiring managers tend to have master's degrees, so they like to hire people with master's degrees, and they will pay more to get them.
If your concern is best financial return on any additional effort beyond what it takes to get a bachelor's degree, I recommend going for the master's over the dual major.  Many universities have programs that allow students to go straight through to their master's, double-counting some of their credits and earning both degrees with just one more year of coursework only, no thesis required.  For example, here at University of Michigan in computer science, where I teach, it's  called SUGS (Sequential Undergraduate/Graduate Studies); to be admitted to the program you need to be a junior or a senior with a 3.6 GPA.  Your school probably has a similar program.
If your objective is a career in industry and you're concerned about "bang for the buck", the master's is the way to go.

+1 but I'll add that with a dual major, it's possible the OP ends up working in a job that uses his math degree instead of engineering.

@Allure True. But most jobs that use a Bachelor's degree in math pay less than those that use a Bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering (at least in the U.S.) Engineering and Comp Sci majors have, by far, the highest starting salaries for graduates with a Bachelor's degree in the U.S.

Expecting a difference in salary is not reasonable. It just wont be that simple. Your expectations will not be falsifiable.
You can expect to have more options. That is where the value here lies. You will definitely have more options to choose from, one of those options could include a higher salary, but also working environment, residency location, etc.
Having more options is always desirable.

If you are interested in mathematics, but are also trying to maximise your future earnings, I would recommend a minor in math, then getting an MS in mechanical engineering.
A dual major won't earn you any more on its own. It might open additional opportunities, but since an undergraduate degree in pure mathematics likely will present less opportunities than an undergraduate degree in mech engineering, the benefit there is small. (but those additional math opportunities are something you might want to keep in mind if that is what you want to pursue, but at that point, why get a degree in mech eng?)
A masters degree will earn you more in engineering though. I will give you an example. The first company I worked for, a big bay area tech company that everyone has heard of, had this as their hiring policy: $x for new grads with a BS, $x+10k for new grads with an MS.
A minor in math would look good an a graduate application. A graduate degree in ME should earn you more money. So that path seems to check all the boxes you are looking for.

"$x for new grads with a BS, $x+10k for new grads with an MS." remember that you have ~2 years of lost income at ~$100k to get your masters... that means it takes 20 years to earn back the masters if the pay differential holds (hint, it doesn't)

I'm in IT, so take my opinionated answer with a grain of salt. This may seem like a rant, but I have heard the sentiment from colleagues, often.

In short, how much more can I reasonably expect to make with a bachelor's degree in math and in mechanical engineering, upon graduation?

Frankly: if you are looking at two bachelor degrees, relatively unrelated, then I, as a hiring manager, could not care less. Yes, I would see that you are a good learner, but I assume that the mechanical engineering covers all the maths needed, thus the additional maths bachelor only reinforces the fact that you like (and can do) maths. I would assume that I have to teach you a lot if not most real-world techniques on the job anyways.
It would be a bit different if you had two masters. For a master's degree, you not only need to get the deeper education, but also that much more personal effort. I.e., you're not only learning what is pushed your way, but writing a lot more stuff yourself, and your marks have much more meaning.
In my industry (IT/CS),  I am noticing a trend for young students to skip their masters, and end their academic career with the bachelor. I am very unhappy about this. Yes, at least in my country the unis don't really offer that much real life experience during the masters, but I'd never, ever underestimate the value of learning. Even if it's just advanced concepts. Or time spent on uni projects with significant resources available (depending on your uni of course) but without the stakeholder pressure of getting a usable product (in other words: research).
When I was little, we did not have the bachelor/master system in technical studies in my country; instead, there was a "Vordiplom" after 4-6 semesters, and then the "Diplom" after 8-12 or so semesters; the Diplom being somewhat comparable to the master's degree. My point is that the "Vordiplom" was worth nothing at the job market, at all. On the contrary, it signified that you aborted your studies before getting a real degree, and was a real bummer that you'd need to really explain in the interview.
I may be old-fashioned, and I know that reality has moved on, but the bachelor degree seems a little bit like that to me as well. Yes, those people have studied a topic for a few years, and they have their degree, but they chose to do the absolute minimum. Why? If they are interested in the topic, why would they not go on? Especially if they then had the time to do two of them?

+1  You've nicely described how a hiring manager might think about the matter, in agreement with my own observations.

Good answer especially from a German perspective, where students used to earn Masters-equivalent degrees per default before 'Bologna' introduced the BA/MA distinction. Now HR often (and perhaps rightfully) perceives the BA as a half-way degree.

From the OP's other questions, they're in the US. Although the OP's university may be different, in the US there is a difference between a double major and a double degree. If the OP is taking two courses that would normally end up both BSes (or BAs), that's a double major and it is in fact only one degree. If the programs are BA/BS, then that's a double degree and they do earn two degrees. From the question, it's likely that they will end up with a single bachelor's degree in mech e and math.

Another thing that may be a cultural difference here: Your grades ('marks') in a Master's (or Ph.D.) program in the U.S. mean essentially nothing. It's assumed that you will have all As or Bs in a graduate program here (at least in science and engineering.) At my university, 2 Cs was automatic expulsion from a graduate program. And 1 C was enough to have a long talk with your adviser. Your undergraduate GPA typically has more meaning than your graduate GPA here. Graduate degrees are valued, but the GPAs are mostly ignored.

This answer doesn't reflect how bachelor's and master's degrees are usually perceived in the US to the extent that I'm familiar with it. I think it's uncommon that anyone would consider a bachelor's degree holder to have "aborted their studies before getting a real degree"; instead, most people consider the bachelor's degree the completion of a full course of study. In terms of the system of your youth, a bachelor's degree is viewed somewhat like the Diplom and an associate's degree might be viewed similar to the Vordiplom, though somewhat more useful in the job market.

That depends on a great number of things. So it may be possible to get a difference in mean income, though that would not be easy as we are dealing with relatively small groups. However, the variance tends to be very large for such estimates (I am not talking about statistical significance, just the raw variance). So a realistic estimate of the benefit of adding a second math degree would be somewhere between minus a lot and plus a lot, which is just another way of saying "that is unknowable without a working crystal ball".

Nations normally keep statistics on this and they are readily available to the interested. But statistics don't apply to individuals, only to populations.

@Buffy nations can ask that information in censuses or large survey, but very few nations can extract that information from their registers (the Nordic countries are a notable exception). Moreover, the OP asked about two very specific groups: those with a mechanical engineering degree and those with a mechanical engineering and  math degree. Often the field of study is not asked at that level of detail, and when it is the number of respondents in the last category is in all likelihood way too small to make reliable statements. So that is a lot harder than it looks.

I used to employ 100s of graduates in the UK in a relatively high paying profession for which undergraduate degrees are available. When looking at candidates for employment I used to bear the following points in mind:

A bachelor's degree on its own is not normally a qualification to do anything: at best it provides some evidence of work ethic and of intellectual interests;
Further, in a way, any particular formal qualification tells only part of the story as to why its holder should be employed in an organisation. My staff were not exchangeable units of qualified people, but individuals who brought all sorts of skills over and above their technical qualifications;
I was slightly suspicious of candidates who had specialised too early. I wanted to see evidence of intellectual flexibility and that could be harder to see in a very specialised young person;
I was looking most of all for candidates who showed promise: capable of absorbing the further professional training they would need and then being brilliant;
So, if the someone like the OP had turned up for a job with me with a dual major in mathematics and engineering, I would have been slightly more interested than if they had turned up with just one or the other degree, but the crucial issue is not what they did in the past but what can they do in the future.

So should the OP do a dual major or not? The answer depends on how he wishes to present him or herself to the world of work: how does the degree fit in with the intended career path.

As part of my teaching studies I practiced at a university of applied sciences (ammattikorkeakoulu), an institute which trains engineers and other professionals mostly up to bachelor level, and offers no PhD studies. I talked to people who teached mostly electric engineering and the discipline where one learns how to construct houses and bridges etc. (It presumably has a specific name in English, which I do not remember off the top of my head.)
One long-time math teacher told me, that one thing companies look for in graduates or trainees is their mathematics grades, especially in advanced math courses, because these tell how challenging tasks they can set to the workers.
Supposing this second-hand knowledge from mathematics teachers is true (there is certainly motivation for bias), extra studies in mathematics might pay off as higher employability and more demanding positions. I cannot estimate any effect on wages.

Civil engineer, or maybe structural engineer.

You will acquire more debt and as you make more you will spend more. Start this journey and you'll learn why 80% of the money in America is on credit. Good luck and stay positive on this depressing road to nothing.

You will not necessarily gain more debt for double majoring.  It all depends on how many hours you are willing to take per semester, and how many the school will let you take as a full time student.

"as you make more you will spend more".. huh you mean such as having a nicer home and vacation? The very thought is depressing indeed.


text:
Should I prepare for the GRE if my gpa isn't yet high enough for Epidemiology graduate school?
I'm going to be a senior college student in the fall. My gpa is close but not high enough for the bare minimum graduate school admission criteria (gpa=3.0). I am wondering whether I should wait until I finish senior year and see whether I get a cumulative gpa of 3.0 before I study for GRE/apply for graduate school or whether I should study for GRE now. The disadvantage of studying for GRE without the GPA criteria fulfilled is that I might end up studying for a useless test.

Is your question "Should I spend time preparing for the GRE now, while I'm not sure if I'll even be able to apply this fall for grad school?"

yes, that's right.

I went through graduate school in Epidemiology at a major school of Public Health, and am now the epidemiologist on a number of multidisciplinary admission committees.
Improve Your GPA First
There's no subject-specific test for the GRE for Epidemiology (which isn't surprising, as it's not really a discipline with good undergraduate representation), and the general feeling in the field is the GRE is a supplemental piece of information - a way to maybe push an edge case into "Admit", or to provide context for schools where it's known that the GPA doesn't mean much. My program has gone so far as to seriously consider phasing it out entirely.
GPA cutoffs are also often a function of the Graduate School, or another administrative group where there isn't much room for nuance. If you don't meet the GPA requirements, you're sitting squarely in the "Do Not Pass Go" category. I wouldn't bother investing any time or money studying for the GRE until you're past that line.

I would not spend time and money in my final year of college studying for the GRE if there was anything more than a small chance I'm not applying that cycle.
Put that energy into improving your GPA and  getting relevant research experience. The GRE and planning materials aren't cheap (it's a racket anyway), and it will be easier on your wallet if you wait until next summer, when you have a full-time job.
Besides, instead of studying for three classes and the GRE, you can focus only on the GRE after you graduate.
And in any case, GRE scores are valid for five years:

For tests taken on or after July 1, 2016, scores are reportable for five years following your test date. For example, scores for a test taken on July 3, 2018, are reportable through July 2, 2023.

I doubt that studying for the GRE would be useless if you do so effectively. Among other things, it should help you consolidate what you have learned generally.
However, as you suspect, studying for your courses should come first for a lot of reasons, not just your GPA. But don't waste any odd moments during the year doing unproductive things. When you have a few minutes (waiting for a bus, say) have something to study.
Also, take a lot of notes (paper is preferable) which helps you remember and operationalize what you know.
It is also pretty common for a student to get distracted in the final year. Don't let that become a problem.

Focus on repairing GPA first. Here are a few things that could be helpful when your admission profile reaches the committee: i) your last year's GPA shows an uptrend, ii) you have taken some courses related to epidemiology or public health and did very well, and iii) if there is a serious dip in your GPA some where along the study in the transcript, you have provided a fair clarification in the statement.
So, if credits allow, consider cross-register into some intro-level public health course to see whether the topics speak to you, and work hard to get good grades.
If for some reason you created a gap year/semester while studying for GRE, consider using that chance to work with some researchers, even as data collectors or data entry staffs, to get some field experience. This is particularly helpful if your resume does not have any noticeable relevance to health care, public health, or epidemiology. In additions, be a professional worker and cultivate a good relationship with the team; they could potentially write you a powerful and relevant reference letter.
Also, if you are in the US, I am pretty sure some students with GPA lower than 3.0 did get into public health graduate programs. With public health programs popping up here and there, there may even be more chances. In the US, public health programs are mostly accredited so in terms of contents they don't vary a lot. So, look carefully what the faculty work on and see if their topics speak to you. Sometimes the works that attract you may not be in the top-tier institutes.
Lastly, broaden the options. Do a brief job search on epidemiology-related works, you'll see that this field hires diverse kinds of specialists. For example: economist, policy scholars, psychologists (esp. quantitative psy., questionnaire development, etc.), nurses, computer programmers (data informatics and analytics), statisticians, biochemists, toxicologists, etc. Hopping into one of those options, and then get a Master in Public Health part-time while working may also be a way.

Am I overqualified to do Epidemiology and would be better off in biostatistics if I'm a statistics major and know the linear algebra behind regression analysis and calculus based probability theory? I heard biostats is programming heaven/matrix analysis/real analysis based. I'm not interested in Computer science and real analysis though.

In most cases, you will see in the first semester, Epi students need to take foundation in biostat, and biostat students need to take foundation in epi. Use that time to think which one you prefer. Most departments allow for switching before year 2 rolls along.

@GeniusEuclid There are plenty of epidemiologists that know linear algebra and calculus.

Accepting the answer of Azor Ahai, I want to add that studying for GRE is not something lasts for months. Those exams of ETS and any other similar tests have always some key tips, in which you learn them and in a short while you get satisfactory results.
I, for instance, used GRE for my applications 3 times, I made quantitative part full, but no one made a fuss over it. It just takes sufficient amount of focus. For verbal part, reading English novels, espcially classic ones help a lot to get the vocabulary. For writing part, I can't say anything but there will be people around you who can at least direct you to improve your writing while improving your GPA at the same time.
GRE assesses everyday skills, so if you manage your own business, here improving GPA, in an efficient way, there will be no need to study GRE, still easy to say as its cost is quite high, though.


text:
What's a degree "by resolution"?
The screenshot beneath is from Prof. James Goudkamp's profile. See the red arrow.

What's meant "by resolution"?
Why was this MA obtained after all his other degrees?

I know that the Oxbridge MA "is an academic rank, and not a postgraduate qualification", as

Bachelors of Arts with Honours of these universities are promoted to the title of Master of Arts or Master in Arts (MA) on application after six or seven years' seniority as members of the university (including years as an undergraduate).

Not an answer, but in Oxford MAs take academic precedence of Doctors who do not have an MA.

Basically, it's a "free masters degree" to members who otherwise don't qualify for the masters degree, for various reasons.
Here it is, direct from Oxford:

Conferment of Degrees
  7.1. The procedures for the conferment, both at the Encaenia and on other occasions, of Degrees by Diploma, Honorary Degrees, Ordinary
  Degrees, and Degrees by Incorporation shall be determined by
  regulation, and the regulations concerned shall be published from time
  to time in a Handbook for the Conduct of University Ceremonies.
7.2. (1) In the case of a person in any of the categories set out in paragraph (2) below who does not hold, and is not qualified for, any
  of the Degrees (other than Honorary Degrees) of Doctor of Divinity,
  Doctor of Civil Law, Doctor of Medicine, Master of Arts, Master of
  Biochemistry, Master of Chemistry, Master of Earth Sciences, Master of
  Engineering, Master of Mathematics, or Master of Physics of the
  University, Council shall as soon as possible propose to Congregation
  that a Degree of Master of Arts by Resolution be conferred upon that
  person without fee, if (and only if) he or she holds both a bachelor’s
  and a doctor’s degree (other than an honorary degree) of any
  university or universities or of any such other institution or
  institutions as Council may determine by regulation from time to time,
  or that at least twenty terms have lapsed since he or she first became
  a member of a university or such other institution, or, in the case of
  a person who is not a member of any university, that he or she is at
  least 25 years of age.
(2) The categories referred to in paragraph (1) above are:
(a) the Chancellor;
(b) the High Steward;
(c) the Vice-Chancellor;
(d) the Proctors;
(e) the heads of all the colleges, societies, and Permanent Private
  Halls included in Statute V;
(f) the members of the governing bodies of all the colleges and
  societies included in Statute V (but not of the Permanent Private
  Halls);
(g) the principal bursar or treasurer of each of the colleges and
  societies included in Statute V (but not of the Permanent Private
  Halls), if he or she is not a member of its governing body.
(3) In the case of a person excluded because none of the conditions in
  paragraphs (1) and (2) above is met, Council shall proceed as soon as
  possible after one of them has been met.
(4) Nothing in this regulation shall restrict the power of Council to
  propose to Congregation that a Degree by Resolution be conferred
  without fee upon any person it considers appropriate.
7.3. A Degree by Resolution shall be deemed to have been conferred with effect from the approval of the resolution by Congregation.

The quoted regulations quite specifically apply to a relatively small number of extremely senior posts, and there's no evidence that the person in question held any of those posts. The relevant regulations would be those for the conferring of the MA on an Oxford PhD holder 21 terms after matriculation.

None of 2(a) to 2(g) mentions "mere" professors. I should perhaps have emphasised extremely in my first comment.

Feel free to expand your answer by explaining which of those categories applies.

Clause 2(f) covers almost everyone who holds a potentially permanent faculty post in the University. Been there, done that: "this will involve you in no expense, and you need not attend the ceremony" as the letter said.

It's ecactly as described in the wikipedia-article you were linking: He had to spend 6-7 years at Oxford to recieve the title. Since he was faster than this time span with his doctorate, he recieved the Master by Resolution after his Doctor.
The degree "Master of Arts by Resolution" indicates, that no further studies or exams were necessary, but is is given "by resolution".

This is just not true. Such a degree can be (and is) given within weeks of taking up a post.


text:
Do US universities publish an official definition of what constitutes a particular race/ethnicity in the context of scholarships or admissions?
As an example, let's say someone with 1/16 of African American heritage applies for a minority scholarship and claims themselves as African American. Would they be rejected, all other factors being equal? If so, do universities generally publish a guideline of what constitutes a particular race in the context of scholarship applications or college admissions?
Note that this question is of practical value as there are presumably millions of people of mixed heritage living in the US at the moment.

Such things are usually done entirely by self-identification, since the prospect of requiring someone to prove their race/ethnicity would be seen as extremely distasteful.

@NateEldredge so someone of 1/16 of African American heritage can apply if they feel to belong to that ethnic group event though they look 100% Caucasian?

@JonathanReez, what you look like has little bearing. First Peoples can and do, in fact, often look Irish, or African, or Hispanic, or... In fact, in the sad history of US race relations 1/16  African heritage was just, simply, Black. People could often "pass" as white, but if it were revealed that a great granddaddy was black it would be a death sentence in many places. That is the underlying reason for such rules. But don't claim what you don't believe yourself to be just for a scholarship. Be yourself.

If you are from Prague, however, then it is likely that your ancestry, even if partly African, won't mean anything for such scholarships. You won't be African American.

@Buffy I'm not applying for any scholarships myself, just trying to understand how the university figures out who's a minority and who's not.

In the US we have a lot of minorities. We are moving toward a non-majority society, though many resent it. However, not all minorities are disadvantaged, though many once were. Irish and Italians were once heavily discriminated against in the US, but the African American and First Peoples negative experience was quite extreme and that has not actually completely ended. If you come to the US you would be in "a minority". Many of us celebrate the richness of the society that affords. But we still have a ways to go.

@Buffy yes, but how would you define who's "African American" and who's not? And after creating the definition, how does one prove that they are actually X% African American? DNA tests?

The US is not as rule-based legalistic as Northern Europe.

The comment of @NateEldredge above is correct. We don't try. My own ancestry shows some surprising things. And, I think most DNA tests are only approximately accurate. We don't try to define it, but sometimes we argue about it - especially if someone seems to be intentionally representing themselves as someone they aren't. But even in some of those cases, family tradition has given them a picture of "who they are". Generally we respect that personal sense.

@Buffy so if you say you're African American, you are African American? If so, does this mean anyone could claim themselves as such at college applications regardless of who their ancestors are?

Non-resident aliens (e.g. students her in the US on student visas) are recorded as being in a separate category from the racial categories used in Department of Education statistics.

Someone who looked like me would be questioned on it if I tried. I might have to tell a bit of my family history. But that is a rare occurrence (it has happened) as few would claim membership in a community that is still discriminated against. Most people only claim to be part of a community if they have "lived the life" of that community. An African immigrant to the US now probably wouldn't think of herself as African American (maybe Kenyan), but her kids might. It would depend on their self perceived life experience. If I lie and am discovered I'll be laughed off campus.

@Buffy but what does "discovered" mean? I presume there would be a hearing and you'd have to present some evidence at said hearing. What would that evidence be and is a list of accepted evidence published somewhere?

No, there typically wouldn't be any formal process to revoke the scholarship if the recipient wasn't "really" part of the group.  But there'd be severe social pressure on the recipient to return it.  People don't need a hearing or formal evidence to decide how to treat someone socially.

@NateEldredge so it's up for the "mob" to decide if you're a minority or not?

@JonathanReez: If you want to put it that way, then yes.  But that's a general feature of society, and not at all specific to academia.

@AlexanderWoo No, instead it's up to individuals to interpret the vague guidelines as they see fit to further their own biases (see the voter suppression laws that plague the US's history, for example).

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

The short answer is no. There is no definition. Our history is very complicated around race and after several hundred years we are still grappling with it. There may be a bit of abuse of the system, but not enough to cause people to try to start defining one another with rigid rules that we would not accept in any case. We have enough problems without that.
In places where such definitions have been used, some of them lead to atrocities. There are current examples in the world now, actually.

It's worth noting that while this may be the case for most ethnic/racial minorities in the US, it is not universally true. Native Americans, for instance, are often asked to establish their ancestry and prove they are registered/enrolled with a federally-recognized tribe.

@Sparksbet, is that true in general or just so that the tribe recognizes them? Some tribes generate some wealth that is distributed to members. Some tribes in the US are treated as sovereign due to old treaties. Most were once at war with the US, though not all.

I don't know the particulars, as I have no native ancestry myself. However, I recall peers in college reporting they tried to apply for scholarships based on native ancestry and were unable to because they were not registered with any tribe (due to the ancestry being too remote or on the wrong side of the family, etc.)

In Canada at least, "Indian Status" was defined along patrilineal lines, and a indigenous woman who would marry a non-indigenous man could also lose her status. This was designed with the stated intention of eliminating the identity of indigenous peoples in NA. My understanding was that similar rules were put in place in the US. So with that particular ethnicity it's a bit more complicated than self-identification and some amount of genealogy is necessary for the government to recognize someone as "Indian". Maybe the universities don't require proof, but I am not native so I can't say for sure

@CuriousFindings, yes, such rules are pernicious. Most of the First Peoples formed matrilineal societies. In these societies you clan comes from your mother. For a male, the clan knowledge was given to you by your mother's brothers, not your father, who was required by custom to be in a different clan altogether.

As a general rule, American universities are required to follow reporting guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (part of the US Department of Labor), asking for demographic data about students, employees, and applicants, as partial documentation of their adherence to various titles of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, and several other criteria.
The Department of Education's guidelines include the following definitions (emphasis in the original):

An Asian person has origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent, including,
  for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan,
  the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
An American Indian or Alaska Native person has origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central
  America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community
  attachment.
A Black or African American person has origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Terms such as "Haitian" or "Negro" can
  be used in addition to "Black or African American."
A Hispanic or Latino person is of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin,
  regardless of race. The term "Spanish origin" can be used in addition
  to "Hispanic or Latino."
A Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander person has origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other
  Pacific Islands.
A White person has origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

Similar definitions are included in EEOC sample self-reporting forms.  Some universities offer mild revisions of the federal definitions (for example, removing the optional label "Negro" and replacing "American Indian" with "Native American").
The Department of Education standards allow, and the EEOC standards require, asking each applicant (for education or employment) to self-identify their own race(s) and ethnicity(ies).  In particular, the guidelines explicitly allow each respondent to specify multiple races and/or ethnic groups.  The definitions are guidelines for the applicants to help them self-identify.
So, to answer the original question: If an applicant self-identifies as African American, they are African American for purposes of statistical reporting to the federal government.

As stated elsewhere, our history is very complex. I'll make two notes. One is that reporting is optional by an individual. You can just decline to answer the question. Universities report what data they get and don't make assumptions about those not reporting. The other point is that some Native peoples (First Peoples) reject the terms American Indian and Native American as offensive since they contain the term American, which is a term created by invaders who caused the deaths of about 90% of the original population. (The 90% figure is scientifically supported.)

I'll also note that, since we each have two parents, it is possible to be many (even all) of these things simultaneously. But less likely that you "identify" with all of them simultaneously.

It isn't the list that is "complex". It is the history. Yes, it is haphazard. It is also "self reported" and only if you wish to report. It isn't something imposed on you. The purpose of the reporting to the government is that some funds may be available to schools in some situations if they educate a large fraction of "historically underrepresented" people. We've had a racism problem here since the first settlers landed on the shores. The money is a feeble and inadequate attempt to respond to it. BTW, a Brazilian is unlikely to self report Hispanic, and a Jamaican could report Black.

@NajibIdrissi Yes, unfortunately I do find it normal, despite its obvious stupidity.  It's probably best to think of this as a list of irrelevant labels Americans have used to discriminate, rather than "races" in any scientific sense.  People do discriminate against prospective students and employees (and tenants and...) because they are "black" and/or "Hispanic" and/or "Asian"; describing exactly what the discrimination criteria are reveals their stupidity, but does not make that discrimination any less real. (1/2)

@NajibIdrissi (2/2) A hundred years ago, this list would have included "Irish" and "Polish" as separate categories.  In a few decades, perhaps the list will grow to include "Arab-American", or the government will start asking people to self-report religion to track anti-Muslim discrimination.

So if, say, a British immigrant who's ancestors lived in Europe for 10+ generations self-identifies as "black", he can freely choose "black" based on his own view of the world?

One note is that minority-focused scholarships are often funded by private foundations, who can set their own criteria as they see fit, and in particular don't have to use these definitions.

@Najib, if you think these definitions are bad you should have seen the definition of "black" published by my university's students' union around the turn of the millennium. I can't remember the exact wording, but it was in terms of descent from a group which had been historically oppressed. I wrote to them at the time to comment that I had never previously known that I was black, but on the basis of my Irish ancestry I appeared to qualify.

@NajibIdrissi: I think you're mis-parsing. As I read JeffE's comment, he meant "perhaps [the list will grow to include 'Arab-American'] or [the government will start asking people to self-report religion to track anti-Muslim discrimination]"; not "perhaps ([the list...] or [the government... religion]) to track...".

@NajibIdrissi That's certainly not my intention!  As Mark suggests, I'm suggesting that the government might start tracking anti-Arab discrimination (by adding "Arab" to the list of races and/or ethnicities), or that they might start tracking anti-Muslim discrimination (by asking about religion).


text:
A female professor was found responsible for sexual harassment – what can happen to the signatories of a letter in support of her?
The New York Times article reported a female professor at New York University was found to be responsible for sexual harassment of a male student.
There's a letter of support for this professor, sent to that university's president and provost, signed by many professors – and many of whom are professors at that university.  This letter claims that the complaint is malicious, and objects to any judgement against her.  The legal argument could be made that such a letter signed by many powerful academics constitutes retaliation and defamation, both of which are illegal.
Could such professors who signed the letter be at risk of losing their tenure, because the letter could now constitute a form of retaliation and defamation of the victim (the male student)?

Comments have been moved to chat. I also removed the full text of the letter, but left the link for those who want to check it out (if you disagree on either count, please open a post on meta rather than starting an edit war or comment chain).

Could such professors who signed the letter be at risk of losing their tenure, because the letter could now constitute a form of retaliation and defamation of the victim (the male student)?

Any answer to this question would be pure speculation at this stage.
Like most US universities, NYU's tenure policies are publicly available.  Their Statement in Regard to Academic Freedom and Tenure describes what is considered cause to revoke tenure, but as is common at most institutions, the language is very general:

VI 2 a) [Adequate cause] Adequate cause includes (but is not limited to) one or more of the following: incompetent or inefficient service; neglect of duty; repeated and willful disregard of the rules of academic freedom as set forth in this statement; physical or mental incapacity; or any other conduct of a character seriously prejudicial to his or her teaching or research or to the welfare of the University. [Cf. University Bylaws, Section 92, Removal of Tenured Faculty and Tenured Librarians.]

There is no specific mention of "retaliation" or "defamation" as causes.  So, the question would be whether signing this letter constitutes "conduct of a character seriously prejudicial to his or her teaching or research or to the welfare of the University" (or one of the other things listed).  That decision would be up to the administration, the Faculty Tenure Committee, and very likely the Tenure Appeal Committee.  I don't think we have any way of guessing what they will do.   However, the sheer number of  layers of procedure needed to revoke tenure would at least suggest that a lot of people would have to be awfully motivated to make it happen.

It has potential for defamation, because the complainant(s) or their activities were twice labelled "malicious." The actual merits of the case would depend on too many facts that are not present in the post.
The letter by itself probably does not have potential for retaliation, because the authors do not seem to be in a position to effectuate any retaliatory conduct.
Anyone interested in pursuing or avoiding a legal claim should consult a lawyer, though. No post or comment, regardless of how knowledgeable, can convey sufficient information to be relied upon for something that consequential.

"The authors do not seem to be in a position to effectuate any retaliatory conduct."  If they are professors at the same university, especially if they have this student in their own classes (or have oversight over relevant student organizations, residence halls, etc.), that may not be true.

Could such professors who signed the letter be at risk of losing their tenure, because the letter could now constitute a form of retaliation and defamation of the victim (the male student)?

Most of the letter is not defamatory, and consists primarily of a character reference for Prof Ronell.  However, there are a few parts in the first paragraph (the highlighted parts) which claim that the complaint is malicious, and this could definitely constitute a defamatory statement against the male complainant in the case.  It would be open to the complainant to sue the professors who wrote the letter, and they would have standard defences available to them.  This includes a "defence of truth" which means that they would be given an opportunity to prove their assertion  that the claim was in fact malicious (and if they could prove this on the balance of probabilities it would constitute a successful defence).  Given that the university has found that Prof Ronell did commit the conduct that was the subject of the complaint, it would be hard to prove that the complaint was malicious.
Note that in a defamation claim there would also be an issue about publication of the letter.  The letter evidently was not intended as a public document, and was only sent to potential signatories and the two NYU staff to whom it was addressed.  It was made public by people other than the signatories, due to its newsworthy character.  If the signatories were sued for defamation they would probably try to defend the claim on the basis that they had not intended any publication of the letter.  (Some of the signatories, such as Jizek, have made subsequent public remarks on the case.)  In defamation actions you can still get in trouble for non-published speech that is sent only to a smaller group of people, so there would probably be some argument on this.
As to retaliation, that is a bit trickier.  The NYU Policy on discrimination and harassment can be found here, and it states that it applies to all employees of the university.  In regard to retaliation against a complainant, the policy states the following (emphasis added):

VI.  NON-RETALIATION
The University will not in any way retaliate against an individual who reports a perceived violation of this Policy, participates in any investigation, or otherwise opposes perceived discrimination, harassment (including sexual/gender harassment), or retaliation, including as a witness. It will also not retaliate against anyone associated with the individual who engages in such protected conduct, such as a family member.
NYU further will not tolerate retaliation by any employee. Retaliation against anyone who complains of, testifies in, or assists in an investigation or proceeding involving discrimination, harassment (including sexual/gender harassment), sexual assault, or retaliation is a serious violation of this Policy, as well as federal, state, and local law. Anyone who believes they have been subjected to retaliation should report the matter immediately according to the same procedure provided in this Policy for making complaints of discrimination, harassment (including sexual/gender harassment), or sexual assault. Any person found to have retaliated against another individual will be subject to the same disciplinary action provided under this Policy for other violations.

Based on this policy, it would seem to me that there is a strong prima facie case for retaliation proceedings against any of the NYU professors who signed the letter.  It explicitly accuses the complainant of maliciousness, which would imply that the complaint is false.
Note that the complainant, Nimrod Reitmann, has filed a lawsuit against Ronell and NYU in relation to this matter (see here).  The article reporting the lawsuit does not mention any action for retaliation relating to the letter of support, but it would seem to me that this would be a possible cause-of-action that could be added.

The letter of support for Avital Ronell
The letter of support in this case can be found at the blog of Philosophy Professor Brian Leiter here. Here is the first paragraph of the text with highlights of parts that are possibly defamatory to the victim in the case (emphasis added):

We write as long-term colleagues of Professor Avital Ronell who has
been under investigation by the Title IX offices at New York
University. Although we have no access to the confidential dossier, we
have all worked for many years in close proximity to Professor Ronell
and accumulated collectively years of experience to support our view
of her capacity as teacher and a scholar, but also as someone who has
served as Chair of both the Departments of German and Comparative
Literature at New York University. We have all seen her relationship
with students, and some of us know the individual who has waged this
malicious campaign against her. We wish to communicate first in the
clearest terms our profound an enduring admiration for Professor
Ronell whose mentorship of students has been no less than remarkable
over many years. We deplore the damage that this legal proceeding
causes her, and seek to register in clear terms our objection to any
judgment against her. We hold that the allegations against her do not
constitute actual evidence, but rather support the view that malicious
intention has animated and sustained this legal nightmare.

Do they define "retaliation"? In the ordinary meaning of the term, defending someone against an attack is not retaliation.

The letter explicitly claims that the actions of Mr Reitmann are malicious - that is not mere "defence" against an "attack" (the latter being the complaint itself).

Well, I've no idea what the law would say, but to me, questioning the motives of the person making an allegation is a reasonable part of the defence; retaliation would be threatening to strip them of their degree, for example.

If your point is strong, then why do you feel the need to repeatedly mischaracterise what was actually done?  Referring to an "individual who has waged this malicious campaign" is not a question of any kind.  It is a factual assertion that the person does not proceed in good faith.


text:
How to respond to a perceived unfair editorial decision?
We have an editorial decision after major revision: decline and resubmit.
Decisive is a reviewer who feels that the novelty of our work is too much limited into a specific area.
This reviewer gave concrete directions in the first round of review. We had to remove a full explanatory section because it should be well known to the audience. We had to add an additional analysis to support the relevance of our method development. We had to restructure the paper and change our line of reasoning and writing style. Otherwise, the submission would not qualify to be publishable. The reviewer even explicitly expressed his future support as the reviewer saw ‘promise in our intentions’.
We carefully followed all the reviewer’s critiques and basically rewrote our paper. For language we send the paper to a publishing service. The reviewer acknowledges and applauds our improved work, but still rejects the work.
The editor encourages us to decline and resubmit (with the assurance that we will get new reviewers), which I interpret as the paper is considered to be publishable for this journal and its audience. But I also feel, addressing this reviewer’s critiques, has not improved its chances for acceptance (here or elsewhere) because the paper has become more specialized.
If we had refuted the reviewer’s critiques in the first place, the paper would have been rejected. Now we followed the reviewer’s critiques carefully and the paper is still rejected.
Why do certain reviewers recommend major revision if they never intend to accept a paper in the first place? Is it not much more fair to reject a paper immediately if you feel the topic is too specialized for the audience, although this journal publishes many other papers which are highly specialized in their domains?
Or should I ask why the editor chooses the easy route: decline and resubmit? The final reviewer’s comment is not repairable and the editor is in charge.
Or should I ask what I did wrong? I just do not know. How can I improve my work further if I just don’t know what to improve?
What should we do? Appeal, resubmit the revised version with this journal, resubmit the original version somewhere else?

Your other choice is: submit to a different journal.  In many cases, this is the best thing to do.  You will have to determine what to do in your case.

That is a frustrating experience that many (all?) of us were forced to endure at some point in our careers.
Fact is, a "major revision" is not guaranteed acceptance upon receive. Papers that are not rejected in the first round of review usually are close enough that they can be accepted after revision(s), but that is in no way guaranteed.
Now, in your case, the reviewer made promising remarks for the future, yet failed to act on them. It can be that they misjudged the first time, that they are inexperienced (perhaps the review was delegated to a student), that they had malicious intents, etc. This line of reasoning, however, is a dark rabbit hole best avoided. You have no way of knowing for certain what was up with the reviewer at the time and little benefit even if you did, so it's best to let that go.
The next point is the editor's decision, "decline and resubmit". Again, there is zero guarantee that the paper will be accepted by a potentially different set of reviewers. Usually, journals prohibit submitting the same paper again once it has been rejected. So, if it is a particularly important venue, I'd consider this a better thing than straight out decline. Another important point is that (at least in my field) for a resubmit after decline, a predefined amount of time is required to pass, e.g. 6 months, and a significant rewrite is expected. Practically, close enough to a new paper. If similar practices apply, it is probably easier to resubmit somewhere else.
Appealing rarely works without substantial proof of malpractice during review. In fact, you may have already gotten the best result an appeal can get you: the right to resubmit for a new set of reviewers.
Bottom line, the lost time and the additional time it will take to resubmit is unrecoverable. You have the review feedback as it is, and you have your current and previous draft. If you feel that the reviewer's directions were misplaced, you can polish up the older draft and resubmit. My advice would be to try to get the best out of both versions, take into account any remarks the reviewers had, do a thorough proofread of the paper, and resubmit at some other venue.

Thank you for your encouraging words. It for sure helps.


text:
Is there any minimum and maximum allowed time-span for acquiring a PhD degree?
Can someone finish a PhD, say, in 2 years in the USA or in 1.5 years in the UK?
Can someone take, say, 16 years in the USA or 12 years in the UK to finish a PhD?

I certainly knew some 10+ year PhD students. Not normal though...

There are no definitive rules. However, some general guidelines apply:

Usually students must be in residence ("on campus") for at least one or two years.
Students in the US must often complete coursework as part of the PhD that may require a year or more to finish.
Some schools may have a time limit beyond which a student is no longer automatically considered "in good standing."

So it is unlikely to be at either of the extremes you mention, and particularly  not on the short side.

Some schools may have a time limit beyond which a student is no longer automatically considered "in good standing." --- for instance?

Here is an example from Columbia.

In the UK, a time limit of 7 years used to be quite common. It made sense to have a limit, because students might leave the university for a job in industry before finishing writing up their thesis, and finishing the thesis might then get "delayed indefinitely" by higher priority tasks.

What limitations a given student will face presumably depends on the policy of the institution in question, and in some places possibly national regulation.
At US universities, the graduate program often has mandatory courses, making it hard to finish very fast unless some requirement are waived. On the other end of the spectrum, many institutions limit funding after a certain period to try to push stragglers over the line (of finishing or quitting...), or at least make the PhD candidate jump through some hoops (e.g. petitions). Certain institutions have a limit on how long a student can be registered, but it's not clear to me whether this would block someone from submitting a thesis after finishing it on their own.
However, let's try proof by example. Here are some very short PhD durations (I think it will be much harder to finish this quickly nowadays):

Stephen Wolfram of Mathematica fame earned his Ph.D. from Caltech in a year
Robert Wagoner got his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees from Ohio State University in 1974, 1975, and 1976, respectively.

I'm less willing to list regular people who took a long time getting their PhDs, but I personally know some in the 10+ years range. A couple of more extreme example are

Theodore Streleski who ended up murdering his advisor during his 19th year. I don't think he ever received a PhD, but he was still pursuing it at the time.
Ingeborg Rapoport probably holds the record for the technically longest doctorate. She submitted her dissertation in 1938, but was stopped from defending it by the Nazi regime. Eventually, she was awarded her degree in 2015.

Obviously most people aren't going to be like these examples, so let's turn to statistics. In the US, NSF publish reports on e.g. time to degree of doctorate recipients. In education the median is 11.7 years. Presumably there will be some that took e.g. the 16 years you mention.

Or push stragglers into an master's degree

Speaking from experience at my UK university: there is no formal minimum time limit, but you would be very hard pressed to do the amount of work required for a thesis in 18 months.
In my university (and I believe the same is true in many others) you have to pass a review at the end of the first year, after which you are upgraded to full PhD candidate status. You can't sit this review any earlier than 1 year after starting, so this makes it basically impossible to finish in 1.5 years. Additionally, why rush? If you have funding for 3-4 years, you might as well use it.
As for an upper time limit, this is often determined by the funding. In my case, I am funded for 3.5 years with a possible 6 month extension, but additionally the University imposes a hard 4 year limit on PhD durations that you are not allowed to exceed.

In the UK the universities get penalised if their full-time PhD students take more than 4 years, which is why many of them introduced the hard limit at 4 years. At my university there was a minimum time of 2/4 years for full- and part-time respectively, which I assume was to stop students (at least those without funding) enrolling as part-time and then just being full-time in order to pay less fees.

@KraZug even the "hard" limit may not be hard if the university has some reason to work with the student on extensions and extenuating circumstances. I did know someone who finished in about 2.5 years, but his previous writing experience and skill meant he could write a thesis in a few weeks while most of us take a few months.  This was on top of a lot of hard work and some luck.

@ChrisH, sure, extenuating circumstances allow for the 'hard' deadline to be extended.


text:
What is "academic freedom", when so many professors and post-docs do only the research that is being funded by external agencies?
Do professors truly get to work on whatever they want, in research?
I just read a job description for a post-doc position; the job sounds extremely specialized, with no room to do anything else outside of that job requirement.
And generally professors are funded by external agencies to do pretty specific research.
Is there really academic freedom for professors in the United States?

Related: Are professors not allowed to work on what they want to work on without a grant?

I'm a bit confused why this was put on hold  ... this is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. What should be done differently?

Typically, the prof wrote the project for which (s)he received the funding. This is how (s)he determines what to do research on. When a postdoc does not write her/his own funding proposal, then her/his freedom is severely limited.

Limited, yes.  But severely limited?  Although I've only worked in academia and not in industry, I find there may be relatively much freedom in how to carry out the research, and some topics are quite broadly formulated or interpreted.

I agree with @gerrit. It may be "severely limited" compared to the level of freedom a tenured professor might have. But compare it with the freedom (or lack thereof) that employees enjoy outside academia. You have to go quite high up the food chain to reach a level where "do what you're told" isn't your entire job description.

While it is certainly true that the bulk of university research depends on external funding, and thus requires approval of the external funder, there are a number of ways in which a professor in the United States (and many other nations) can pursue research with almost complete freedom:

Most professors own salaries are supported (at least at a "9 month" level) on the basis of teaching, not from research grants.  A research position, however, often teaches only 1-2 classes per semester, however, leaving significant time for the professor to spend on research, whether or not that research also has external support.
Some undergraduates are willing and able to work on research for course credit or even on a volunteer basis.
Graduate students and postdocs are sometimes supported on fellowships that put no constraint on the subject of their research.
Some institutions also allow professors to "bank" a portion of the research funds that they bring in, which may then be used later as unrestricted funds.
Early career professors often have startup funds and later career professors often have endowed chairs, both of which typically have no constraints on the research they can be used to conduct.
In extremely rare cases, a professor may get a "genius grant" or similar sort of external award that is a significant amount of unrestricted money.

The amount of resources available through such unrestricted routes is typically much smaller than if one can convince an external funder that one's work is worthy, but one can get quite a long way on preliminary work, proofs of concept, and small-scale experiments with rather small amounts of resources.
Combine this with the fact that there is a wide diversity of funders out there with different agendas and preferences, and one can see that academic freedom in research is very real indeed.

"Most professors own salaries are supported (at least at a "9 month" level) on the basis of teaching, not from research grants." In some departments. There are entire schools with primarily soft money appointments.

At my university a "research .* professor" has no teaching responsibilities whatsoever.

Additionally, 1-2 classes would be a very normal load in a quarter system ... how many do profs teach on a semester system?

@Fomite Absolutely --- medical schools especially, if I remember correctly. Across all disciplines, however, I believe the majority in the US are supported as I describe.

@AzorAhai Research professors are by far the minority in the US system, and are indeed on soft money.  The teaching loads for other professors vary greatly: professors who are expected to produce significant research tend to be on that lower end, while primarily undergraduate institutions may have a full 4 class load for their faculty.

@AzorAhai the German professor at my university had a 5/5/2 load. And then at his tenure review they complained he had only published two articles in his 5-6 years....

@jakebeal I never said they weren't. I was just adding some info to show how academia can vary.

Academic freedom isn't just about choosing what you work on (which was covered by the other answers). It also means that a researcher doesn't face consequences for what they research or for their conclusions, and the same for professors and what they teach (within the limits imposed by professional ethics, of course). In theory at least, if the conclusions of a study do not please whatever politician is effectively in charge (the minister for higher education or equivalent, or even above) or whatever private overseer, then the researcher/professor should not face consequences for this.
Think about for example an economics professor researching and teaching ideas that are not part of the orthodoxy, or an environmental scientist that reaches some conclusions regarding climate change that may displease an unfortunate fringe of politicians, or the same environmental scientist who finds that the actions of a powerful oil company (with friends in the government) are harmful, or a medical researcher who finds that some drug is inefficient / harmful, etc.
If lobbies had the power to influence politicians/private overseers who could fire professors and researchers at will, do you think there would be many studies who find that criticize the products/actions of big private companies? Of course, as you have noticed, funding for such research can be cut, which is a problem in itself.

Note that it doesn't need to be an "environmental scientist" who might come under the thumb of an industry. A mathematician or creative writing instructor could, by speaking out on issues of public concern in a public place draw the ire of the powerful who might try to retaliate agains them through the university. Academic freedom protects all your speech, not just that for which you are trained. There have been instances in which this has been abused, of course, but on balance it has been a good thing over the centuries. Think Copernicus.

@Buffy I don't know how it is in the US. In France, the law: Teachers and researchers enjoy complete independence and entire freedom of speech in their teaching and in their research activities, within the limits imposed by the principles of tolerance and objectivity, according to the university traditions and the provisions of the present [Code of Education]. I don't see why a mathematician would have any more right speaking out about the environment than any other private citizen. Some mathematicians are completely dumb in other areas. I don't see why they could use their position for that

Because of the same pressure on the institution that you describe in your answer. Without strong traditions of academic freedom that pressure could be successful. In the US, the First Amendment protects speech from attack by government, but not private, action.  Academic freedom goes beyond your narrow field.

@Buffy Once again, I do not understand why e.g. a chemist should have more right than any other citizen to speak out on e.g. history. They're not an expert. But I realize that European conceptions of freedom of speech differ from the US. (Consider that in France, academics are civil servants. One of the foremost duty of a civil servant is the duty of réserve, meaning that you must be especially careful in what you say/write/... while exercising your functions, because you represent the State. Academic freedom is a big, but limited in scope, exception.)

In fact, I believe that academics everywhere have a duty to be especially careful in their public communications, and clearly separate what constitutes their research findings or their teaching as an expert, and what constitutes their mere opinions. Because for good or worse, academics are viewed as trustworthy experts by the public, and it is not fair to use that to spread one's own personal propaganda. And when people abuse it on a large scale, we get to the point that the general public starts distrusting experts on everything, because they don't know what to believe anymore.

I can tell that you aren't from the US. There is a concerted attack here on academics and science of all kinds. Climate change, for example, isn't "personal propaganda" even for a creative writing instructor. But they will be attacked by all means possible, including through their employment. Should they just Shut Up? But, of course, they speak for themselves and if scientists, for the profession as well, if not for particular institutions.

@Buffy I'm more or less aware of what is going on in the US. But surely you must be aware that there are some scientists (who are not climatologists or anything resembling that) who are climate change deniers. Hell, just yesterday I learned about a famous mathematician who is an AIDS denier (!!) and vocal about it. And their word carries weight because of their position. Why should academic freedom protect them? Let the climatologists prove that climate change is real and man-made, or you lend the other sort of people legitimacy.

What you suggest is dangerous. Would you start an academic war over it? While their position gives them weight, their actual words are provably nonsense. Should I just shut up since more powerful people are more powerful than I am? Yes, academic freedom sometimes protects the undesirable, but it is the price we pay. Over time it has been a positive trade-off. Copernicus, again.

@Buffy I am not certain what you imagine I am suggesting, so it is difficult for me to make any kind of response to your comment. I think that if you try to write down what you think I am suggesting, you will find that it is not something I said. Anyway. Copernicus was an astronomy researcher and so academic freedom as I imagine it and as it is defined by French law would have protected him.

You suggested that academic freedom should not protect climate trolls. While I may agree that they are terrible people, I won't make an exception for even such misguided ideas. Who is to judge? Usually it is (unfairly) those with the most power. The US is a mess now. Protect what tools we have.

@Buffy Yes, that is correct, I don't think that academic freedom should protect climate change deniers if they are not climatologists and/or do not follow the basic principles of objectivity and the basic ethical guidelines in research. (Of course, there are sanctions that can apply rather than firing.) Anyway, I can see that you have strong feelings about this and that we come from rather different backgrounds, so I won't press further.

I think one standard use of the phrase "academic freedom" is to mean that the administration of the institution is not telling its academic employees what to research. At teaching-oriented schools, I think academic freedom often refers to not having your teaching methods and techniques dictated to you by the administration.
In my experience, this kind of academic freedom certainly exists and is very common (the default) in U.S. institutions.
There are natural checks in academically free environments. If you need research funding, you have to convince a funding source that your work is important. If your teaching is not good or you don't conduct yourself appropriately in the classroom, the institution will here about it (through student cimplaints or evaluations probably). One could certainly discuss whether having to obtain funding reduces academic  freedom, but this is not the venue for that.

I think this is a good description.  The way I think about it is that you can choose what to work on in the short term, and be judged based on the results in the long term - does it eventually result in valuable contributions to the research community? You could choose to work on squaring the circle, and you wouldn't be told to stop - but after a while, when it didn't result in publishable papers, there'd be negative consequences for your career.  Same for teaching - you can choose your own methods, but if they don't work out, there'll eventually be pressure to do something else.

One additional thought: The funding agencies are usually consulting experts before they are setting up dedicated programms. Yes, you must be quite influential if you are asked about your opinion on futur research programms, but this adds additional freedom to the process (not for all, of course).
In th EU, there is even a process for how to define future research topics.


text:
Listing a Stack Overflow user as co-author for having provided substantial programming support
I received a lot of help from an active Stack Overflow user in my undergrad summer research project, which was based on statistical physics. Now, I'm writing a paper on it under my professor's supervision. The professor knows about the help I received and asked me to mention it in the "acknowledgements" section (and the Stack Overflow user is OK with me mentioning them in the acknowledgements). But, I feel that the amount of programming help I received from the user deserves a little more gratitude from my side, and if possible I'd like to add the user as a co-author of the paper (obviously, after asking for consent). But, given this is my first research paper, I'm not sure what the process would entail.
Would I face any ethical problems in case I send the paper for publication (since the SO user was obviously not "physically" present with us while I was working on the paper)?
Also, do most journals ask for "email consent" from each and every co-author, before publication?

[se] focuses on content, not users. Generally you should just link to the posts (for example https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/115427); if it happens that all/most of those posts are by the same user, that should be coincidential.

@user97151 Is correct about post, but for future readers if not this OP, I do want to add if someone helped you in chat there are logs for the chat so you can also link directly to the chat logs as well.

@user97151: The ethics of StackExchange may not require anything more than linking to the posts, but the ethics of academia still require appropriately crediting anyone who’s made a significant intellectual contribution.

Physical presence is irrelevant. I'm a co-author of a four-author paper which came out of a Stack Exchange Q/A thread, none of whom have met in person.
What matters is intellectual contribution, and the question of whether contributing to code counts as sufficient intellectual contribution depends both on the specifics of the contribution and the field of research. I'm also a co-author of two or three psychology papers on the basis of having provided programming services, even though I would have expected an acknowledgement at most, because the culture of the lab (and probably the field more widely) where the lead author did her PhD was very generous with authorship.
The person best qualified to judge the contribution made by this SO user is you, followed by your professor. Your professor will also know the culture of your field. And if, as I presume, the professor is going to be a co-author, you would need them to agree to add another co-author. If you feel strongly about this, you should talk to your professor before you talk to the SO user about "upgrading" them. But since your professor has already given you guidance, and the third party is happy with that proposal, I suggest that you drop the issue unless you feel strongly about it.

Thanks. Also, if I upload the pre-print to arXiv first, is only one account needed (i.e. mine)? Or do all the other co-authors need to provide some form of "electronic consent"?

@Blue only one account is needed, but if it's your first arXiv submission you might need someone to endorse you, e.g. by sending a link to your supervisor. However, you absolutely should make sure all coauthors consent before you upload the paper!

Physical presence is not the important factor. If he's sitting at another university and you're collaborating (without Stack Overflow), you can publish together without him being present when you submit the paper.
The same is true, when you collaborated via Stack Overflow in a substantial amount which justifies coauthorship.
But beware of pseudonyms. Even some "real name" here could be a pseudonym and this may be unprofessional when publishing.
On the other hand, On a paper, nobody knows you're a cat.

Can you clarify what's the problem with pseudonyms, and why the OP should beware of it?

Personally I would consider "xena1652" as author name on a paper unprofessional. I would not care when the content is good, but I guess there are many people who would. And you do not know if a real name here may be identity theft. This does not matter too much when somebody answered a question with the pseudonym "Donald Trump", but would be a problem when the name appears on an actual paper. Do you have other experiences about authors using (serious or not so serious) pseudonyms? I would be interested.


text:
What is the gross salary like for university engineering teachers in India?
What is the gross salary like for Assistant professors in India in publicly/privately funded universities in the area of engineering?

A valid question to ask them then.,..

As per the comment I made to your other similar question : the university most probably has a sliding scale based on experience plus many other factors so the best, and most effective, solution is to ask the university about the specific post... As the OP, You, have not provided the details of the specific post it is a question without an answer..

@SolarMike and other close voters: please see this meta discussion.


text:
What is the gross salary like for university engineering professors in Pakistan?
What is the gross salary like for Assistant professors in Pakistan in publicly funded universities in the area of engineering?

@SolarMike maybe OP want to know expected salary before spending time to find a position in Pakistan.

@MBK then you should post the salary.... but if you don't know - ask the university...

@SolarMike did you understand my comment? People ask before moving any country. I was looking for position in Korea and I asked the question which helped me a lot. If you don't know the answer better let anyone to answer what OP asked.

So you did not understand - the university most probably has a sliding scale based on experience plus many other factors so the best, and most effective, solution is to ask the university about the specific post... As the OP has not provided the details of the specific post it is a question without an answer...

@MBK we can have the same discussion for this question : https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/115512/72855

@SolarMike We certainly have questions about expected salaries in universities around the world: what makes this any different?

@MassimoOrtolano how about the duplicate question for India?

@SolarMike India and Pakistan are not the same country and they don't have the same currency: how can you consider the two questions as duplicates? Would you consider them duplicates if they were about Belgium and France?

@MassimoOrtolano it depends on how you wish to interperet the use of the word “duplicate” - I was not applying it to the country but, you obviously have.... I was applying it to the basis of the question...

@MassimoOrtolano I still suggest the “best” option is ask the university as the salary offered will most likely be specific to a particular post.

@SolarMike As I asked you before: what makes these two questions any different with respect to the other questions we have (open) about salaries around the world? Why these two should be closed while the others are open?

@MassimoOrtolano Go ask the other voters to close...

I also think that both are perfectly appropriate questions with objective answers.

@SolarMike and other close voters: please see this meta discussion.

if closing this question then must close all those questions asking for salary in US, UK, Korea, EU etc. I feel something fishy here. I never see such opposition for salary question but only for this question.

@SolarMike its not a discussion forum it is a Question Answer forum. How salary in india is related to salary in pakistan?

@MBK there are two separate questions, not one question asking for a comparison...